‘This is bad’ – Ibrox Expert: Rangers player creating ‘three problems’ for McInnes

Football has no shortage of near-misses, but few are as awkward for a club as a transfer that nearly leaves and then doesn’t. John Souttar’s proposed move to Greece fell into that category, and the consequences are still rippling through Rangers.

The Scotland international, who is 30, spent last season as a regular at Ibrox, making 38 appearances in all competitions. When Derek McInnes was appointed as Rangers manager at the start of the summer, that standing changed quickly. Souttar was told, in effect, that regular football elsewhere would probably be his best option. By the time the new campaign was under way, he had been shut out of the manager’s matchday plans and was looking for a way out.

The way out appeared to arrive late in the window. Aris Thessaloniki agreed a deal with Rangers and reached personal terms with the defender on a three-year contract. On paper, it was a tidy solution: Souttar would get the regular football he wanted, Rangers would shift a senior salary and McInnes would have a clear squad.

It did not happen. The Greek window closed at 10pm on a Tuesday, and the transfer died with it. The sticking point, according to reports, was money. Souttar is out of contract next summer, and he was arguing that he was entitled to be paid for the final year of his deal as part of any exit. Rangers, according to Football Insider’s sources, were extremely reluctant to agree and did not move from their position that no pay-off would be forthcoming.

The result was a stalemate. Souttar remained a Rangers player, and the club found itself in the position it had hoped to avoid: an expensive, frozen-out defender with several months to run on his contract and nowhere to send him.

On Friday, Football Insider published an exclusive in which one of its regular pundits delivered a blunt assessment of the situation. Keith Wyness, who served as chief executive of Aberdeen between 2000 and 2004 and now runs a consultancy business advising elite clubs, argued that Rangers should have worked much harder to find an exit for Souttar during the summer.

Speaking on the Inside Track podcast, Wyness said the club should have taken the Greek deal even if the terms did not look attractive at the time. His reasoning was that a compromise in the summer would have been cheaper than the position Rangers now find themselves in. Rangers, he suggested, had not done their sums.

His headline phrase was short and unsparing: “This is bad.” He described the situation as reminiscent of the old Rangers’ bad squad planning, a reference to the years when the club repeatedly found itself weighed down by contracts and squad imbalances that it had to work around. And he identified what he considers to be three distinct problems that the failed exit has created for McInnes.

It is worth being clear about what this is. Wyness is an experienced former chief executive, but he is offering an opinion from outside the club. He has no access to the negotiations that took place, the figures that were discussed or the internal reasoning behind Rangers’ stance. His analysis is useful because it applies a recognised framework for squad management to a real situation, not because it reveals inside information. With that caveat, his three problems are worth examining closel7

The first problem, in Wyness’s account, is financial. Souttar is a senior player on a salary that reflects his experience, and the failed move means Rangers are still paying it. He stressed that the wages for a player of that seniority would remain considerable for the club

On the surface, this looks like a simple cost. Rangers have a player on the payroll who is not playing. But the problem becomes more acute when you look at how it interacts with the rest of the summer’s business.

McInnes has had to build a squad quickly. In a window that saw a dozen signings, the club spent significant sums, including a reported £6million on goalkeeper Ivor Pandur, £8.5million on Minsu Kim and a fee in the region of £9million for striker Kevin Kelsy. Those are substantial outlays, and every pound of wages committed to a player who is not contributing is a pound that cannot be used elsewhere.

There is also a subtler point about how wage budgets work. Clubs typically set a ceiling on total squad costs, and every contract counts against it whether the player is in the team or not. An unused senior salary is, in effect, a tax on the rest of the squad. If Rangers want to add a player in January, they may have to find the money from a budget that is already carrying Souttar’s wages.

The counter-argument, which Rangers’ decision-makers presumably weighed, is that paying a pay-off to Souttar would also have cost money. The reported dispute was over whether he should receive his final year’s wages as part of an exit. If Rangers had agreed, they would have paid a large sum and shipped him out. By refusing, they are paying him anyway, but at least they are not setting a precedent. It is a classic dilemma, and Wyness’s view is that the club picked the wrong side of it.

The second problem is about asset value. Souttar is out of contract next summer, which means that Rangers’ ability to recoup a transfer fee shrinks with every passing week. Wyness was in no doubt that the player’s value is “eroding” because he is not going to be involved much going forward

This is a fundamental piece of football economics. A player’s transfer value is a function of his ability, his age, his contract length and, crucially, his recent playing time. Souttar is 30, which is already at the age where fees tend to fall. His contract has less than a year to run. And he has not played a competitive minute since the late window debacle.

Each of those factors depresses his price. Buying clubs are reluctant to pay for a player who has not been playing, who is in the final year of a deal and who could be signed on a pre-contract agreement in January for nothing. By the time the winter window opens, Rangers’ bargaining position will be weaker than it was in September. The deal that collapsed in Greece, even if it involved a compromise on wages, would at least have put some money into the club’s accounts or removed a salary from the books.

Reports suggest that a January exit is the most likely outcome, but that it will probably be on much less favourable terms. Interest had previously come from English clubs, with Sheffield United and Leicester City among those said to have been keen at various points, but nothing materialised. The longer Souttar remains on the sidelines, the harder it will be to reignite that interest.

It is also worth noting that Souttar’s international status has been affected. According to reports, he was left out of the Scotland squad at the same time as the Aris deal fell through, a double blow that underlined how quickly his situation has deteriorated. A player who is not playing for his club is hard to justify selecting for his country, and a player who is not in the international squad is harder still to

The third problem, and arguably the one that matters most to McInnes in practical terms, is the blocked squad place. Wyness said that keeping Souttar means Rangers cannot bring in someone else in his position, whether that is a younger player or someone in another role.

This is a point about squad planning, and it connects directly to a story that emerged this week. Casper Widell, a 23-year-old Sweden Under-21 international who plays for Excelsior in the Dutch Eredivisie, has revealed that Rangers were interested in signing him this summer but that the move never happened. According to his account, he was keen on the transfer, but a directive from higher up at the club said they could not sign another defender until someone else left. It looked, he said, as if one player was going to leave, and the deal was effectively put on hold. Reports identify that player as Souttar.

If that account is accurate, it illustrates the blocked-place problem in vivid detail. Rangers wanted a younger centre-back. They could not add one because there was no room. The player who might have created that room could not be moved. And so the club ended up without the reinforcement it wanted.

It is important to treat this carefully. The details come from Widell’s own account and from press reports rather than from Rangers, and the club has not confirmed the sequence of events. But even as a partial picture, it shows how a single unmoved contract can distort an entire recruitment strategy.

McInnes did sign defensive reinforcements. Ben Godfrey arrived on loan from Atalanta, and Olwethu Makhanya joined from Philadelphia Union. Ross McCrorie, a former academy product, returned from Bristol City. Emmanuel Fernandez and Makhanya have been McInnes’s preferred centre-back pairing, with Godfrey as an additional option. On the face of it, that is a reasonable amount of cover. But the point Wyness is making is about balance and succession: with a squad capped by registration rules and budget constraints, every slot taken by an unused senior player is a slot that cannot be filled by a developing one.

His phrase for the solution was succession planning, a theme he said pundits keep returning to week after week. The idea is that a well-run club should know, years in advance, which players are approaching the end of their careers or contracts and should have replacements ready. Rangers’ history, he implied, is full of examples where that did not happen

The manager has not hidden the situation. On 8 September, with overseas options still being explored, McInnes explained his position. He said that regular football elsewhere was the best route for the defender, but he also left the door open for the alternative. If no exit materialised, he said, the club would honour the contract and Souttar would come back into things.

That is a pragmatic and professional stance. McInnes was not announcing a permanent ban or a feud. He was acknowledging that a player under contract is a player under contract, and that if the club could not move him, it would find a way to use him.

Since the window closed, McInnes has also described the situation in more neutral language. He has said that Souttar was in a position where a lot of things were going on for him and that it had been made clear it might be best for him to look for something else. That wording suggests a manager who is trying to avoid antagonising the player while maintaining his own judgement about the squad

According to Football Insider’s reporting, McInnes intends to swallow his pride and recall Souttar if needed. Sources say that should an injury crisis occur at Ibrox, the manager is prepared to bring the defender back into the squad. Football Insider’s reporter noted that he would be very surprised if Souttar featured before the January window unless a number of injuries in defence opened the door.7

That makes sense from a purely practical perspective. A club with ambitions in the league and in Europe cannot afford to run short of centre-backs, and Souttar, whatever his current standing, is a Scotland international with substantial experience. If Fernandez, Makhanya and Godfrey are all fit, he will remain on the periphery. If two of them are injured at the same time, McInnes would be foolish not to use him.

Supporters appear to agree. In a poll run by Rangers News, more than two-thirds of respondents said McInnes should bring Souttar back into the fold, with many citing a lack of defensive depth. One commentator suggested reinstating him as fourth-choice centre-back, with occasional minutes in cup and league matches. The logic is that there is little point in paying a senior wage and getting nothing in return, and that a defender with Souttar’s experience could provide useful cover.

But there is a complication. A player who wanted to leave, who has been told he is not in the plans and who has spent weeks training apart from the main group may not be in the best frame of mind to return. Managers often find that players in that situation are unreliable when they are suddenly needed. McInnes will have to judge whether Souttar can be a genuine contributor or whether the damage to the relationship is too deep

It is worth stepping back and asking whether Wyness’s three problems are as serious as he suggests, or whether he is overstating the case.

The case for his view. The core of his argument is difficult to dispute. A player who is not playing is costing money, losing value and occupying a roster spot. If the choice in September was between a compromise exit and the current stalemate, the compromise would probably have been cheaper in the long run. Football finance is full of examples of clubs that held out for a better deal and ended up with a worse one.

The case against. There are several reasons Rangers might have been right to stand firm. First, the reported demand, that Souttar be paid for the final year of his contract as part of the exit, would have set a precedent. Other players might expect similar treatment, and the club’s negotiating position in future departures could be weakened. Second, wages are only one part of the equation. If Souttar had left and McInnes’s centre-backs had been hit by injuries, the club might have found itself short. Having a senior defender in reserve has value, even if that value is hard to measure. Third, the situation is not permanent. Souttar’s contract expires next summer, and the January window offers another opportunity to find a solution. The problem is real, but it is finite.

The uncertainty.  None of us can know exactly what was offered, what was demanded or what alternatives were available. Wyness is working from public reports, as are the rest of us. His analysis is a reasonable inference from those reports, but it is not a definitive account of what Rangers should have done

Whatever the merits of the Souttar case, it highlights a wider challenge for McInnes. He inherited a squad that had been shaped by a different manager and a different philosophy, and he has spent the summer reshaping it. That process inevitably creates casualties: players who do not fit the new approach but who are still under contract.

The scale of the rebuild has been considerable. Rangers signed at least a dozen players in the window, covering goalkeeper, defence, midfield and attack. McInnes spoke early in the window of wanting ready-made players, and the signings of Pandur, McCrorie, Neil, Devlin and others fit that pattern. But every signing creates a corresponding squeeze. When a squad has a fixed number of places, a new arrival means someone else is surplus.

Souttar is the most visible example, but he is unlikely to be the only one. The challenge for the club’s recruitment and football operations teams is to manage that process in a way that minimises cost and disruption. Wyness’s critique is that, in this case, they did not.

There is also a question of timing. Many clubs try to clear surplus players early in the window, when buyers have the most flexibility and the player’s value is still intact. The longer the delay, the weaker the bargaining position. In Souttar’s case, the key negotiations appear to have happened late, with a deal agreed in principle just before the Greek deadline. That left no margin for error, and when the dispute over wages emerged, there was no time to resolve it

The January exit. This remains the most likely outcome. With his contract expiring in the summer, Souttar will be able to agree a pre-contract with a foreign club in January if Rangers do not sell him. That would give Rangers nothing in return. To avoid that, the club may have to accept a modest fee, or even a free departure, to clear the wages and the squad place. The longer he waits, the less leverage Rangers have.

The injury recall.that If McInnes loses one or two centre-backs to injury, Souttar could be back in the squad within days. That would give the player a chance to show he is still capable and could improve his value in the January market. It would also ease the financial argument, because Rangers would at least be getting something for his wages.The reconciliation. There is a smaller possibility that Souttar and McInnes find a way to work together for the rest of the season. McInnes has said he would honour the contract, and supporters have suggested a role as fourth-choice centre-back. If the player is willing to accept that role, he could contribute to a successful campaign and leave on better terms at the end.

The standoff. The least desirable outcome is that nothing changes. Souttar sits in reserve, plays no football, loses value and leaves for nothing in the summer. That is the scenario Wyness fears, and it is the one Rangers’ decision-makers will be most anxious to avoid.

John Souttar’s failed move is not a catastrophe. He is one player in a large squad, and Rangers have plenty of other issues to manage. But the situation is a useful illustration of how small decisions in the transfer window can create lasting problems.j

Keith Wyness’s three problems, the wages, the eroding value and the blocked squad place, are real. They are not equally serious, and they are not necessarily the result of a mistake: reasonable people could disagree about whether Rangers should have paid the compromise or stood firm. But his central argument, that clubs should plan for the exit of senior players before they become a burden, is hard to fault.

For Derek McInnes, the immediate task is practical. He has a squad to manage, a season to win and a senior defender who may be needed at short notice. How he handles Souttar, with respect and professionalism, while keeping his options open, will say something about his man-management skills. And how the club’s hierarchy handles the next set of squad decisions will say something about whether the lessons of this summer have been learned.

Wyness’s own verdict was brief: the club has to do better with succession planning. After a summer in which one stalled transfer appears to have blocked another, it is not an unreasonable demand