Jump to content

Boyd on Clarke


Bobby14

Recommended Posts

Kris Boyd has urged Kilmarnock fans to play their part in the club's revival following the appointment of Steve Clarke as manager.

Only 3,337 fans attended Killie's last home match, a 2-0 defeat by Ross County in what proved to be Lee McCulloch's final match in charge.

Now, with a new man at the helm, striker Boyd wants the fans to come back and get behind the team.

"Go and back the new manager," Boyd said on Radio Scotland's Sportsound.

"Go and back what [majority shareholder] Billy Bowie and the board have done. Come back and support the team."

Attendances at Rugby Park in the league this season have averaged just under 5,000, although that figure is boosted considerably by the large travelling Celtic support among a crowd of 10,069 when Killie hosted the Scottish champions in August.

Boyd believes Clarke's appointment has given everybody at the club a lift, pointing to Saturday's 2-0 win away to Partick Thistle , Killie's first Premiership win of the campaign, as evidence.

Although he did not take charge of the team at Firhill - confirmation of his appointment came just hours before kick-off - Boyd says Clarke's presence in the stands was a boost.

"We even saw on Saturday the lift that the crowd got from him being there and hopefully that is a continuous step in the right direction because the crowds at Rugby Park have dwindled away," Boyd continued.

"I think it's an excellent appointment. I think, for the first time since Bobby Williamson left Kilmarnock and Jim Jefferies came in - he came in having won things in the past, Steve Clarke brings that now to the football club. 

"It's no disrespect to the football managers that have been there in the past, but he's a presence, he's a name, he's worked with top managers. 

"I'm sure Kilmarnock will definitely be in good hands going forward.

"The players need to step up as well and I'm sure that will be the case."

'It's a clean slate for everybody'

Clarke has worked with top players while coaching at big clubs such as Newcastle United, Chelsea and Liverpool - and during managerial spells at West Bromwich Albion and Reading.

Boyd does not foresee any problems with his new manager adjusting to the standard of players in the Scottish Premiership.

"This is a fresh challenge," the former Scotland striker explained. "Reading probably would have been a step down from where he's been. 

"As managers and coaches, you're always looking to test yourself and I think that's where Steve Clarke is right now. 

"He's been out the game for a year, he's probably been bored and wants to get back into it. It's a challenge now for him to go and get the best out of us as we've been under-performing. 

"He's come up from being in England and he probably won't know the majority of players, so it is a clean slate for everybody. 

"Everybody has the opportunity to perform, but like every other manager, he'll be looking to bring in his own players to put his own stamp on it. 

"He was born in Ayrshire, he's got that and the fans will buy into that right away. 

"The fans have been craving somebody to get a hold of and go on a journey and I just hope for Kilmarnock's sake that it is Steve Clarke."

 

Good to see Boyd talking up the new regime and highlighting the good work BB and co have done. He's always urged supporters back to RP and as much as he can talks about Rangers, he gets people talking about Killie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobby14 said:

Good to see Boyd talking up the new regime and highlighting the good work BB and co have done. He's always urged supporters back to RP and as much as he can talks about Rangers, he gets people talking about Killie. 

Good on Boyd for speaking out as he did but, unless I misheard, he also had a pop at would-be investors who were going to invest when MJ left.

We all know the names of those individuals who, under various consortia, wanted to buy out MJ or to invest regardless. 

Clearly, MJ doesn't intend to sell until 2019 so that is on the back burner. But if the board is open to investment, which I assume they are, it would be good if those interested came forward too.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, skygod said:

Boyd talking about Clarke again on Sportsound: "Unbelievable ...purpose to everything....fantastjc appointment."

Somebody hoping to get a coaching job in the future?!

 

Talks about other clubs, have a go at him.  Talks about Killie, still have a go at him. 9_9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎17‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 11:48 AM, skygod said:

Good on Boyd for speaking out as he did but, unless I misheard, he also had a pop at would-be investors who were going to invest when MJ left.

We all know the names of those individuals who, under various consortia, wanted to buy out MJ or to invest regardless. 

Clearly, MJ doesn't intend to sell until 2019 so that is on the back burner. But if the board is open to investment, which I assume they are, it would be good if those interested came forward too.

 

 

 

Would you invest a sizeable sum in Killie knowing that MJ still had his 40% stake & could pop back up in the future to f**k us up again. Same goes for TIK. Get rid of MJ 1st. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, harley said:

Would you invest a sizeable sum in Killie knowing that MJ still had his 40% stake & could pop back up in the future to f**k us up again. Same goes for TIK. Get rid of MJ 1st. 

I don't think it would be as simple as him just popping back up on to the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, harley said:

Would you invest a sizeable sum in Killie knowing that MJ still had his 40% stake & could pop back up in the future to f**k us up again. Same goes for TIK. Get rid of MJ 1st. 

60% vs 40%. Thats a difficult one. MJ can do nothing without the support of the other shareholders. This will not happen unless he has some sort of hold over them. If he does have enough outside influence to sway matters it matters little if he has 40% or zllch percent or whether he lives in Ayr or Timbuctoo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, killiefife said:

60% vs 40%. Thats a difficult one. MJ can do nothing without the support of the other shareholders. This will not happen unless he has some sort of hold over them. If he does have enough outside influence to sway matters it matters little if he has 40% or zllch percent or whether he lives in Ayr or Timbuctoo.

But ...MJ had enough time in charge to alter the constitution dictating that you’d need 75% of the vote to approve things 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bonbon19 said:

But ...MJ had enough time in charge to alter the constitution dictating that you’d need 75% of the vote to approve things 

Correct - folk seem to either not understand this bit or just refuse to believe it.

It was a dark day in our history when he was able to get away with that and barely anyone seemed to care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Correct - folk seem to either not understand this bit or just refuse to believe it.

It was a dark day in our history when he was able to get away with that and barely anyone seemed to care.

Any possibility of posting information when and where this change is noted. Both on the Clubs web page under Legal and Companies House show Articles of Association effective 14th March 2014. May be me needing new specs or maybe just boredom but I cannot see any mention of the said clause. Perhaps it is somewhere else and I am looking in the wrong direction. Does it cover every decision being made by the present Board?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, killiefife said:

Any possibility of posting information when and where this change is noted. Both on the Clubs web page under Legal and Companies House show Articles of Association effective 14th March 2014. May be me needing new specs or maybe just boredom but I cannot see any mention of the said clause. Perhaps it is somewhere else and I am looking in the wrong direction. Does it cover every decision being made by the present Board?

 

The current board make all decisions on running of club. MJ has no say. Constitutional matters come down to shareholding......i think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, harley said:

Would you invest a sizeable sum in Killie knowing that MJ still had his 40% stake & could pop back up in the future to f**k us up again. Same goes for TIK. Get rid of MJ 1st. 

7 red cards. Not as bad as Drew, Just playing devils advocate here guys.If the board really wanted to change something MJ could still put a block on it as they can't get 75% without him. IMO the poor take up of TIK is due to MJ still lurking in the background. I may be correct & maybe not but IMO it puts a lot of fans off investing in the club when he is one of the majority shareholders. 

PS. This is not my excuse for not investing in TIK. I will admit' I am not giving any group money to buy shares when I don't own them. I would buy them & give the Trust proxy for them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, killiefife said:

Any possibility of posting information when and where this change is noted. Both on the Clubs web page under Legal and Companies House show Articles of Association effective 14th March 2014. May be me needing new specs or maybe just boredom but I cannot see any mention of the said clause. Perhaps it is somewhere else and I am looking in the wrong direction. Does it cover every decision being made by the present Board?

 

Can someone out there please give some concrete info regarding the above as it certainly could be seen as a stumbling block. I thought that it was a straightforward question and I would see an answer fairly quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, killiefife said:

Can someone out there please give some concrete info regarding the above as it certainly could be seen as a stumbling block. I thought that it was a straightforward question and I would see an answer fairly quickly.

I'd need to check but I think the 75% thing was actually to remove him as a director.

Might actually be a moot point now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can see, it only applies to the removal of directors:

"22. Termination of director's appointment

A person ceases to be a director as soon as: ......

22.8 the company receives a written notice to such effect from a member or members holding such number of shares in the capital of the company as carry 75% of the voting rights in the company (within the meaning of section 1159 and paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 of the Companies Act 2006); "

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, skygod said:

As far as I can see, it only applies to the removal of directors:

"22. Termination of director's appointment

A person ceases to be a director as soon as: ......

22.8 the company receives a written notice to such effect from a member or members holding such number of shares in the capital of the company as carry 75% of the voting rights in the company (within the meaning of section 1159 and paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 of the Companies Act 2006); "

 

 

 Damn, say the cynics, that's another excuse I can't use for contributing to TiK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Squirrel/Skydog. Looks good if the 75% vote only related to Termination of a Director. The Director MJ resigned. So now a total non-issue. This means another barrier for new investment has disappeared.

Skydog is the info you quoted freely available?

Edited by killiefife
Addition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, killiefife said:

Thanks Squirrel/Skydog. Looks good if the 75% vote only related to Termination of a Director. The Director MJ resigned. So now a total non-issue. This means another barrier for new investment has disappeared.

Skydog is the info you quoted freely available?

Its not a non issue because it could lead to someone trying that crap again in future. Needs changed asap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, cammy_boy said:

Its not a non issue because it could lead to someone trying that crap again in future. Needs changed asap.

Until MJ sells up it won't happen, with his 40% shareholding he can vote to block any constitutional changes...... So he can still affect change even outwith the boardroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, C4mmy31 said:

....with his 40% shareholding he can vote to block any constitutional changes...... So he can still affect change even outwith the boardroom

Can you quote where this is written down?

 Just continually saying this - whether it's right or not - isn't really good enough.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...