Page 1 of 2
Boyd gets gift of a goal for his tally
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 6:28 am
http://sport.scotsman.com/football/Boyd ... 4754469.jp
Even though he never touched the ball. I'm keeping it as an o.g.
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 9:20 am
Sadly, Boyd will be credited with the goal in all future statistics. This is McCOISTISM @ its best - Rangers forward lurking in the same postcode gets credit.
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 9:33 am
We could change the song to 'Boyd, Boyd, Krissie, Krissie Boyd, he goes near the ball, he gets a goal, Krissie, Krissie Boyd.'
To be fair, I think it was the mere presence of Boyd that caused the Hearts player to have a brainstorm and, er, boot the ball into his own net.
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:54 am
Not the first time. When every paper, radio station and tv channel were banging on about Boyd's 150th career goal they were including one scored by Kevin McGowne at Easter Road on January 19th 2002. On that occasion Boyd wasn't even particularly near the goal, it was just a newspaper error which has been repeated for almost seven years.
Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:52 pm
This kind of sums up your attitude to big Boydy
Re: Boyd gets gift of a goal for his tally
Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:10 am
According to Radio Scotland on Saturday, the SPL have changed their minds and (correctly) given it as an OG.
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:28 am
Read this morning that Kilmarnock will get 20% of any fee Rangers receive from Birmingham City for Kris Boyd - 'but I don't want to g-mnnnf, aaargh, let me go, you can't do th-[Boyd is bundled into a car boot]'. Could be quite a windfall for the Rugby Park club and should definitely put paid to any whingeing from Killie fans that they were ripped off by Rangers the first time around.
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:33 am
lbb wrote: Could be quite a windfall for the Rugby Park club and should definitely put paid to any whingeing from Killie fans that they were ripped off by Rangers the first time around.
Oh aye, sure. Let me see. Boyd goes for £4M. Killie pick up 15% (yes I know wee Chico says 20% but he has been known to make the occasional mistake) of the fee ABOVE 400K. That's 540K. Add on the original 400K fee and that makes 940K in total. Meanwhile Rangers make just over £3M net.
That seems fair enough - if Kris Boyd is now three times better than he was at Rugby Park. Say, for example, he was now banging them in regularly in Europe and putting away chances against Celtic that he snaps up against lesser opposition.
I'd imagine Rangers will insert a sell-on clause of their own and if for any reason Boyd doesn't hack it in England or "can't settle" then no doubt he'll be back up the road in double-quick time a la Bazza for a cut-price fee with the Gers staying over £2M to the good for an effective loan spell.
Still, good luck to him. I hope he does make the move. Never sad to see the back of a player who scores against Killie as much as Boyd does. Now, when is Nakamura off?
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:01 pm
My tongue was slightly in cheek in the original post but, when you think about it, Kilmarnock did well to get £400,000 and 20% sell-on fee on a player who was available for free six months down the line. Good bit of business for Kilmarnock or a bad bit of business by Rangers - depending upon how you look at it.
This present deal to Birmingham is the right deal at the wrong time for Rangers. Alarming how quickly players become 'surplus to requirements' at Ibrox.
From the official site -
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:37 pm
lbb wrote:My tongue was slightly in cheek in the original post but, when you think about it, Kilmarnock did well to get £400,000 and 20% sell-on fee on a player who was available for free six months down the line. Good bit of business for Kilmarnock or a bad bit of business by Rangers - depending upon how you look at it.
It isn't 20%, it's 15% and that isn't a percentage of the total fee but of the amount in excess of the original transfer. That's how the cited 800K (20% of £4M) comes down to 540K (15% of £3.6M).
I am also of the view that the clause was only accepted by Rangers because they thought it would never come into effect.
As for 'free six months down the line' then as a fully paid-up member of the "boyhood heroes" "only club I ever want to play for" school, yes, Rangers could indeed have had Boyd for free.
If they hadn't been so desperate to sign him that the deal was all done and dusted even before the transfer window opened that is. Rangers were 5th in the league, remember.
Boyd rejected a new Kilmarnock contract several times (unlike Naismith and hence the massive difference in valuations) even though the club was prepared to agree to guarantees of a transfer in it.
At the start of 2005-06 Kilmarnock agreed terms with Cardiff City for Boyd for a fee in excess of what Rangers eventually paid for him and which was also an upfront payment unlike the Ibrox instalments plan. The player went down to Cardiff, issued a statement praising the Welsh club and even passed a medical. Also there at the same time was Derek Riordan.
All was proceeding according to plan when Boyd's mobile rang. Next thing the deal was off. Both players returned to Scotland and both made moves to the OF in the next transfer window.
Anyway, less than £1M total for a player nurtured for the best part of a decade compared to £3M for a guy in and out of the first team (before his current run he hadn't started more than eight league games in succession since Eck left) for three years?
Boyd joins the long list of bargains the OF have plundered from other clubs for over a century.
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:06 pm
My first recollection of this Glasgow Giants` habit was Queen`s very promising centre half of the mid 50s, John Valentine. He was a big "raw boned" guy with potential but Rangers stuck him in @ no.5 for the opening of 1957-58 as a straight replacement for the retired George Young. He played about half a dozen games before the League Cup Final where, totally exposed by his disappearing, experienced collegues, Celtic hit 7 & big John never played for them again. Finlay "Junior" McGilvary the 3rd Lanark full back in the early 60s was another case in point. He was a reasonable player who happened to have a couple of very effective games against Rangers who quickly bought him for the then huge fee of £20,000 clearly to prevent him doing it again because, inevitably, he never made a single 1st team appearance. I seem to recall Beck & McLean of St.Mirren suffering similar fates although both DID get on the park a few times.
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:11 pm
Reading that again, I think McGilvary`s fee was "only" £10,000. Rangers, of course, picked up Valentine for nothing, he being an amateur. They also, according to Bob Crampsey, ruined the career of Andy McEwan a few years before Valentine. I think John mcGregor was the last ex Queen`s Parker to moved to Ibrox (via Liverpool) & make his mark. There have been a few others since who`ve shifted from Mount Florida to Govan without disturbing the scorer - Derek Carcary I think being the most recent.
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:11 pm
£1m sounds about right for a player who never quite proved himself against the better sides at Rangers. Even this season, half of his 20 league goals have came against just two clubs - Hamilton Accies and Inverness Caley Thistle. For all his goals record, you could never quite put your finger on why you didn't trust him in the bigger games and successive managers at club and international level have held that view.
Rangers have won a watch if they can get the figure quoted for him. It's good to see McLeish wasting someone else's money for a change.
You may well gripe about the circumstances of Boyd's move to Ibrox but he was entitled to hold out for his own career and Rangers were entitled to get the fee most appropriate for them. It's Kilmarnock's misfortune that Alex McLeish wasn't at Birmingham at the time. Put it this way, I think the collective fee Kilmarnock will receive (fingers crossed) from Rangers for Boyd of around £1m is a much closer reflection of his worth than Birmingham's valuation - though don't go whispering to that any Birmingham directors.
Kilmarnock fans will no doubt continue to complain but they were never going to receive a £3m+ offer for the player - Cardiff's valuation, which they accepted, was a tenth of Birmingham's present valuation. They may not like it but I think Kilmarnock did the best deal they could. Kilmarnock were happy to accept £300,000 in 2005 for Boyd and if they eventually receive £1,000,000 in 2009 for Boyd then it's difficult to understand the seething sense of injustice at Rugby Park.
For Rangers, it's a good deal in the long-term but the timing is bizarre.
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:22 pm
LEATHERSTOCKING wrote:My first recollection of this Glasgow Giants` habit was Queen`s very promising centre half of the mid 50s, John Valentine. He was a big "raw boned" guy with potential but Rangers stuck him in @ no.5 for the opening of 1957-58 as a straight replacement for the retired George Young. He played about half a dozen games before the League Cup Final where, totally exposed by his disappearing, experienced collegues, Celtic hit 7 & big John never played for them again.
As I've said before, if Rangers lose 7-1 to Celtic then someone is going to have their arse skelped. May as well be the new guy.
I notice you forget the success stories from the Spiders to Ibrox, Leatherstocking. Ian McColl, Alan Morton, Max Murray, Sammy Cox - three of these four have made it into the Rangers Hall of Fame.
Is it just more satisfying to concentrate on the ones who didn't make it?
Re Carcary. I don't see the young lads much since they began playing at Milngavie but I know that youth regulars thought his physical development, or lack of, held him back. Take from that what you will.
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 3:47 pm
I accept everything you say about who Boyd scores his goals against. That's why he isn't three times better than he was at Rugby Park, he's scoring against exactly the same sides as he always did.
Nor do I have any gripes about a player pursuing what they think is the best path for them. But underhand approaches to players under contract is another matter entirely. Even the dogs in the street knew he was on his way to Ibrox long before he was legally allowed to speak to Rangers.
The Cardiff offer was substantially more than the figure you mention. As was the one from Sheffield Wednesday which was also accepted by the club shortly afterwards. And there is no reason to believe a similar sell-on clause would not have been included in either case.
As to whether the extra cash Killie will receive from any transfer from Rangers is worth more than if the club had held him to his contract and gone to a tribunal, well, that's debatable. But I'd rather he'd gone south three years ago. Ninety goals and a £3M profit leaves me in no doubt as to who made the most out of this transaction.