Rangers need to put Ibrox dud up for sale after just 13 games, he’s worth even less than Devlin – view

Every transfer window brings the same ritual for supporters and commentators alike: a search for the players who should be shown the door, and an argument about who has had enough chances. Rangers are not even a third of the way through the season, but one writer has already named a candidate for the exit in January, and the case he makes is bluntly worded. The argument is that Ross McCausland, the 23-year-old product of the Ibrox academy, should be put up for sale when the winter window opens, because his market value has slipped to the point where he is now worth even less than Cammy Devlin, a summer signing who is himself already being questioned after only 13 games of the campaign.

The comparison with Devlin is the part that gives the argument its edge. The Australian midfielder arrived on a free transfer from Hearts, joining the club alongside Derek McInnes at the start of the new era, and his early performances have drawn criticism from some quarters. The opinion piece describes him as someone who has yet to prove his worth to the Scottish Premiership giants, and it uses him as a kind of baseline: if a free signing who has struggled to impress is valued above a homegrown attacker, something has gone wrong with that attacker’s trajectory. It is a harsh yardstick, but it is also a clever rhetorical device, because it frames the discussion around relative rather than absolute value.

The numbers that sit behind the argument are straightforward. McCausland has scored eight goals and provided seven assists in 67 first-team games for Rangers in all competitions, a return that the writer says shows he has failed to deliver consistently at senior level. As of 6 October 2026, Transfermarkt valued him at £635,000, which is less than half of the £1.3 million figure attached to him in 2024, shortly after he first broke into the team. That decline in estimated value is presented as proof of a stalled career, and as a sign that his stock will only fall further if the club waits.

It is worth pausing on what those figures really say. Fifteen goals and assists across 67 games is a modest return for an attacker, particularly one who has often played in wide areas where output is expected. It works out at roughly one goal contribution every four and a half matches, and many of those appearances will have been as a substitute, which complicates any simple judgement. The statistics do not suggest a player who has been disastrous, but they do suggest one who has not yet made himself indispensable, and at a club where expectations are high and competition for places is fierce, that distinction matters a great deal.

The wider argument rests on the idea that a player’s value is best realised before it drops further. Transfer markets are about timing, and a club that holds onto a declining asset for too long can end up either selling him for next to nothing or losing him on a free. Rangers have a history here that supporters will recognise. The Celtic-supporting site Read Celtic pointed this week to the way large estimated valuations have turned into small actual fees in the past, with Ryan Kent and Alfredo Morelos both leaving for far less than the market once suggested they were worth. The lesson that critics draw is that if you are going to cash in, the best moment is when interest and perceived value are at their peak, not after a long period of disappointment.

Applying that logic to McCausland, the case for selling in January looks like a case about cutting losses and recycling resources. A fee of several hundred thousand pounds is not transformative, but it would help the club fund other business, and it would remove a player whose presence in the squad is not producing a return. The writer’s framing suggests that, in the eyes of the market, he has already become a squad filler rather than a future starter. If that is right, then clinging to the hope of a late breakthrough may be sentimental rather than sensible, particularly for a 23-year-old whose development should be reaching its most productive years rather than falling away.

There is also a point about homegrown status. Academy graduates carry an emotional weight at a football club that no other signing can match, and supporters tend to want them to succeed more than almost any other players. That goodwill can sometimes shield a player from the scrutiny that a newly arrived foreign signing would face. A hard-headed assessment, however, has to treat everyone equally, and the argument here is that McCausland has had plenty of chances already. After 67 first-team games, the writer implies, the time for patience has run out, and the club should be as ruthless with its own youngsters as it would be with anyone else.

The timing of the piece is interesting, because it arrives during a period in which Rangers are doing well. The team has won six matches in a row, including two victories over Celtic, and the manager has more options in attack than he had a few weeks ago. That might make selling a fringe forward seem less risky, since the squad is flourishing without relying on him. On the other hand, it is a time of heavy injuries to attacking players, with the captain Lawrence Shankland out until the new year, Youssef Chermiti out for the season and Daisuke Yokota recovering from surgery, and that makes any decision to reduce depth look more dangerous than it first appears.

This is the strongest counterargument to the case for selling, and it deserves proper weight. A squad with three significant attackers injured cannot easily afford to lose another, however modest his contribution has been. Football seasons are long, injuries are unpredictable and a player who seems surplus in October can become essential by February. Having a reliable homegrown option who knows the system, understands the club and can step in without a long adjustment period has real value, even if that value does not show up on a spreadsheet. Selling in January, in the middle of the campaign, also carries the risk of leaving the squad short at the very moment when fixture congestion and cup competitions are at their peak.

The attacking competition has also grown in a way that complicates matters. Badredine Bouanani has been talked up as a winger who was effectively signed for matches against deep-sitting opposition, with technical quality and strong set-piece delivery. Kim Min-su has emerged as the new number 10 and has won a first South Korea call-up. Findlay Curtis has returned to the picture after recovering from injury and has also been involved with Scotland. Naderi, Kelsy and Miovski provide options through the middle. Looked at in that context, a winger who is fighting for minutes against that field may simply have run out of room, which is partly a compliment to the quality of the squad rather than a criticism of him.

That is, in fact, the most generous reading of McCausland’s situation. A player can be decent and still find himself outcompeted by better or more suitable alternatives, and the decline in his market value may owe as much to a lack of playing time as to a lack of talent. Transfermarkt valuations are heavily influenced by minutes, goals and assists, and a player who sits on the bench for much of the season will inevitably see his figure fall. That does not necessarily mean he is a bad footballer, only that he has not been given or has not taken the opportunities needed to maintain his price. The danger of reading too much into the number is that it becomes a self-fulfilling judgement.

It is also important to remember how limited those valuations are. They are estimates produced by a website, not offers from clubs, and they often bear little relationship to what a team can actually receive. As the Read Celtic piece noted in a different context, nobody has deposited these millions into a bank account, and the history of big theoretical values turning into small real fees is long and painful. By the same token, a low valuation does not mean that no club would pay more. A Championship side or a mid-table team in England or elsewhere might see a 23-year-old attacker with Premiership experience as an attractive proposition, and they could well offer more than the website suggests. The market is made of negotiations, not formulas.

That reasoning cuts both ways for the argument for selling. If the website figure is unreliable, then so is the claim that McCausland is worth less than Devlin in any meaningful sense. Devlin arrived on a free transfer, which means that the club’s outlay was limited to wages, and his value on the same website reflects the same sort of estimate. Comparing the two is therefore a comparison of two numbers that are only loosely connected to reality. It makes for a punchy headline, but it is a shaky foundation for a serious decision about someone’s career and a club’s squad building.

There is also the question of what the club would do with the money and the squad space. A fee of around £635,000, even if achieved, would not buy a significant replacement, and the wages freed up would only be useful if they were spent wisely. Rangers have already invested heavily in the attack this summer, including the £9 million spent on Kevin Kelsy after Chermiti’s injury, and the board may feel that the current group is sufficient. Selling a player for a small fee therefore achieves little beyond tidying the squad, and it removes a source of cover that might be needed in an emergency. The financial case for the sale is thinner than the headline implies.

On the other side, the case for keeping him is not simply about cover. Players who come through the academy often provide something intangible in the dressing room, a sense of identity and continuity that coaches value. They understand what it means to play for the club, they tend to be committed and they are often popular with supporters. In a season where a new manager has arrived with his own recruits, having a few homegrown players who know the culture can help to bind the group together. That intangible contribution is hard to measure, but it is real, and it should not be dismissed as sentimentality.

A more constructive version of the argument would be to say that January is a decision point rather than a deadline. If McCausland continues to struggle for minutes and the club has strengthened its attacking options by then, the logic for a sale or a loan strengthens. If injuries bite and he is called upon, he has a chance to show that the pessimism is premature. The sensible approach is to watch how the next few months unfold, to keep the door open to either outcome and to avoid making a hasty move that cannot be reversed. In other words, the question of what to do with him is best answered by the pitch, not by the valuation website.

A loan might also be a sensible compromise. Sending a 23-year-old out to a club where he is guaranteed regular football can rebuild confidence and restore value, as the experiences of several other Rangers players have shown. Findlay Curtis, for instance, went on loan to Kilmarnock, produced a strong run of form and returned as a World Cup squad member. That kind of path is available to McCausland too, and it carries less risk than a permanent sale. The club would retain control of his future, he would get the minutes he needs and any rise in his market value would benefit Rangers rather than a new employer.

The broader point, which holds regardless of what happens in January, is that the standards at Rangers have risen. A decade ago, a player with 15 goal contributions in 67 appearances might have been viewed as a promising prospect, while today he is held up as a symbol of an underperforming squad. That change reflects the ambition of the new ownership, the investment in recruitment and the expectation that every position should be filled by someone capable of challenging for titles. In that environment, a player who fails to progress will always be vulnerable, and it is only natural that the discussion turns to whether he has a future.

There is something a little uncomfortable about how quickly the language of the debate turns harsh. Terms such as flop and dud are common in transfer-window commentary, but they treat a human being as a failed investment rather than a young man who has been trying to make his way at his boyhood club. McCausland is only 23, and many footballers do not hit their stride until their mid-to-late twenties. The pressure of expectations at a big club can be heavy, and a drop in confidence is often a bigger obstacle than a drop in ability. Dismissing him now would be ignoring the possibility that a change of role, a run in the team or a different coaching approach could unlock something better.

Equally, it would be naive to pretend that a club can afford to be patient forever. Rangers compete for trophies, and every spot in the squad has an opportunity cost. If a player is not contributing and there is a better use of the roster place, the manager has a duty to act. The best managers manage this tension carefully, balancing loyalty with results and giving players clear feedback about where they stand. If McInnes has told McCausland that his place is under threat, that might be the motivation he needs. If he has not, then the player may be left in a state of uncertainty that does neither side any good.

It would help, too, to see how McCausland has performed in the minutes he has been given this season. The article does not provide detailed numbers for the current campaign, and a judgement on his form needs that detail. A winger who has played a handful of games as a substitute cannot be expected to produce the same output as a regular starter, and the absence of goals in those cameos does not mean he is not doing his job. Without proper context, a single valuation number and a career total are blunt instruments for assessing a footballer, and fans should be careful about reading too much into them.

What the piece does succeed in doing is raising a legitimate question about squad management. At some point, every club has to ask itself whether it has too many players for too few places, and whether those on the margins are better served elsewhere. Rangers have signed a number of attackers in the last year, and the logical consequence is that some of the older members of the group will find their opportunities limited. January offers a natural moment to revisit that situation, and it is reasonable to ask which players might benefit from a move. McCausland is an obvious name to raise, even if the conclusion that he should be sold outright is open to debate.

For supporters, the decision will ultimately depend on what they value. Those who prioritise efficiency and results will see the case for moving on a player who has not delivered. Those who value loyalty and the long view will want to give him more time. Both positions are defensible, and the right answer may lie somewhere in between, such as a loan with an option to recall or a sale only if a genuinely good offer arrives. The club’s recruitment staff will be weighing these considerations in the coming weeks, and the manager will have the final say.

Whatever the outcome, the discussion is a healthy sign in its way. It shows that people care about the quality of the squad and the use of resources, and it reflects the heightened expectations that come with a team that is winning. A group of players who are being talked about in this way understand that nobody is guaranteed a place, and that is exactly the kind of pressure that drives standards upwards. If McCausland takes it as a challenge, he could prove his critics wrong, and if he does not, the January window will be there to provide a solution.

In the end, the headline is a provocative one, and the substance behind it is thinner than the language suggests. A modest return of eight goals and seven assists in 67 games, a falling market valuation and a crowded attacking department add up to a reasonable argument for a decision in January, but they do not amount to proof of a failed career. The most sensible course is to keep an open mind, watch how the season develops and make a judgement based on actual performances rather than a number on a website. For a 23-year-old from the Ibrox academy, the next few months may well decide whether he is remembered as a flop or as a late bloomer, and the answer will be written on the pitch