Politicians aren’t routinely allowed to change their opinions but football fans can, especially when it comes to one’s like should Rangers sign Lawrence Shankland or not?
With hindsight, the £4.3m spent on Cyriel Dessers should have been spent on the Hearts striker which would have left the current Gers boss with an altogether stronger squad – Philippe Clement would have at least inherited a consistent goalscorer.
The question being asked now is whether or not Rangers should sign Lawrence Shankland as soon as possible but, with the money it took to sign Dessers, is this even remotely possible?
The only condition Rangers should sign Lawrence Shankland on
On the same day that the summer signing from Serie A was having a nightmare, the Hearts skipper was scoring his 17th goal of the season.
Yes, Shankland wouldn’t get as much space for Rangers as he does for Hearts but that isn’t the point.
It’s what he does in and around the box when he does get the chance, he has one thought in mind and he executes it cleanly.
He doesn’t score with every chance he gets, of course he doesn’t, but there isn’t a time when he looks like he has no idea what he is going to do.
Previously, I didn’t think that Rangers signing Lawrence Shankland was worth the money but seeing the chances that Dessers has missed in the last few games has convinced me otherwise.
On one condition.
We can’t throw out a whole trading model because we are desperate.
At this moment in time, Dessers, just about, has a decent enough goals and assists return that we could get something for him.
Not the money that we paid for him but it is abundantly clear that he isn’t the answer and we will never see that fee again.
If we can get enough to fund most of any bud for Lawrence Shankland, then Rangers should go for it, unless the board are willing to virtually write off the money spent in the summer.
As for the £3m on Sam Lammers only for him to not come off the bench in our biggest game of the season amid a striker shortage, well, that tells its own story.
