The main notion is that Ianis Hagi only actually played little over a month for Rangers. He got a tonne of football in for us during that time, but he actually only made 12 appearances in those month and a bit weeks, and three of those appearances were as sub. Only twice did he last 90 minutes, and he totalled 701 minutes of a potential 1080. It’s not bad, but it’s stringent to remember the Romanian international literally only played between late January and early March.
Is this a negative? Depends which way you look at it. Either you can spin it positively and say he did enough in 701 minutes to earn a long-term deal, or you could say he’s not proven anything in so little time and the signing is a gamble.
It’s Steven Gerrard’s fourth signing to be £3M or more, following Connor Goldson, Felip Helander and Ryan Kent, and fan opinion has generally been mostly positive about bringing in Hagi for this amount.
But let’s not use memory to play tricks on us – he didn’t play for three months and earn a deal based on long-term performances, he played just one and while mostly impressive, there can be debate about whether that’s enough or not.
Rangers decided it was and brought him in.
And the rest is history.