Raskin's Value Debate Shows Reality of Rangers' Market Position
A frank look at Nico Raskin's true transfer value, Rangers' wider player-trading problems, and why the club continues to fall behind Celtic in the modern market.
Nico Raskin's Realistic Price Tag
I'm honestly struggling to see why some Glasgow Rangers fans believe Nico Raskin is a £20 million player. The club clearly isn't extending his contract, and he knows his next step will come elsewhere at a stronger side. He doesn't owe us anything either. We picked him up for around £1.3 million, and with his injury issues, patchy form, and the simple fact he plays in a team that rarely wins anything meaningful, his market value sits closer to £5-7 million at best.
Spurs don't have to pay a penny right now anyway. In a year's time they can sign him on a pre-contract, and six months later he joins for free. Some supporters are getting carried away because he's played a handful of games in a Belgian midfield stacked with talent worth hundreds of millions of euros. He's a useful squad piece for Belgium, nothing more, and if he genuinely was at the level of those teammates he'd already be starring in a top league.
And let's not start comparing him to players like Bassey or Igamane. They're operating on a completely different level, which is exactly why they're both at major clubs while Raskin isn't.
Why Bassey's Rise Doesn't Translate to Raskin
Take Calvin Bassey. Nearly €50 million has been spent on him by two clubs in less than two years since he left Ibrox. Raskin simply isn't reaching that range. Even at his absolute peak, I can't see him breaking £15-18 million. It's taken him nearly three years just to climb from a £6 million valuation to around £12 million.
He's a tidy player with ability, no doubt about it, but I don't see any club splashing huge money on him.
Igamane's Ceiling Is Completely Different
Igamane, though, is a totally different story. That lad has frightening potential and could easily finish this season valued between £25-30 million. If a big club comes in and it feels inevitable, his price could explode into the £60-80 million range within the next year or two.
The frustrating part? We apparently won't see a penny of his next move because FAR Rabat negotiated the smart sell-on, not us. If the rumours are accurate, Rangers get nothing beyond the initial fee because the asking price was met and we gave away the future upside. If true, it's another example of us losing out on the long term gains.
Good luck to the boy - another exceptional talent gone. But we can't seriously expect success while punting our best players at the first opportunity.
Why Celtic Earn More and Rangers Don't
Celtic pull in big money because they win trophies on a regular basis. We barely manage that, so we can't act shocked when our sales don't match theirs. That's the harsh reality. Bassey was a complete outlier, a freak rise in value triggered by injuries, circumstance, and Steven Gerrard leaving.
Giovanni van Bronckhorst gave him the chance to cover centre back against Lyon, he excelled, kept his spot, and ended up being the best defender in the entire Europa League that season. That shot him from a £250k squad player to a £22 million record sale in under a year. With Goldson beside him, they were a fortress. Imagine the trophies we could have lifted if that pairing had stayed together longer.
Before that breakthrough, Bassey was a backup left-back behind Barisic and nothing more.
Recruitment Hits, Misses and the Cost of Short-Term Thinking
We actually targeted two Leicester City U21 left backs at the time - Bassey, who arrived as a near-freebie due to their Covid squad cuts, and Johnly Yfeko, who we hoped might become another Bassey but never reached anywhere near that level.
It all reinforces the same problem: we keep selling our top talent early and replacing them with weaker options, then act surprised when we fall short year after year while Celtic rake in trophies and huge fees. When Gerrard delivered the unbeaten title, the core of the team stayed together for two or three years and only the weak spots were fine-tuned. Yes, it cost more, but success costs money. Higher wages were affordable because many arrived cheap or for nothing - players like Hagi, Kent and Goldson were the exceptions, not the rule.
Rangers' Past Shows What's Required
Go back to the 1980s and 90s and this was never a problem. Rangers were one of the most feared teams in Europe because we kept our best players for multiple seasons and spent real money consistently £60-70 million a year, on par with top clubs like AC Milan and Juventus at the time. And we regularly beat the best in England, including sides like Manchester United and Chelsea.
That's the difference. Serious investment, stability and ambition built a European powerhouse. Today, we can't expect to reach those heights while cutting corners, cashing in early and lowering the overall quality of the squad.
Discuss rumours and transfers on our Manchester United rumours web page
Discuss rumours and transfers on our Chelsea rumours web page
Discuss rumours and transfers on our Rangers rumours web page
Discuss rumours and transfers on our Celtic rumours web page
