Boyd agrees Boro move

[wabashcannonball 0]

Because if he doesn't score, he contributes absolutely nothing

 

And in the SPL last season, he failed to score in 16 of the 31 games he played in (even i was stunned when i heard this stat)

 

�£18,000 a week for someone who contributes nothing in over half his games? This kind of wage should be reserved for someone like Davis who is never lower than a 7 out of 10. I'm just delighted we didn't panic and offer him �£30,000 a week or thereabouts, whilst selling Bougherra and Davis to finance it

 

But he does score and in spades.

[Guest Flying Hippo]

Boyd's all round game vastly improving was one of the great myths of last season for me. Not quite as big a myth as 'Naismith has looked good this season' but certainly up there. He had maybe 3 or 4 games (all in the same month) where his hold up play was slightly better than usual but it was hardly some remarkable, long-lasting transformation.

[Frankie 8,151]

Say we give Boyd a new 3 year contract at �£20K per week. That's just over �£3million.

 

What other striker could we bring in for a fee plus wages at that price who'd contribute more - both in terms of goals and overall play? Especially when we consider Lafferty cost upwards of �£3million and is on at least �£15K per week? Meanwhile, someone like Miller cost around �£2million and will be on similar wages?

 

Boyd may well be imperfect but if we had the chance to keep him or buy a new player, I know what represents less risk in an era where our gambles have to be banker bets!

[Frankie 8,151]

Boyd's all round game vastly improving was one of the great myths of last season for me. Not quite as big a myth as 'Naismith has looked good this season' but certainly up there. He had maybe 3 or 4 games (all in the same month) where his hold up play was slightly better than usual but it was hardly some remarkable, long-lasting transformation.

 

I think it's fair to say for the last few months of the season Boyd struggled to regain full fitness after his operation while his future would also have affected his play.

 

I think it is also fair to say that while he has improved aspects of his game, he's never going to be the world's best player and will always struggle to influence matches against good opposition; be that in goals or in overall contribution. That's why he doesn't always feature in some games and has struggled to be considered a first pick for one of the world's most average international sides.

 

But if we're being fair, it isn't an easy task to replace what he does do and that's score goals by the barrowload and contributing pretty well most seasons over the piece.

[Guest Flying Hippo]

Daniel Cousin cost �£800,000 and earned an alleged �£12000 a week. He also scored more goals against Celtic in his final 5 games for Rangers than Boyd has done in his entire career. Replacements are out there if we bother to look

Edited June 28, 2010 by Flying Hippo

[Frankie 8,151]

Daniel Cousin cost �£800,000 and earned an alleged �£12000 a week. He also scored more goals against Celtic in his final 5 games for Rangers than Boyd has done in his entire career

 

Of course there are players out there but Cousin wasn't an unmitigated success and had his foibles just like Boyd. Successful strikers signed under Smith are usually the exception to the rule unfortunately.

 

You mentioned Naismith and he's another player who has struggled since he also arrived on the not-so-cheap, yet he'd scored goals against us and Celtic.

 

I'm just pointing out the risks and associated costs which we'll probably have if Boyd does move on. When one compares them with keeping an improving player whose goals have contributed to our last two championship wins, I'd personally rather we kept him.

 

[Guest Flying Hippo]

It's not like i was desperate for Boyd to leave. I hoped he would be so desperate to stay that we could've renewed his contract on the same wage as before. I just don't think our financial situation is anywhere near good enough to make such a poor footballer our joint highest paid player simply because he's a great goalscorer. As i pointed out, he scored in less than 50% of his games last season and can anyone honestly name games where he hasn't scored but has put in a great shift nonetheless?

[Frankie 8,151]

It's not like i was desperate for Boyd to leave. I hoped he would be so desperate to stay that we could've renewed his contract on the same wage as before. I just don't think our financial situation is anywhere near good enough to make such a poor footballer our joint highest paid player simply because he's a great goalscorer. As i pointed out, he scored in less than 50% of his games last season and can anyone honestly name games where he hasn't scored but has put in a great shift nonetheless?

 

We can't afford to give him an improved contract but we can afford to sign a replacement who may cost more over the piece yet isn't certain to be a success?

 

Every player has their pros and cons. Boyd is all about goals and when fully fit he does that against a variety of teams and has proven himself to be an important player over the years at Ibrox.

[Guest Flying Hippo]

His replacement will only cost more if we're too lazy to properly look for a bargain

 

Even more of a bargain than Cousin was Nacho Novo who cost �£400,000 and his initial contract was less than �£10,000 a week

[Frankie 8,151]

I don't see many Novo's or Boyd's doing the rounds in the SPL right now...

 

Strikers of a better calibre than Boyd on a cheaper budget than �£3million are few and far between.

 

What striker is available on our budget that would score in more than 50% of games, put in a great shift in games he doesn't score in and score regularly against Celtic/European teams? I can't think of any and I certainly doubt our underfunded and underperforming scouting department will know of one either.