Rangers slammed over James Tavernier departure as Ibrox icon fumes ‘I don’t know another club that could do that’

Connor Goldson has taken aim at Rangers over the way James Tavernier’s eleven-year Ibrox career came to an end, describing the club’s handling of the departure of its longest-serving captain in recent memory as “mental.”

The former Rangers centre-back, who spent six years alongside Tavernier in the Ibrox defence, made the comments on the Open Goal podcast. His central complaint was simple: a player with a place in the club’s Hall of Fame deserved a better send-off than the one he received. “I don’t know another football club that could do that,” Goldson said, referring to the events around Tavernier’s final home game

To understand Goldson’s anger, it helps to go back to how the season ended. Tavernier announced in April that he would leave Rangers when his contract expired, ending an association that began in 2015 when he arrived from Wigan Athletic. He was 34, had worn the captain’s armband since 2018, and finished with 565 appearances, 144 goals and 148 assists, a record that made him British football’s highest-scoring defender.

The ending was far less tidy than the numbers. Tavernier had lost his automatic place in the team under Danny Rohl, and the build-up to the final home game against Hibs turned sour. Rohl’s version of events, as relayed in coverage of Goldson’s comments, was that the captain refused to be named as a substitute. Tavernier was then persuaded to walk onto the pitch before kick-off for a presentation from club legend John Greig, rather than being part of the match itself.

Tavernier gave his own account in a statement after the game. He said he had picked up an ankle problem after the Hearts match, that he and the medical staff had agreed an injection was the only option, and that he did not want any confusion over his departure or the events around the Hibs game. He also stressed how much the club meant to him, writing that Rangers would be in his heart for the rest of his life. Some reports of his farewell message said he felt deeply hurt and let down by how events unfolded, though the wording of that characterisation comes from secondary

Goldson’s argument was less about who was right in the dispute and more about what the club should have done to prevent it becoming a public spectacle. He said he could understand a debate over whether Tavernier should start the last match, but that a walk onto the pitch, the handing over of a small trophy and a walk off again was not adequate for what the player had given. He specifically mentioned Tavernier’s family and children, suggesting that the occasion should have been something they could remember with pride.

He was careful to add that he had not spoken to Tavernier or anyone at the club about what had really happened, so he was reacting to what he had seen rather than claiming inside knowledge. That caveat matters, because the full story of the disagreement between Tavernier and Rohl has only ever been told in fragments, and each side has emphasised different details.

What Goldson did offer was a defence of Tavernier’s standing. He said he wished the captain had won a trophy the previous year and left on a high, and recalled saying after the League Cup final that Tavernier would only be properly appreciated once he was gone. In his view, that appreciation is now arriving. He praised Tavernier’s right foot as extraordinary and called him a quality player, while also being frank about the frustrations of playing alongside him

The most interesting part of Goldson’s comments is that they were not a simple tribute. He described the arguments the two had on the pitch, with Tavernier often high up the field and Goldson left exposed against fast wingers in European games. He said Tavernier was, at times, an arrogant defender who would dive in against weaker opposition and then be caught out, but who defended properly against quality wingers in Europe. He also argued that Tavernier would not have improved defensively in the Premier League, a comment that cuts against the idea that he was held back by playing in Scotland.

That candour gives his defence of the player more weight. Goldson is not pretending Tavernier was flawless. He is saying that a player with clear strengths and weaknesses, who gave more than a decade of service and was central to a title, a Scottish Cup, a League Cup and a run to the Europa League final, deserved to be treated as a club legend on his way out.

There is also a personal thread to Goldson’s comments. Between them, he and Tavernier gave Rangers 17 years of service, and both left in circumstances neither is likely to remember fondly. Goldson departed in 2024 for Aris Limassol, and he has now spoken about how that move came about under Philippe Clement.

According to Goldson, Clement told him the decision was his to make but that he could leave for nothing if he wanted. He said he told his agent he was going nowhere, worked hard over the summer, and arrived at pre-season training in the Netherlands feeling in top form. But he said it became clear in 11-a-side sessions and friendlies that he was being placed in the weaker group, and he described feeling that he was not being treated fairly. He is now with Apollon Limassol, having felt, in his own words, that he was still the best centre-half at the club when he left.

The parallel is not exact, but the shared theme is clear. Both men gave the club years of service and both felt the end did not reflect it. For Goldson, the Tavernier situation appears to have reopened his own sense of how Rangers deals with senior players at the end of their time there.

Tavernier has moved on. After a summer of interest that reportedly included Charlotte FC in MLS and clubs in Ligue 1 and Serie A, he signed for Maccabi Tel Aviv, where he has been reunited with former Rangers team-mate Kenny Miller, the club’s head coach. He said he was excited by the chance to experience a new country and a different environment, and he will wear the number two shirt he wore at Ibrox.

At Rangers, Derek McInnes has since taken charge and the team has moved on, with new options at right-back. The club’s current momentum, including back-to-back wins over Celtic, has largely pushed the Tavernier saga out of the headlines. Goldson’s comments are a reminder that, for some of the people who shared a dressing room with him, the way it ended still rankles.

The dispute raises a question that goes beyond one player. How should a club like Rangers handle the departure of a long-serving captain who has lost his place in the team? There is a reasonable case that a manager is entitled to pick his side and to decide who plays in the final home game, and Rohl’s view that the captain should accept a place on the bench is one many managers would share.

There is also a reasonable case that the club, rather than the manager, has responsibility for making sure that a farewell to a Hall of Famer is planned in advance and agreed with the player. Reports in the spring noted that Tavernier had been entitled to a testimonial since July 2025 and that the issue had not been resolved publicly. Whether that is a fair characterisation of the club’s position is not something the available reporting settles, but it goes some way to explaining why so many former players have chosen to speak up.

Goldson’s intervention will not change what happened. But it adds a voice from inside the game to a debate that supporters have been having since May, and it suggests that the way Rangers handled this exit will be remembered for some time.