The Summer 2022 Rangers Transfer Window Rumours and Deals - Thread

[Scott7 5,153]

25 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

Fit.

Welcome to the north-east, Rousseau. Should have deployed a question mark, though.

[Bill 13,717]

16 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

the best terms for the best players are always permanent though. At least for rangers. 

 

But if loans were no better or worse why so many failures. 

 

You must live in a very ideal world. Didn't you see the word "possible" ... I repeated it several times.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

You must live in a very ideal world. Didn't you see the word "possible" ... I repeated it several times.

I think loans are patently worse. Certainly at rangers. 

[Gonzo79 13,589]

I really think it's time to leave the January transfer window in the past and focus on the future.  

[craig 5,195]

1 hour ago, the gunslinger said:

I  disagree on Diallo 

he wasn't injured he was never going to be for the game and we knew that going in apparently. we could have had soutter with the money spent on either of them and Barasic wouldn't have been on the park as a simple example. 

 

our January window lost us the league and that was almost exclusively loan deals. 

 

The old firm game is just part of that. 

 

We might have lost that game anyway. We also might have been 6 clear if we had acted differently when we did lose. 

 

It looked great at the time but history will show it to be shambolic. 

 

 

 

 

 

There is absolutely no way you can say "Barisic" wouldnt have been on the park.  Where do you even get that from ?  Prior to the game at Celtic Park he had played in the previous 4 league games - so not sure how you can squeeze in that he wouldnt have been playing.  Absolutely zero guarantee that Souttar would have come in and Bassey would have been moved to LB.  This is exactly what I talk about when I say benefit of hindsight.  "Oh look, Borna had a nightmare - if we'd had Souttar then Souttar would have played, Bassey would have went LB and Barisic out".  If Souttar DID sign he almost certainly wouldn't have started that game for a number of reasons including he would have literally only signed days before - no chance GvB is taking a chance in those circumstances.  Another reason being he picked up an injury against Motherwell just before the window closed.

 

Diallo was poor, no denying it.  But there is absolutely NO WAY I can agree with you that he was more culpable than Tav, Barisic, McGregor and the midfield 3.  Our issues against Celtic weren't up front - we we dismal defensively with a midfield 3 who didnt know what they were doing.

 

Our loanees didnt cost us the league.  Look far closer to home in Allan McGregor (Ross County and Celtic at Ibrox) and the two very weak goals we lost at home to Motherwell when cruising.

[craig 5,195]

1 hour ago, the gunslinger said:

the best terms for the best players are always permanent though. At least for rangers. 

 

But if loans were no better or worse why so many failures. 

 

 

Except they arent., not always.  How many times has it cost us a boatload to get rid of permanent players that havent worked out ?

[RANGERRAB 3,255]

2 hours ago, the gunslinger said:

I  disagree on Diallo 

he wasn't injured he was never going to be for the game and we knew that going in apparently. we could have had soutter with the money spent on either of them and Barasic wouldn't have been on the park as a simple example. 

 

our January window lost us the league and that was almost exclusively loan deals. 

 

The old firm game is just part of that. 

 

We might have lost that game anyway. We also might have been 6 clear if we had acted differently when we did lose. 

 

It looked great at the time but history will show it to be shambolic. 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason we never got Souttar in January is because hertz were wanting clauses added in such as a cut of any future transfer fee we got for him.

we didn’t want that. Rightly so in my opinion so we let him run do his contract 

[Bill 13,717]

1 hour ago, the gunslinger said:

I think loans are patently worse. Certainly at rangers. 

It depends on so many factors that you really can't say that with and certainty ... what the player wants, what his parent club wants, what Rangers needs are at the time, what alternative players are available, what competition exists for the player's signature, and especially - how the player ultimately performs if signed. Bottom line is there are absolutely no guarantees either way and there prefer to many external factors in play for there ever to be a simple free choice.

[Bill 13,717]

59 minutes ago, craig said:

Except they arent. not always.  How many times has it cost us a boatload to get rid of permanent players that havent worked out ?

That is such a good point and it applies to far more clubs than Rangers

[compo 6,126]

Well we are not exactly overflowing in cash these days so if it has to be loans then let’s get the best deal for the club and the fans