Rangers confirmed the departure of Dan Purdy, the club’s technical director, in a statement on Friday afternoon. Purdy will continue to work alongside the leadership at Ibrox in the coming months, with the club thanking him in a short statement ‘for his commitment and contribution during his time at Rangers’.
The news comes just over a week after the closure of the summer transfer window, which saw Rangers recruit 14 players into Derek McInnes’ squad. There was another high turnover overall, with the likes of James Tavernier, Jack Butland and Thelo Aasgaard among the biggest names to leave Ibrox.
Here, the Rangers Review assesses what Purdy’s decision to step away from the club means moving forward and outlines the current recruitment process in place.
Who is Dan Purdy and what is this development?
It was not Andrew Cavenagh’s intention to make a change to the structure at this juncture; this was not a case comparable to the sacking of Stewart and Thelwell and the significant subsequent restructure, far from it. But it is understood Purdy felt it was the right time for him to move on after two summer windows that saw 28 players arrive at Ibrox.
Despite murmurings of discontent within sections of the support, this was not a decision taken to quieten any external noise. It is understood that Purdy has not stepped down to accept another position and will remain a point of contact in the coming months to aid the transition towards the new structure and assist with squad planning.
Purdy made the move to Glasgow 15 months ago following the arrival of Kevin Thelwell as sporting director. That appointment was designed to usher in a new era for Rangers after Cavenagh and his consortium, which includes investment from 49ers Enterprises, purchased a majority stake in the club last May. It proved to be a false dawn, however.
The decision to appoint Russell Martin as head coach significantly backfired on Rangers and both Thelwell and Patrick Stewart, the former chief executive officer, paid the price. They were dismissed by Cavenagh just weeks after the club itself moved on from Martin.
Cavenagh outlined at that time why Rangers would not directly replace Thelwell as sporting director, with the club moving towards a more collaborative approach in their transfer dealings and squad building. That approach, described by one source to the Rangers Review as more collegiate, sought to redress and widen the decision-making balance that was felt to have become too narrow in the summer of 2025.
As outlined by the Rangers Review in March following the appointment of Jim Gillespie as CEO, Cavenagh assumed a more hands-on role at Ibrox following the departures of Thelwell and Stewart. Purdy was part of that football leadership group alongside the chairman, working closely with Stig Inge Bjørnebye, who was appointed performance director in June following a stint as a consultant, primarily overseeing the club’s academy and game model planning. He also worked alongside Paraag Marathe and Gretar Steinsson of the 49ers, as well as director and former chairman Fraser Thornton.
Purdy was perhaps unfairly seen as "Thelwell’s man" in the eyes of some supporters given the pair's previous working relationship at Everton, but the fact his role at Ibrox extended beyond the former sporting director’s jurisdiction is at odds with that belief. The Englishman served as head of recruitment at Goodison Park for two-and-a-half years after previously holding positions in the analysis and scouting departments at the Premier League club.
What was his role at Rangers?
There has been a misconception among sections of the support that Purdy was responsible for all recruitment decisions during his time in Glasgow. As previously outlined by the Rangers Review, that was not the case and not the way in which Rangers have operated. His title of technical director in the wider executive structure, compared to Thelwell, outlines that.
Indeed, speaking at a shareholder meeting last month, Cavenagh warned against one individual, or a small number of individuals, being targeted for the perceived successes or failures in the transfer market. Purdy had a voice in the recruitment process alongside Cavenagh, the figures outlined above and, ultimately, McInnes.
Rangers signed more players than they had initially intended to as circumstances and opportunities presented themselves in the market. The Rangers Review understands an initial target of 10 signings rose to 14 over the course of the window.
To use an analogy, it was the wider committee structure that determined the recipe Rangers wanted to follow. As technical director, Purdy was tasked with identifying the ingredients. Robbie Thelwell’s name has become a lightning rod for criticism among some supporters. While some have questioned whether "head of recruitment" accurately reflects his work, the title does not fully convey the nature of his responsibilities and he has no decision-making autonomy. Thelwell works in the technical scouting team and isn't close to an architect of transfers.
After another summer of significant work on the squad, it is not expected that the January transfer window will be a period of heavy investment and work will commence on determining how best to replace Purdy.
Purdy did not "sign players", but he did identify them, working within the football and financial frameworks provided by the wider leadership team and leading the technical analysis department. There was an intentional move away from the narrow power structures that existed under Thelwell and Stewart, reflected by Rangers retaining a technical director rather than appointing another sporting director with broad departmental and recruitment oversight.
That process was underpinned by the Rangers game model, which sources suggest defines how the club wants to play in both domestic and European competition and develop over time, and has become an increased focus following the failed Martin era.
Purdy, as technical director, was tasked with compiling lists of potential recruits for each position. No club will ever have a perfect strike rate in the transfer market and Rangers have made mistakes over the last two summer windows. There are, however, players who can contribute to a successful side this season and retain value on the books going forward.
Manny Fernandez, Djeidi Gassama and Tuur Rommens are examples from last season, while the likes of Olwethu Makhanya, Minsu Kim, Vanja Dragojevic and Kosta Nedeljkovic, for whom Rangers hold an option to buy from Aston Villa, have the potential to become significant assets.
How does recruitment work at Ibrox?
As aforementioned, when speaking at the club’s recent shareholder meeting, Cavenagh focused heavily on recruitment and what he considered to be misconceptions around the process.
Using the analogy of a supermarket, the US-based chairman stressed that recruitment teams cannot simply walk into the "right-wing aisle" and pick two players they like. In the case of this summer, for example, some of the most impactful players only became available towards the latter stages of the window.
Take Rangers’ protracted attempt to sign Ryan Naderi in January. The club became caught up in a chain of events elsewhere in the market that had a direct knock-on effect on their own pursuit.
The football committee in place at Ibrox is not viewed internally as comparable to the football board that operated under James Bisgrove, where decisions were taken via a formal voting structure.
The Rangers Review understands that, while there is no formal vote, every member of the leadership group is expected to go on record when the club is weighing up a signing. It is understood there were a couple of examples this summer of targets that did not receive unanimous backing, but the intention is for all signings to be exposed to wider scrutiny and stress-testing than in the summer of 2025.
That was apparent in McInnes’ public comments throughout the transfer window. While McInnes carries the title of manager, CEO Jim Gillespie explained upon his appointment that this was largely a nod to the history of the role. There has been no material change to the function of the position when compared with the head coach role previously held by Röhl.
In modern football, a manager is rarely handed complete control over squad-building because circumstances can change quickly. Michael Beale’s departure shortly after the summer of 2023 that he orchestrated, is one such example.
Club sources believe that, to build a successful Rangers side, a consistent football philosophy must remain in place regardless of managerial changes, achieved through their football committee instead of only a sporting director and CEO. There will naturally be adaptation and evolution between managers. Röhl’s 4-2-2-2 compared to McInnes’ preferred 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-2 shapes is an obvious example.
Indeed, there is a wider belief in football that the role of a sporting director has grown so much that the next evolution at an executive level is the building out of such a role across recruitment, squad planning and other departments. Kevin Thelwell had 13 football departments reporting into him while trying to oversee a summer rebuild in three months last season - that was viewed as far from ideal and was one fact that informed a wider executive approach.
The recruitment process begins with decision-makers identifying needs in relation to the game model, which could be defined as: how should a club play based on their circumstance, culture and environment? That informs the squad profile and, ultimately, the type of players required to execute it.
Following discussion and input from the manager, those profiles are passed to the recruitment staff, who are constantly monitoring a broad range of players before presenting options to senior decision-makers.
Olwethu Makhanya is one such example from the summer window. Rangers first identified a requirement for a centre-back capable of defending aggressively in a high line, while also being comfortable in possession, preferably on the left side, with McInnes keen to utilise Fernandez from the right. Makhanya matched that profile and was eventually signed from Philadelphia Union for £3 million.
The way Rangers’ attacking recruitment evolved following Youssef Chermiti’s ACL injury is similarly instructive. Kevin Kelsy, as previously reported, had originally been monitored as part of contingency planning in the event of Chermiti leaving the club. Given his different attributes - he is a physical striker but doesn’t possess the running capacity of Chermiti and thus, like Shankland, needs dynamic runners like Minsu Kim around him - Rangers looked closely at alternatives capable of offering different qualities in the final third.
The role of Purdy, and the technical department he led, was to identify talent and present suitable options within a much wider decision-making framework. With a background in analysis and technical scouting, Purdy’s work fed into the broader structure alongside Cavenagh, Marathe, Steinsson, Bjørnebye, Gillespie and McInnes.
Will Purdy be replaced as technical director?
The Rangers Review understands that the prospects of a direct technical director replacement remain likely, but are not guaranteed.
There is now an opportunity to reshape elements of the structure and processes in place after years of significant turnover. Rangers have recorded 55 arrivals and departures across the last two summer windows alone.
While efforts were made to keep Purdy at the club, indicating a desire to retain the broad structure currently in place, there is also an opportunity to assess whether any adjustments should be made.
January is not expected to be a particularly busy month for Rangers, not least because there is no European football and because of the scale of business conducted this summer. Rangers also hold purchase options on several loan signings; James Penrice, Badredine Bouanani, Ben Godfrey and Kosta Nedeljkovic.
It is, of course, far easier to build strategically than to undertake wholesale squad reconstruction every summer.
The Ibrox club had to be active once again this year, recording 28 arrivals and departures compared to 27 the season before. They entered the summer with only four defenders on the books. While the 2025 window produced some success stories, with Youssef Chermiti and Manny Fernandez expected to generate significant value, it did not establish the long-term spine the club desired. Only four of the 14 players brought to Ibrox last summer remain in the current squad.
Rangers may not have emerged from this transfer window having fulfilled every objective. They could not, for example, have anticipated Chermiti suffering a serious ACL injury. The Premier League provides numerous examples of clubs exiting transfer windows with outstanding issues. Liverpool remain light on naturally left-footed defenders, Arsenal did not secure a marquee left winger, while Manchester United still have concerns at left-back.
However, having approached this rebuild post the calamities of this time last year with a clear plan, there is a belief internally that the foundations have now been laid within the squad.
Read more:
- Former Rangers player Stevie Smith returns to academy coaching role
- The double-edged sword that explains Rangers' drop-off and winner vs St Mirren
- The one transfer lesson that Rangers need to learn and not repeat next summer
The average age of the cohort assembled has been reduced to around 25 and players such as Ivor Pandur (26), Makhanya (22), Kelsy (22), Minsu Kim (20) and Dan Neil (24) should continue to develop in the positions they were signed to occupy. The importance of adding the right balance of experience alongside that younger core was a topic Cavenagh discussed at length towards the end of last season.
Cavenagh said at the start of summer that “the best managers often have the best squads” - a simple but poignant statement. There has been significant change and adaptation to the recruitment process since last summer because of its importance. For Rangers, they will now be faced with whether the work carried out and the structure adhered to over the summer have the desired effects, now and moving forwards.
Share