Exclusive: Gers Start Contract Talks With Boyd

[thebooler 4,509]

No, Kevin Kyle is absolutely brutal!

Agree - they call him KIng Kev doon this way - whit a fookin joke!

Failed everywhere he's been.

Eh?

It was you who brought his name into the frame.

I asked because i live in the Kilmarnock area and know a lot of Kilmarnock Fans who are worried we might try for him in January.

IMO I dont think theres a hope in hell we will try for him, even though he wouldn't cost much.

I personally think he's just a breenger.

Sorry if you read my post in any other way.

[StuartM6 279]

Why is Lafferty on so much? Plus a 3million pound transfer fee......

You'll struggle to sign a player for £3million and not give him reasonably big wages.

Why is Boyd branded shite then?

Has lafferty warented the 3mil we payed or even the 20k in wages or whatever hes on. Surely he shud get the punt first as he is less productive and burning more of a wage bill.

The reason Boyd will leave is cos smith doesnt like him.

[StuartM6 279]

I want him to sign a contract and then sell him. Rather Lafferty and Miller together. Wouldnt give defenders a minute peace. Boyd.... he jumps up, falls over and then takes 5 minutes to get on his feet again. The goals are nice but given the right service then Laferty can get a good few i would say

Lafferty aint a proven goalscorer

Exactly. Lafferty isnt a safe bet, and u know millers tendancies.

[RangersJamie52 0]

Id say at most Lafferty could get 10 a season, no too bad, however we have a 20 goal a season player in Boydy.

He has been very unfairly treated at Rangers i feel, not just with the contract situation but when he plays well in a league game without scoring he gets slated. Most people seem to say he is shite apart from his goals. That is again unfair as without goals, you dont win games.

[BlueSuedeSambas 54,549]

No, Kevin Kyle is absolutely brutal!

Agree - they call him KIng Kev doon this way - whit a fookin joke!

Failed everywhere he's been.

Eh?

It was you who brought his name into the frame.

I asked because i live in the Kilmarnock area and know a lot of Kilmarnock Fans who are worried we might try for him in January.

IMO I dont think theres a hope in hell we will try for him, even though he wouldn't cost much.

I personally think he's just a breenger.

Sorry if you read my post in any other way.

Ah it makes sense now

Personally I don't think we would sign Kyle.

If we are talking about looking for a striker in the SPL (which I doubt we are) then I think Lee Miller would be the most obvious choice, especially when you consider his contract situation.

I'd like us to go and sign a powerful centre forward from outwith the SPL.

[joeli 27]

Id say at most Lafferty could get 10 a season, no too bad, however we have a 20 goal a season player in Boydy.

He has been very unfairly treated at Rangers i feel, not just with the contract situation but when he plays well in a league game without scoring he gets slated. Most people seem to say he is shite apart from his goals. That is again unfair as without goals, you dont win games.

Is that 10 games a season? You must wonder if the lad will ever be fit.

[RangersJamie52 0]

Id say at most Lafferty could get 10 a season, no too bad, however we have a 20 goal a season player in Boydy.

He has been very unfairly treated at Rangers i feel, not just with the contract situation but when he plays well in a league game without scoring he gets slated. Most people seem to say he is shite apart from his goals. That is again unfair as without goals, you dont win games.

Is that 10 games a season? You must wonder if the lad will ever be fit.

No a weee bit obv its 10 GOALS mate?

[joeli 27]

Id say at most Lafferty could get 10 a season, no too bad, however we have a 20 goal a season player in Boydy.

He has been very unfairly treated at Rangers i feel, not just with the contract situation but when he plays well in a league game without scoring he gets slated. Most people seem to say he is shite apart from his goals. That is again unfair as without goals, you dont win games.

Is that 10 games a season? You must wonder if the lad will ever be fit.

No a weee bit obv its 10 GOALS mate?

Aye ah know.

[papaguy51 912]

It's funny how people always say 'Walter knows best, he sees them every day', yet the same people don't apply the same logic when he chooses not to offer Boyd an improved deal.

[themuir 7]

The thing is - Football is all about results and SCORING goals to get these.

Boyd a proven goalscorer and poacher. This is pricesless.

We will never have a striker like him for another 10 years.

All this talk about how good lafferty and naismith will be doesnt excite me one bit. Fuck the future - its all about now!!

[ShootSpeedKillLight 0]

The thing is - Football is all about results and SCORING goals to get these.

Boyd a proven goalscorer and poacher. This is pricesless.

We will never have a striker like him for another 10 years.

All this talk about how good lafferty and naismith will be doesnt excite me one bit. Fuck the future - its all about now!!

I could quite happily live with us not having a striker as frustrating to watch as Boyd for ten years. I don't even know where to begin with the 'fuck the future' assertion, and having a poacher like Boyd obviously isn't priceless, as we appear quite willing to let him go. What an odd post.

[papaguy51 912]

The thing is - Football is all about results and SCORING goals to get these.

Boyd a proven goalscorer and poacher. This is pricesless.

We will never have a striker like him for another 10 years.

All this talk about how good lafferty and naismith will be doesnt excite me one bit. Fuck the future - its all about now!!

Absolutely ridiculous post.

[outlaw69uk 123]

The wrecking-ball return of Kyle Lafferty, who replaced Boyd, is a timely one for a team that had missed the Northern Irishman’s pace and physical attributes. Lafferty’s Rangers career can be measured in small progressive steps punctuated by sizeable setbacks. They did not spend in excess of £3m, especially not in this financial climate, for a substitute and the arrival of Jerome Rothen as a bona fide left winger will remove the need for Lafferty to operate as a giraffe-like wide player.

In his absence, Steven Naismith enhanced his reputation as an unconventional centre forward and has the international distinction to back-up his claim. Naismith, out of necessity, was re-assigned to the right side of midfield to offset Rangers’ raft of injuries on Sunday. His creditable performance against Sevilla – where he operated as a willing one-man attacking band – suggests he is also now ahead of Boyd in the queue for big-game exposure.

Kenny Miller’s overdue return to goalscoring form has coincided with a sprightlier appearance. He has taken to Thai massage to alleviate the pain of a long-standing nerve problem and will visit a German specialist during the international break for a long-term solution. On Sunday, he reiterated why he is such a favourite of Smith’s. His combination of pace, power and penetration terrorised Glenn Loovens and showed the kind of devastating player he can become. Even without his goals, Miller’s industry will remain a key feature of Rangers’ Champions League adventures, especially away from home.

Nacho Novo’s status as irrepressible substitute has been unaffected by Rangers’ recent fluctuating fortunes and this low-maintenance employee might be one of the few players to have their contracts renewed in the interests of continuity.

All of which seems destined to render Boyd a bystander for the most meaningful matches of the season, especially away from home. The 26-year-old is arguably one of Rangers’ greatest enigmas but he is also a victim of circumstance at Ibrox. Had his instinctive knack of finding the net been available during the club’s most glamorous eras, his deficiencies would not be highlighted nearly as regularly.

His goal ratio is astonishing considering how infrequently he appears, but during this period of grim mediocrity for Rangers, and Scottish football in general, his weaknesses are highlighted and exposed more often than his strengths are.

Imagine, for example, Boyd in mid-1990s: Laudrup, Gascoigne, Mikhailitchenko and Huistra in support, with Mark Hateley nodding down chance after chance. Walter Smith will happily vouch for the superior skill set of Ally McCoist but who – except, famously, Graeme Souness – focused on the all-time great goalscorer’s link-up play of work ethic when he was banging in goals on a weekly basis?

More recently, Boyd could not have failed to score in Dick Advocaat’s team. Heck, Rod Wallace left Leeds United on a free transfer and reinvented himself as a goal machine in his first two seasons at Ibrox. Boyd would easily have taken the burden off Tore Andre Flo and Michael Mols and been a far more prudent investment than Marcus Gayle or Stephane Guivarc’h.

All this, of course, is hypothetical nonsense but only when highlighting how far Rangers’ overall quality has fallen can Boyd’s singular area of expertise be fully appreciated.

In the here and now, his fitness and sharpness will only worsen with prolonged patches of inactivity and it is doubtful if he still gets the same kick out of scoring against non-hazardous SPL fodder.

His departure, whether in January or the summer, appears inevitable. It would be as much a result of Rangers’ limitations as his own.

Broadfoot's summed that up very nicely there.

Aye, I think he does indeed

[McBoyd 355]

Imagine, for example, Boyd in mid-1990s: Laudrup, Gascoigne, Mikhailitchenko and Huistra in support, with Mark Hateley nodding down chance after chance. Walter Smith will happily vouch for the superior skill set of Ally McCoist but who – except, famously, Graeme Souness – focused on the all-time great goalscorer’s link-up play of work ethic when he was banging in goals on a weekly basis?

More recently, Boyd could not have failed to score in Dick Advocaat’s team. Heck, Rod Wallace left Leeds United on a free transfer and reinvented himself as a goal machine in his first two seasons at Ibrox. Boyd would easily have taken the burden off Tore Andre Flo and Michael Mols and been a far more prudent investment than Marcus Gayle or Stephane Guivarc’h.

All this, of course, is hypothetical nonsense but only when highlighting how far Rangers’ overall quality has fallen can Boyd’s singular area of expertise be fully appreciated.

In the here and now, his fitness and sharpness will only worsen with prolonged patches of inactivity and it is doubtful if he still gets the same kick out of scoring against non-hazardous SPL fodder.

This bit is what i've been saying for ages, along with the two paragraphs before it.

[FlippinEck 3,750]

The thing is - Football is all about results and SCORING goals to get these.

Boyd a proven goalscorer and poacher. This is pricesless.

We will never have a striker like him for another 10 years.

All this talk about how good lafferty and naismith will be doesnt excite me one bit. Fuck the future - its all about now!!

I could quite happily live with us not having a striker as frustrating to watch as Boyd for ten years. I don't even know where to begin with the 'fuck the future' assertion, and having a poacher like Boyd obviously isn't priceless, as we appear quite willing to let him go. What an odd post.

Its not Boyds fault the club cant afford a striker of his stature

[outlaw69uk 123]

Doesn't matter how quickly, and how many goals you score, especially if it doesn't bring you the league home.

A good player would replace Boyd in a heartbeat - he may not score 25 goals plus a season, but he'll probably improve the team, contributing much more.

Kris Boyd has saved us on occassions, but we have also shown that we play better without him, and still pick up the wins required.

1 - Pretty much means every striker we have had in the last what, 4 years, hasnt been any good, since, we didnt

2 - In said time, why havent they then? We have had several come and go, none of whom did the required on a regular basis

3 - And, we have also shown that, we play equally as badly without him, and, not get the required results. Countless toothless performances, and, not just at the "higher level", but, against lowly sides. Anyone could pick several games from each side of the argument.

For me, this whole, "playing better without him" "more fluidity" etc etc etc, everyone knows the drill, just makes me chuckle. Whats the point in that, when, as we have seen on so many occasions, we produce nothing up front? Like Burns filth side, used to play us off the park, and, lose! its pointless! literally haha. That, essentially, is one reason I like players like Boyd etc, over a Miller type any day. i personally dont give 2 fucks how much they run about, "work the channels", "defend" "track back" etc, aas long as they put the ball in the onion bag. They can stand about just over the halfway line, do sod all, and, score a couple and that will do it for me just fine. I dont want my strikers crossing the ball into the box, for someone less able to be on the end of it, I want it the other way round.

I think the Broadfoot article sums it up really well. If we had a midfield and width like we did under Advocaat, or Smith the first time, there would be absolutely ZERO negative conversations about Boyd (bar GSA and PB of course), as, he would be knocking them in for fun, and, the rest of the team wouldnt be getting outplayed by the Hamiltons and St Mirrens of this world, which for me, is a far far bigger problem than Boyds "workrate".

[docspiderman 1,262]

Doesn't matter how quickly, and how many goals you score, especially if it doesn't bring you the league home.

A good player would replace Boyd in a heartbeat - he may not score 25 goals plus a season, but he'll probably improve the team, contributing much more.

Kris Boyd has saved us on occassions, but we have also shown that we play better without him, and still pick up the wins required.

1 - Pretty much means every striker we have had in the last what, 4 years, hasnt been any good, since, we didnt

2 - In said time, why havent they then? We have had several come and go, none of whom did the required on a regular basis

3 - And, we have also shown that, we play equally as badly without him, and, not get the required results. Countless toothless performances, and, not just at the "higher level", but, against lowly sides. Anyone could pick several games from each side of the argument.

For me, this whole, "playing better without him" "more fluidity" etc etc etc, everyone knows the drill, just makes me chuckle. Whats the point in that, when, as we have seen on so many occasions, we produce nothing up front? Like Burns filth side, used to play us off the park, and, lose! its pointless! literally haha. That, essentially, is one reason I like players like Boyd etc, over a Miller type any day. i personally dont give 2 fucks how much they run about, "work the channels", "defend" "track back" etc, aas long as they put the ball in the onion bag. They can stand about just over the halfway line, do sod all, and, score a couple and that will do it for me just fine. I dont want my strikers crossing the ball into the box, for someone less able to be on the end of it, I want it the other way round.

I think the Broadfoot article sums it up really well. If we had a midfield and width like we did under Advocaat, or Smith the first time, there would be absolutely ZERO negative conversations about Boyd (bar GSA and PB of course), as, he would be knocking them in for fun, and, the rest of the team wouldnt be getting outplayed by the Hamiltons and St Mirrens of this world, which for me, is a far far bigger problem than Boyds "workrate".

[ShootSpeedKillLight 0]

I like how a few people are jumping on that article and basically using it to blame the rest of the team for the criticism Boyd's getting. Not in a direct way of course, but reading between the lines.

It still amazes me that people are favourably comparing Boyd to McCoist.

[McBoyd 355]

Doesn't matter how quickly, and how many goals you score, especially if it doesn't bring you the league home.

A good player would replace Boyd in a heartbeat - he may not score 25 goals plus a season, but he'll probably improve the team, contributing much more.

Kris Boyd has saved us on occassions, but we have also shown that we play better without him, and still pick up the wins required.

1 - Pretty much means every striker we have had in the last what, 4 years, hasnt been any good, since, we didnt

2 - In said time, why havent they then? We have had several come and go, none of whom did the required on a regular basis

3 - And, we have also shown that, we play equally as badly without him, and, not get the required results. Countless toothless performances, and, not just at the "higher level", but, against lowly sides. Anyone could pick several games from each side of the argument.

For me, this whole, "playing better without him" "more fluidity" etc etc etc, everyone knows the drill, just makes me chuckle. Whats the point in that, when, as we have seen on so many occasions, we produce nothing up front? Like Burns filth side, used to play us off the park, and, lose! its pointless! literally haha. That, essentially, is one reason I like players like Boyd etc, over a Miller type any day. i personally dont give 2 fucks how much they run about, "work the channels", "defend" "track back" etc, aas long as they put the ball in the onion bag. They can stand about just over the halfway line, do sod all, and, score a couple and that will do it for me just fine. I dont want my strikers crossing the ball into the box, for someone less able to be on the end of it, I want it the other way round.

I think the Broadfoot article sums it up really well. If we had a midfield and width like we did under Advocaat, or Smith the first time, there would be absolutely ZERO negative conversations about Boyd (bar GSA and PB of course), as, he would be knocking them in for fun, and, the rest of the team wouldnt be getting outplayed by the Hamiltons and St Mirrens of this world, which for me, is a far far bigger problem than Boyds "workrate".

another excellent post, couldn't agree more with this.

[McBoyd 355]

I like how a few people are jumping on that article and basically using it to blame the rest of the team for the criticism Boyd's getting. Not in a direct way of course, but reading between the lines.

It still amazes me that people are favourably comparing Boyd to McCoist.

How?

Mark Hateley himself said that Boyd now is spookily similar to McCoist in his first 3 or 4 years.

[McBoyd 355]

I like how a few people are jumping on that article and basically using it to blame the rest of the team for the criticism Boyd's getting.

Jumping on that article? I've been saying pretty similar for ages.

[outlaw69uk 123]

I like how a few people are jumping on that article and basically using it to blame the rest of the team for the criticism Boyd's getting. Not in a direct way of course, but reading between the lines.

It still amazes me that people are favourably comparing Boyd to McCoist.

For that to hold true, does that mean then you believe the rest of the team are fantastic? I think people are quoting the article as it comes from a semi neautral standpoint, and, holds true when you look at things rationally and impassionately, especially given the examples in it.

The comparisson is fair, and, will be interesting to see Boyd when he is 28/29 to see if the change also happens

[ShootSpeedKillLight 0]

I don't really care what Hately says. McCoist was a better player than Boyd is, and most likely ever will be. When Boyd starts banging them in against celtic and being unable to do anything other than a poor footballer who scores a lot, then maybe the comparison can be made.

By jumping on the article I meant using it as some kind of validation, ie. someone else said it so it must be true.

[ShootSpeedKillLight 0]

I like how a few people are jumping on that article and basically using it to blame the rest of the team for the criticism Boyd's getting. Not in a direct way of course, but reading between the lines.

It still amazes me that people are favourably comparing Boyd to McCoist.

For that to hold true, does that mean then you believe the rest of the team are fantastic? I think people are quoting the article as it comes from a semi neautral standpoint, and, holds true when you look at things rationally and impassionately, especially given the examples in it.

The comparisson is fair, and, will be interesting to see Boyd when he is 28/29 to see if the change also happens

I'm not saying comparing them isn't fair, I'm saying basically that Boyd is not as good as McCoist, no matter how many people might try and claim differently.

And no, I don't believe the rest of the team are fantastic at all. We have weaknesses all over the team. My point ultimately is that whether or not Boyd have been a star in Advocaat's team or Smith's first spell is irrelevant. Those days are gone. We don't have the strength throughout the team to accomodate a player with as many weaknesses as Boyd.

[McBoyd 355]

I don't really care what Hately says. McCoist was a better player than Boyd is, and most likely ever will be. When Boyd starts banging them in against celtic and being unable to do anything other than a poor footballer who scores a lot, then maybe the comparison can be made.

By jumping on the article I meant using it as some kind of validation, ie. someone else said it so it must be true.

What McCoist are you reffering to though? Of course the Ally McCoist we sit and remember now was better than Boyd. But ask those that were saying Coisty didn't deserve to play for Rangers in the early 80's what they thought.

Don't care what Hateley says? Fair enough he does talk shite about some things, but you can't deny his experience. He was there, with McCoist, i think he'd know what he was like more than you.

I'm not using it as a validation, it's just someone who's written what i've been writing for a while, they agree with me, why do i need validation, it's my opinion.