A claim has been doing the rounds on social media and in fan circles this week: Struan Marshall — the well-known agent long associated with Steven Gerrard — has “revealed” that Rangers must accept a specific clause before they can appoint Gerrard as manager again. The line spread fast because of the emotional freight attached to any conversation about Gerrard and Ibrox: he’s still the man who delivered Rangers’ first title in a decade (2020–21), and supporters immediately imagine the scenes that would follow a reunion.
Before we unpick what the alleged clause might be and why it matters, one vital piece of housekeeping: there is at present no authoritative, widely-published record of Struan Marshall publicly releasing a verbatim clause text that Rangers must accept. News outlets are reporting Gerrard’s openness to a return and heavy interest from the club after Russell Martin left, and Struan Marshall’s name commonly appears in past reporting as Gerrard’s representative — but I could not find a primary source (a direct interview or an official statement from Marshall) that sets out a specific contractual clause the club must accept. See, for context, reporting that Gerrard is “in the frame” following Martin’s sacking, and the recent interview coverage where Gerrard discussed his conditions for returning to management.
That caveat aside, the rumour is a perfect doorway into analysis: who is Struan Marshall; what kinds of clauses do high-profile managers and their agents typically insist on; why would Rangers (or any club) be asked to accept such a clause; and what would the practical and political fallout be if Gerrard were rehired on those terms?
Who is Struan Marshall — and why does his word carry weight?
Struan (or Struan) Marshall has been visible around Gerrard for years and has featured in coverage of Gerrard’s major career decisions historically. He is recognised as one of the agent figures who has represented Gerrard through big contractual moments in the past. In short: when Marshall speaks publicly, football boards and supporters tend to listen because the man has been present at big decisions before. Historical reporting shows Marshall has acted as Gerrard’s agent in high-profile moments.
But presence and reputation are not the same as a contractual reveal. Agents often float “conditions” to test appetite or to press a negotiating position — and that’s the most likely explanation if Marshall has been the source of the rumour: signalling, not a legally binding publication of a clause.
What kinds of clauses might an agent demand for a manager like Gerrard?
If an agent says “the club must accept a clause,” the policy options being referenced most commonly in modern managerial negotiations fall into several buckets:
- Backroom-staff and recruitment control. A manager with Gerrard’s profile may insist on having the right to appoint (or veto) key coaching staff, sporting director input, or the head of recruitment. This ensures he brings people he trusts and that the club doesn’t undermine him by installing a backroom team that works to a different philosophy.
- Transfer-control or budget guarantees. Clauses that guarantee a minimum transfer budget, or give the manager final say on signings and departures in the first transfer windows, are frequent in modern deals — especially when the incoming manager is being asked to deliver quickly.
- Contract length and compensation structure. A clause could set the contract length (e.g., a minimum two- or three-year term), salary, or significant severance terms (a big pay-off if he’s sacked within a certain period). These protect the manager economically and often reflect the risk the manager takes on.
- Performance and autonomy clauses. Sometimes managers insist on clauses that define the club’s obligations (e.g., to back certain targets, or to provide particular resources such as analytics, scouting etc.), or clauses that limit board interference in day-to-day football matters.
- Release or buy-out conditions. A club could be asked to accept a clause giving the manager a release condition (how another club could buy him out) or a right to leave for a “bigger” job with a reduced penalty — though more common for players, such terms have appeared in manager contracts too.
- Public-relations and image controls. Less common but increasingly relevant: clauses governing how and when the manager participates in commercial/promotional work or how the club handles media access, particularly if the manager is a major global figure.
Any of these could be described loosely in media as “the clause Marshall wants Rangers to accept.” Without the primary document, it’s impossible to say which — if any — is being referenced. But the categories above are the real world of managerial bargaining chips.
Why would Struan Marshall (or Gerrard) demand such a clause?
From an agent’s point of view, clauses protect the manager’s ability to perform and reduce the risk of failure through lack of support. Steven Gerrard’s managerial CV after his first Rangers spell has been mixed: success at Ibrox followed by tougher spells (Aston Villa, Al-Ettifaq in Saudi Arabia). Any reasonable manager would want contractual safeguards that reduce the chance of an early collapse caused by factors outside their control — weak recruitment, board interference, or insufficient resources. Gerrard, now an established figure with commercial and family considerations, may also want flexibility around location and commitments.
Agents also use public “clauses” as negotiation levers. If Marshall “revealed” a clause in public, that could be tactical: shaping public opinion, pushing Rangers’ board to accept certain language, or softening up the opposition from supporters or the press.
What does the Rangers context make likely (and why this is sensitive)?
Rangers, like many big clubs, sits at the intersection of sporting ambition and fan politics. Recent reporting shows Rangers had managerial turmoil (Russell Martin reportedly sacked) and that Gerrard is back in the conversation as a crowd-pleasing option. A return would be emotionally charged for supporters — many of whom revere Gerrard for his title-winning work — and politically delicate for the board and sporting director.
Accepting a manager who demands strong contractual autonomy (for instance, full control over transfers or long severance protections) would reassure one camp (fans wanting Gerrard’s charisma and status) but alarm another (board members and shareholders worried about governance, long-term financial exposure and precedent). If Marshall’s “clause” is indeed substantial, Rangers would need to balance the short-term boost vs long-term structural implications.
The legal/practical hurdles in accepting a high-profile manager clause
If the clause is real and significant, Rangers would have to weigh several practical problems:
• Precedent: Agreeing to extensive autonomy or financial protection would set a precedent that other candidates (or existing staff) might cite.
• Fit with existing structure: Rangers recently underwent ownership or stakeholder changes (reports of consortium activity earlier this year), and hiring terms that conflict with the new governance model would be problematic.
• Public scrutiny: Anything that looks like giving a manager a blank cheque invites scrutiny from supporters and media — and in Scottish football, supporters’ views carry weight.
• Contractual enforceability: Some “clauses” are hard to enforce (e.g., guaranteeing a transfer budget in perpetuity), or simply unrealistic to write into binding legal documents without triggering conflicts with broader corporate governance.
What the public reaction would likely be — supporters, board, players
Fans: many would instantly embrace Gerrard’s return, particularly if he can bring back the identity and intensity associated with his previous tenure. But there will be sceptics who point to his post-Ibrox record and to the danger of creating a managerial “saviour” dynamic.
Board and owners: they will want terms that preserve the club’s governance, avoid a takeover of sporting decisions by a single manager, and protect finances. Any clause perceived to limit the board’s control will invite negotiation or rejection.
Players: senior players typically welcome clarity — knowing who picks them and the manager’s authority can be stabilising. But players could be unsettled if the manager’s demands signal a major tactical or personnel overhaul.
Bottom line: treat the headline with caution — then prepare for consequences
The story that “Struan Marshall revealed the clause that Rangers must accept” is the sort of headline that fans love — dramatic and decisive. But at the moment, there’s no public, verified text of such a clause from Marshall for journalists and analysts to examine. What is verifiable is that Gerrard is very much back in the conversation after managerial turbulence at Rangers, and that Gerrard has publicly indicated he would only return under the right project and support.
If Marshall has publicly floated a clause, it’s as much a negotiating tactic as a finished legal demand. If Rangers seriously consider reappointing Gerrard, expect intense, rapid negotiations behind closed doors about the scope of his autonomy, resources he will get, contract length/severance, and who he wants in his backroom staff. Those details will determine whether a reunion is a honeymoon or a short-term spectacle.
What to watch next
- Official statements from Rangers — clubs often issue short statements about managerial contacts. Any mention of terms or conditions would be significant.
- Direct quotes from Struan/Struan Marshall — a primary interview or a statement would move the report from rumour to fact. (No such primary source was found at time of writing.)
- Gerrard interviews — Gerrard’s recent media appearances (e.g., podcasts referenced by outlets) are where he has discussed what he would require to return. Those comments are a better gauge of his priorities than second-hand reports.
- Who the board consults — sporting director statements — how Rangers’ hierarchy frame the negotiation will signal whether they’re prepared to accept a manager with unusually strong contractual protections.
Final thought
Rumours about “clauses” make for electrifying headlines because they compress complex negotiations into a single, dramatic demand. In the real world, manager contracts are a bundle of feasible, negotiable components — budgets, staff appointments, severance terms and working autonomy among them. Until we see a primary source (a Marshall statement, a contract draft, or an official Rangers confirmation), treat the “Struan Marshall revealed the clause” claim as a negotiating rumour worthy of serious attention, but not as a finished legal fact.
