Those Joe Worrall rumours just won’t go away….

As an earlier piece discussed, defender Joe Worrall divides Rangers supporters significantly, with, in all fairness, a majority veering towards opposition to his selection. We earlier mentioned his stunning alleged value, plus referred to his stats from last year which showed just how impressive his numbers actually are when put under the microscope, but recently unsubstantiated rumours which have persisted for a number of weeks have put a different spin on his frequent selection.

Regardless of his competence one way or the other, regardless of his supposed market value, there are a number of ‘rumours’ claimed about his repeated selection:

1: There is a simple clause in his contract that stipulates his importance in playing – that he simply must play if fit and available, in echoes of allegations about Lee McCulloch back in the day.

2: Rangers cannot afford to not play him as to send him back to Forest would lose Rangers money amidst claims the only way the City Ground side were able to retrieve him in January was by paying a fee for his return.

We have issues with both of these claims, frankly;

First of all, a manager would have to be weak minded and beyond desperate for a particular player rather than a position to accept a clause where his team was being picked for him by contractual obligations. There were a tonne of other defenders Gerrard could have got – why go for one who was under contractual stipulation to appear?

Secondly, this idea that Forest would have to pay for their own player back is beyond ridiculous – they’re the ones loaning him out, they own him – he’s a Forest supporter and he’d jump at the chance to be first pick for Martin O’Neill’s team. Why on earth would they agree to pay a fee to take him back, as should be their right?!

This is not to say these rumours are indeed piffle – we can’t deny it any more than anyone else because, unlike Forest, Rangers and Worrall’s agent, we’ve not looked at his contract.

But we will say that if there is truth in either of them, then both Rangers and Forest, depending on which one is real, have shown astonishing idiocy in agreeing such a deal – Rangers for accepting a right-to-play clause, and Forest for agreeing to pay for their own property back.

But surely it’s all nonsense and Gerrard really does just rate the boy?

Surely?