The REAL Reason Rangers Will Not Sack Russell Martin
1. The Board’s Long‑Term Buy‑In & Strategic Vision
From day one, when Martin was appointed in June on a three‑year contract, the Rangers board led by Andrew Cavenagh and 49ers Enterprises made clear they were investing not just in short‑term results, but in a rebuild. (Reuters)
These kinds of projects take time — in recruitment, cohesion, coaching philosophy, even culture. The board seems to believe that “giving him time” is essential, even if that means absorbing early pain. Firing Martin too early compromises whatever longer‑term shape they believe the club must take. The idea is: better to work through the turbulence than to constantly reset leadership.
2. Contractual & Financial Implications
Sacking a manager isn’t simply a matter of announcing a dismissal; it comes with a cost. Martin’s three‑year deal almost certainly includes clauses for severance, and letting him go prematurely likely involves paying out a large portion (or all) of that contract. Then there’s the cost of replacing him — not just the salary, but compensation for his back‑room staff, recruitment, legal, etc. (Football Transfers)
Given Rangers’ current financial landscape and pressure (from fans, media, European failures, etc.), spending heavily just to change the man in charge may seem poor value — especially if there’s no guarantee the next appointment works better.
3. Lack of Attractive Alternatives
Keith Wyness (former Aberdeen CEO) has made this point explicitly: if Martin is sacked quickly, Rangers may struggle to attract a high‑profile, top‑tier manager. Why? Because the perception becomes: “This club is unstable, impatient, and hard to succeed in.” (GlasgowWorld)
Managers look not just at salary, but support, expectations, time, infrastructure. If a manager sees that others are being sacked with alarming speed for poor results, that role looks much riskier. So Rangers may believe they have more leverage by affirming “we back our managers” even through rough patches — which helps sell the role to good candidates in future, and helps with internal stability.
4. Boardroom Loyalty & Internal Stability
There’s also a loyalty factor. Key figures like the CEO (Patrick Stewart), the Sporting Director (Kevin Thelwell), and others seem to be backing Martin publicly. (The Scottish Sun)
Having already signed off on Martin’s hiring, backs this appointment, and invested in transfers, they find it politically costly to reverse course too early. If they fire him after only a few months, it suggests they mis‑judged, which undermines credibility and could shake confidence in the leadership more broadly.
5. Fan Pressure Cuts Both Ways: A Double‑Edged Sword
Fan unrest is real and loud: chants, protests, criticism after heavy defeats (especially the 9‑1 aggregate loss to Club Brugge) and a rock‑bottom start domestically. (Sky Sports)
But moving too quickly in response to fan pressure has risks. If you act purely under pressure (especially early in a project), you can be reactive rather than proactive. You might hire someone that calms fans temporarily but doesn’t address deeper issues (squad quality, structure, culture). Rangers look like they prefer absorbing short‑term pain while hoping incremental improvements can restore trust — including the recent win over Hibs in the League Cup. (Ibrox News)
6. Reputational Risk & Precedent
Sacking another manager too quickly risks setting a precedent: where every rough start triggers a “manager panic.” That can harm the club’s reputation in the market (players, agents, managers) and its internal morale (coaching staff, players who signed believing in Martin). It signals instability.
Clubs that become known for high turnover often struggle to build continuity. Rangers clearly don’t want to re‑enter that cycle, especially under new ownership which needs consistency to implement its vision.
So: What’s the Trade‑Off?
Rangers are making a bet: that despite terrible results, humiliating losses, and growing fan anger, Martin can still deliver in time. The trade‑off is risk vs reward:
- Risk: continuing poor form, further erosion of fan trust, larger drop in league or European revenue, possibly making recovery much harder later.
- Reward: if Martin rights the ship, Rangers can enjoy stability, playstyle identity, and possibly long‑term gains (fiscal, performance, global standing).
Given all this, the board’s calculation seems to be that sacking Martin now is more likely to damage the club than maintaining him for now, even with all the risk.
If you like, I can also map out what would force the board to sack him — the tipping point conditions. Do you want me to sketch those too?
