Three possible endings, all are bad

[disgruntled_bear 157]

Sent homeward to think again. Kris Boyd's appreciation of the flour of Scotland is, perhaps, restricted to his relationship with a Greggs bridie. But the time for a swift reappraisal by all parties is on the cards after the breakdown of his proposed £3.75m move to Birmingham.

Briefly, there are three possible endings for this unexpected addition to the pantomime season: a) Boyd comes back and he and Rangers live happily ever after; b) the big bad witches of the Premier League come and grab him; c) Rangers are reduced to selling someone else . . . Bazza, Madjid or even a bag of beans.

There are complications for Sir David Murray in all three options. Boyd's continued presence at Ibrox may guarantee goals but it does nothing to provide the £3m-plus that Rangers so evidently need.

advertisement

It also provides disenchanted fans for a focus for their irritation.

How about these scenarios?

Boyd does not play against St Johnstone next week and Rangers struggle to score. Boyd plays against the Perth side and scores a hat trick. Either outcome will hardly make matters easier, though the latter may convince a wavering Premier League team (Sunderland?) to make their move. They can take their time. They know Rangers want to sell and they know what Boyd wants as a wage.

The third option is for Rangers to offload another player. This would cause another stushie and would have the added bonus of keeping Boyd at Ibrox when he has been told he can go.

It's a mess.

Of course, football transfers always have the capacity to go wrong. But the Boyd sale carried a high tariff of difficulty. First, the former Kilmarnock forward is in no hurry to leave Ibrox. Indeed, he was in the exit lounge for most of the summer but showed a severe disinclination to leave the team he supports. Second, his goals are the best bet for Rangers ending Celtic's hopes of taking a fourth consecutive title so his departure was bound to anger supporters. Thirdly, he could afford to play hard ball with personal terms.

But now Rangers have the worst of all worlds. Boyd knows he is expendable, though he has always suspected that he is unloved. The fans have been stirred to outrage. And not one thin dime has passed into the Ibrox safe.

It is still not clear from Sir David's interviews with the press why Boyd had to go. An ultimatum from HBOS, the bankers? Apparently not. "There has been no pressure from the bank, none whatsoever," said the Rangers chairman in The Herald yesterday.

The difficulty of having an overdraft of £25m? Nope, "My businesses are turning over that every 10 days; it is big for a football club but not for me to handle," said Sir David in the same interview.

He also told another newspaper that "if we have an overdraft of £25m to £30m at the end of this financial year that won't be enough to put us in financial danger".

He declared the sole reason for selling Boyd was to balance the books. But surely this could have been addressed in the summer? After all, "there has been no pressure for the bank, none whatsoever". And, again, there is no looming "financial danger".

The unseemly haste with which Rangers wanted to rid themselves of their top goalscorer is the only story. Boyd's ample frame provides a large canvas for a multiplicity of opinions about his abilities.

Sir David was right when he said that "even if we kept Kris Boyd I do think there would be any guarantees this season". But surely it can be accepted that Rangers would be a better bet for the championship with Boyd rather than without him.

So why did he have to go now?

Sir David, though, was on surer ground when he insisted Rangers were not a selling club. Well, not yesterday anyway.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/sport/headlines...all_are_bad.php