Sell him before Raskin: No one is talking about how bad £3m Rangers dud has been

The £3m Rangers player in this headline appears to be Rabbi Matondo, who joined Rangers from Schalke in 2022. He has struggled to establish himself consistently at Ibrox, while Nico Raskin’s Rangers have faced plenty of questions about their recruitment in recent seasons, and there is one player whose performances deserve far more attention than they have received. While much of the discussion around Ibrox has focused on Nicolas Raskin, his future and the possibility of a major transfer, the club’s previous investment in Rabbi Matondo also deserves a closer look. Rangers spent around £3 million to bring the Welsh winger from Schalke in the summer of 2022, hoping that his pace, direct running and attacking ability would make him an important part of the team. There was excitement about what he could offer, especially because he had already shown that he could be dangerous when given space to attack. However, his time at Ibrox never developed into the success many supporters had hoped for. Matondo made 70 appearances for Rangers and scored eight goals before leaving permanently for Norwegian side SK Brann in March 2026. His departure came after several seasons in which he struggled to establish himself as a consistent first-team performer. That record raises questions about the value Rangers received from their investment. It also provides a wider lesson about recruitment, because signing a player with impressive physical qualities is only the beginning. A club must find a way to turn those qualities into consistent performances, and Rangers did not see enough of that from Matondo during his time in Glasgow

The headline argument is simple: Rangers should have recognised much earlier that Matondo was not delivering enough to justify his place in the squad and the money invested in him. That does not mean he lacked talent or that every appearance he made was poor. Football is more complicated than that, and individual players can struggle for different reasons. Managers change, tactics change, teammates change and opportunities can become limited. Nevertheless, clubs cannot assess recruitment purely by looking at a player’s potential. They must also consider what that player actually contributes over time. Matondo arrived at Rangers with a reputation for speed and the ability to cause problems for defenders. Those qualities were easy to understand, and it was reasonable for the club to believe that he could become a dangerous attacking option. But pace alone does not make a winger successful. A player must also make good decisions, deliver quality in the final third, create opportunities for teammates and show enough consistency to earn the manager’s trust. Rangers needed more than occasional flashes of speed. They needed a winger who could influence matches regularly, particularly when opponents defended deep and space was difficult to find. Matondo struggled to become that player at Ibrox, and his eventual departure demonstrated that the original investment had not produced the long-term outcome the club wanted.

One of the biggest problems with judging Rangers recruitment is that supporters often become focused on the latest transfer story while forgetting the lessons of previous deals. Raskin became a major subject of discussion during the summer of 2026 after interest from other clubs and uncertainty about his future. He remained at Rangers after the club rejected an approach from Besiktas, and he later spoke publicly about the disappointment of not securing a move away. Yet his situation is different from Matondo’s. Raskin has played an important role in Rangers’ midfield and has continued to be part of the club’s plans. That does not mean Rangers should never consider selling him, but any decision must account for his contribution, his value to the team and the quality of any replacement. Matondo’s case offers a different example. Rangers had already invested money in a player who struggled to become a regular, and the club eventually allowed him to leave permanently. The lesson is not that Rangers should automatically sell one player before another simply because supporters are frustrated. It is that recruitment decisions must be based on performance and the needs of the squad, rather than reputation or the excitement surrounding a possible transfer.

When Matondo first arrived at Ibrox, the expectations were understandable. Rangers were looking for attacking quality, and his speed offered a weapon that could be useful in domestic and European football. He had developed at Cardiff City and Manchester City before moving to Schalke, and his loan spell with Cercle Brugge had shown that he could produce goals in a different league. Rangers’ recruitment team believed he had room to improve and could become an important addition to the squad. The club announced a four-year contract in July 2022, and Matondo spoke positively about joining a team with such a strong history and a passionate fan base. The intention was clear: Rangers wanted to add a winger who could stretch opposition defences and give the team another attacking dimension. However, the Scottish Premiership presented challenges that required more than raw speed. Rangers frequently faced opponents who defended close to their own penalty area, leaving little space behind the defensive line. In those situations, wingers need close control, intelligent movement, accurate crossing and the ability to make quick decisions in tight spaces. A player who relies heavily on running into open space can find it harder to make an impact when that space disappears. Matondo never consistently overcame that challenge, and his Rangers career gradually became defined more by what he failed to establish than by the potential that brought him to the

The biggest concern was not simply the number of goals Matondo scored. Wingers can contribute in different ways, and judging them only by goals would be unfair. Some create chances, others help their full-backs defensively, while some stretch the opposition and create room for teammates. The question is whether the overall contribution matches the demands of the role. Rangers needed an attacking player who could make a difference in important matches, provide a reliable option from the bench and compete for a regular starting position. Matondo struggled to establish that level of consistency. His speed could trouble defenders, but the final action did not always produce the result Rangers needed. There were times when he could beat an opponent but fail to create a clear chance, and there were periods when his involvement was limited. Those shortcomings made it difficult for him to become indispensable. At a club with Rangers’ ambitions, a winger must do more than look dangerous when the game opens up. He needs to influence matches when the opposition is organised and the pressure is high. That is especially important in a team expected to dominate many domestic fixtures. Rangers need players who can turn possession into chances and chances into goals. Matondo did not provide enough consistent attacking output to establish himself as the answer to that requirement.

It is important, however, not to rewrite history and pretend that Matondo offered nothing during his time at Rangers. He scored eight goals in 70 appearances and had moments when his pace and direct approach gave the team an attacking option. Every player who joins a club will have better and worse periods, and some performances may have been affected by injuries, tactical changes or a lack of regular minutes. Those factors deserve consideration. But they do not remove the central question about value. A club spending millions on a player must eventually decide whether the player is progressing towards the expected standard. If the same weaknesses remain across several seasons, the recruitment department has to assess whether the original plan is working. Rangers cannot keep relying on the possibility that a player will suddenly become more consistent without considering the evidence available. Matondo’s eventual exit was the outcome of a period in which he had struggled to secure a lasting place in the team. The club’s decision to move him on was understandable, even if it meant accepting that the transfer had not delivered the return hoped for. The key point is not to attack the player personally. It is to question whether Rangers assessed his performances quickly enough and whether the club could have made a better decision earlier.

That question becomes particularly relevant when looking at the way Rangers manage squad places. Every club has a limited number of spaces available, and each place should serve a clear purpose. If a winger is not playing regularly, the club must consider whether keeping him is the best use of its resources. A younger prospect may need opportunities, a new signing may offer a different skill set, or the manager may prefer a tactical system that requires a different type of wide player. Keeping a player who is not regularly contributing can limit those options. It can also leave the squad short of balance if the club continues to search for the same type of player without addressing the underlying problem. Matondo’s situation shows why recruitment cannot end when a contract is signed. Clubs need to review performance, understand why a player is struggling and decide whether additional coaching, a loan spell or a permanent exit is the most sensible route. Rangers eventually allowed Matondo to leave, but the broader issue is whether the club could have identified the mismatch between expectations and performance sooner. Better decisions at an earlier stage can help protect the transfer budget and create more opportunities for players who are better suited to the team.

The comparison with Raskin must also be handled carefully. There is a temptation to use a headline like this to suggest that Rangers should sell one player simply because another has attracted more attention. But the two situations are not identical. Raskin is a central midfielder whose contribution must be assessed through his work in possession, pressing, defensive coverage, passing and ability to move the team forward. Matondo was an attacking winger whose main responsibility was to provide threat in wide areas. Their roles are different, and the value of each player must be judged against the demands of that role. Raskin’s future attracted attention because he was linked with other clubs and was reportedly valued as a potential source of transfer income. He also remained a significant part of Rangers’ midfield plans. Matondo, by contrast, had become a player whose opportunities were increasingly limited before he left. If Rangers are considering a future sale of Raskin, the club should weigh any offer against his importance to the side and the cost of finding a suitable replacement. Selling him simply to make a statement about another player would make little sense. The more useful conclusion is that Rangers must be honest about every player’s contribution and avoid allowing transfer speculation to distract from the performance standards required across the squad.

There is also a financial argument behind the criticism of Matondo’s Rangers spell. The club paid a reported fee of around £3 million to sign him from Schalke, and he spent almost four years at Ibrox before departing. Rangers received his services during that period, so the fee cannot be treated as money spent without any return at all. He played matches, contributed goals and was part of the squad during several campaigns. Nevertheless, the club would have hoped that a player signed on a four-year deal would either become a regular contributor or develop enough to command a meaningful transfer fee. Instead, his Rangers career ended with a permanent move to Brann as his contract approached its conclusion. That outcome underlines the difficulty of recovering value when a signing does not develop as expected. It also shows why transfer fees must be considered alongside wages, performance and resale potential. A £3 million signing who becomes an important first-team player can justify the investment through his contribution and possible future sale. A signing who struggles to become a regular may leave the club with fewer options. Rangers must learn from such cases and improve the way they identify players, assess tactical suitability and monitor progress after a transfer has been completed.

The issue is not limited to Matondo. Rangers have spent years trying to build squads capable of competing domestically and in Europe, and recruitment has often been a central part of the debate. Every transfer window brings new expectations, with supporters hoping that fresh signings will solve the weaknesses exposed in previous campaigns. But signing more players is not the same as building a better team. A successful recruitment strategy requires clear priorities, a consistent playing style and a strong understanding of the type of footballers who can perform in the manager’s system. If a club signs players mainly because they possess attractive individual qualities, it can end up with a squad that lacks balance. Matondo’s speed was an obvious asset, but the club also needed to understand how that speed would translate into the types of matches Rangers regularly played. Could he make an impact against compact defences? Could he deliver a consistent final ball? Could he contribute when the team had little space to attack? These are the questions recruitment staff must answer before committing to a transfer. Potential matters, but potential must be supported by a realistic plan for development and a clear understanding of the player’s role.

The manager also has a responsibility to help new signings settle and perform. A player can struggle when he is used in a position that does not suit him, when the team’s tactical approach changes or when he cannot build rhythm through regular appearances. Rangers have had managerial changes during Matondo’s time at the club, and each coach has brought different ideas and preferences. That can make life difficult for players who are still trying to establish themselves. A winger who fits one system may be less effective in another, and a manager may prefer a different profile for certain matches. It would therefore be too simplistic to place the entire responsibility for Matondo’s struggles on the player alone. The club must also ask whether it gave him the right opportunities and whether the recruitment decision was aligned with the long-term football plan. At the same time, players must make the most of the chances they receive. A signing cannot expect to remain a regular option indefinitely without producing performances that justify selection. The balance between coaching, tactics and individual responsibility is what makes football recruitment difficult. In Matondo’s case, the outcome suggests that the partnership between player and club never developed into the consistent success both sides would have wanted.

For Rangers supporters, the frustration comes from the feeling that money spent on underperforming signings could have been used to strengthen other areas. That is an understandable concern, especially when the club is trying to close the gap on its domestic rivals and build a team capable of competing more consistently. Every transfer fee represents a decision about where resources should go. If the club spends millions on a winger who does not become a regular contributor, that money is no longer available for a player who might address a more urgent weakness. Of course, football transfers are never guaranteed, and even well-researched signings can fail to adapt. But clubs can improve their chances by assessing a player’s decision-making, tactical awareness, injury record, consistency and suitability for the league rather than focusing mainly on highlight clips or physical attributes. Rangers need a recruitment process that identifies not only what a player does well but also the conditions in which those strengths are most useful. Matondo’s career at Ibrox should encourage the club to examine how it evaluates wide attackers and whether it has a clear plan for helping them deliver in matches where space is limited.

Another important point is that transfer decisions should not be based on reputation alone. A player may arrive with experience at respected clubs or a record of promising performances elsewhere, but that does not guarantee success at Rangers. Matondo had developed at Manchester City and played for Schalke before moving to Scotland. He had also shown attacking promise during his loan spell in Belgium. Those details made him an understandable target, but the Rangers environment presented its own demands. The club is expected to challenge for trophies, and supporters often judge players through their performances in high-pressure games. A winger must be able to cope with opponents who study his strengths and attempt to prevent him from using them. If speed is a player’s main weapon, defenders may try to deny him space behind them and force him to receive the ball with his back to goal. That requires technical ability, patience and smart movement. A player who cannot consistently adapt may become easier to defend against. Rangers need to recruit footballers who can respond when opponents change their approach, rather than players whose effectiveness depends too heavily on one particular situation. That is one of the lessons the club can take from Matondo’s time in Glasgow.

It is also worth considering how a club should respond when a transfer is not working. There is no benefit in keeping a player indefinitely simply because the club has already spent money on him. That is the danger of allowing the original transfer fee to influence every future decision. The money has already been committed, and the next question should be what choice gives the club the best chance of improving its squad from this point onwards. If a player is not getting opportunities and there is interest from elsewhere, a permanent sale may be sensible. If the player is young and still has clear development potential, a loan could help him gain experience and possibly increase his value. If the manager believes the player can still make a contribution, keeping him may be justified. There is no single solution that applies to every case. Rangers’ eventual decision to allow Matondo to move to Brann ended a spell that had not produced the expected consistency. The club then had to focus on its next recruitment decisions. That is the reality of football: not every transfer works, but a well-run club must recognise when a different approach is needed and avoid repeating the same mistakes.

Matondo’s move away from Rangers also shows that leaving Ibrox does not automatically mean a player’s career is over. He remains a professional footballer with experience in several countries and at international level. His time in Norway did not work out as hoped, but he has since secured another opportunity in Scotland by joining Hibernian on a deal until the end of the season, with an option to extend. That development is a reminder that footballers can find new opportunities after difficult spells. A player who struggles at one club may still offer useful qualities to another team with different needs and expectations. Matondo’s pace and direct running may be valuable in a system that suits his strengths. His challenge now is to make the most of that opportunity and show that he can contribute more consistently. His subsequent career does not change the assessment of his Rangers spell, but it does reinforce the need to separate criticism of performances from criticism of the person. The question is whether the player delivered enough for Rangers, not whether he deserves the chance to continue playing elsewhere.

That distinction matters because football opinion can quickly become personal. Supporters have every right to question a player’s performances, a club’s recruitment and the decisions made by managers. Those debates are part of following a team. However, criticism is stronger when it focuses on evidence rather than insults. In Matondo’s case, the figures are clear enough to support a discussion about value: he made 70 appearances, scored eight goals and eventually left permanently after struggling to secure a consistent role. Those facts can be examined without pretending that he never contributed anything. A balanced assessment recognises both the promise that led Rangers to sign him and the limited overall return compared with what the club expected. It also recognises that several factors can affect a player’s development. The point is to learn from the transfer, not simply to find someone to blame. Rangers need a recruitment process that can identify when a signing is not progressing and make sensible decisions before a player’s contract situation limits the club’s options. That approach would be more valuable than repeatedly arguing about one player after his time at Ibrox has already ended.

The question of whether Rangers should sell Raskin before another player is therefore less important than the larger issue of how the club manages its assets. Raskin’s situation has involved transfer interest, uncertainty and public comments about his disappointment at remaining in Glasgow. But he has also continued to contribute to the team. If an offer arrives in a future window, Rangers will need to consider the financial return, the player’s wishes, the length of his contract and the difficulty of replacing his role. Selling a key midfielder without a suitable replacement could weaken the team, even if the transfer fee looks attractive. On the other hand, refusing every reasonable offer can also be costly if a player wants to leave and the club risks losing value later. These decisions require careful planning rather than an emotional response to a headline. Matondo’s case provides a warning about what can happen when a signing does not meet expectations, but it does not automatically determine what should happen to Raskin. Rangers should assess each player individually and ensure that every decision serves the long-term interests of the squad.

The club must also think about what happens after a player leaves. Releasing space in the squad is only useful if Rangers have a plan for filling it. If a winger departs, the club must decide whether to promote a young player, recruit a new signing or adjust the system to make better use of the players already available. A transfer exit should form part of a wider strategy rather than being treated as an achievement on its own. Matondo’s departure created an opportunity for Rangers to reconsider their attacking options and look for players whose strengths better matched the team’s needs. The challenge is to ensure that the next signing does not repeat the same pattern. Rangers should look for consistency, intelligent decision-making, effective movement and an ability to deliver against different types of opposition. Pace can still be an important asset, but it should be one part of a complete attacking profile. The club needs players who can create chances, make the right decisions in the final third and contribute to the overall structure of the team. A clear recruitment strategy would make it easier to identify the right targets and avoid spending money on qualities that are not translated into regular performances.

There is no reason for Rangers to treat Matondo’s transfer as a disaster that defines the entire recruitment department. Football clubs make mistakes, and the most important thing is whether they learn from them. A player can look like a good signing on paper and still struggle to adapt to a new league or team. The club can reduce that risk, but it cannot eliminate it completely. The real test is how quickly the club recognises the problem and whether it changes its approach when the evidence suggests that a transfer is not working. Rangers have an opportunity to use past recruitment decisions to improve future ones. That means reviewing why players succeed or struggle, examining whether their qualities match the tactical plan and considering how their roles might change under different managers. It also means being realistic about the difference between potential and proven performance. A player’s speed, reputation or age can make him an attractive target, but the club must have a clear idea of how he will help the team. Matondo’s spell at Ibrox is a reminder that recruitment should be built around the needs of the side rather than the excitement surrounding an individual signing.

Ultimately, the argument that Rangers should have moved on from Matondo earlier is a reasonable one, given the limited consistency he produced during his time at the club. The reported £3 million fee represented a significant investment, and Rangers would have hoped for more than eight goals in 70 appearances from an attacking player brought in to improve their options. Yet the debate should not become a simplistic demand to sell one player before another without considering their different roles and contributions. Raskin’s future must be assessed on its own merits, while Matondo’s Rangers spell should be judged by what happened during his years in Glasgow. The Welsh winger has now moved on, and his subsequent opportunities at Brann and Hibernian show that his career continues beyond Ibrox. Rangers, meanwhile, must focus on building a squad that offers better consistency and stronger value for money. The club cannot change the outcome of an old transfer, but it can learn from it. If recruitment staff identify the right qualities, assess tactical suitability carefully and respond quickly when a signing is not working, Rangers will have a better chance of avoiding similar situations in the future. That is the real lesson behind the headline: the club must be willing to question its recruitment decisions honestly, even after the player in question has left.