The Pedro Caixinha Thread

[.Williamson. 82,165]

On 30/8/2017 at 7:43 PM, dougie76 said:

So is he a good or bad guy today?

It's not a case of a good guy or bad guy tag.

He hasn't been good enough overall so far and until that happens he will retain the tag of not good enough 

[graeme_4 34,455]

13 minutes ago, WeirFleckNRothen said:

How he felt it appropriate to be in Portugal at some university, giving a lecture about Mourinho - a connection his career appears to be based on - during transfer deadline day is beyond me.

I'm fond of a footballer's autobiography and it's incredible how many players are sold on a club based on the welcome recieved by the manager of their prospective employer. Vardy joined Leicester over Cardiff & Peterborough due to the welcome he recieved from Nigel Pearson; Lampard joined Chelsea thanks to his first interation with Claudio Ranieri; there's a trend and it's no wonder.

On deadline day, the manager should be in and around the stadium or the training ground. Anything can happen.

Is it all regardless? Possibly, considering we weren't competitive in the market on deadline day. Did Pedro know this? Maybe, who knows?

 

Agreed. But if our only legit target was Walker, I don't think it is an issue. 

I get the impression the club had done their business. 

If we flipped the window we'd all be jizzing our drawers. 

[WeirFleckNRothen 1,789]

7 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

Agreed. But if our only legit target was Walker, I don't think it is an issue. 

I get the impression the club had done their business. 

If we flipped the window we'd all be jizzing our drawers. 

You never know what can happen, though.

If he's giving a lecture, he'll finish that lecture with 75 missed calls from agents, offering Rangers the opportunity to sign their player(s). The Peterborough chairman was on the radio yesterday talking about going for a haircut and coming out to numerous missed calls. What if one of those calls was to catch our attention? What if a transfer fell through elsewhere, opening an opportunity for us? Meanwhile, he's in Portugal.

On the other hand, what if one of our players head was turned? Last night on Sky Sports News, Jim White mentioned Craig Shakespeare having a chat with Danny Drinkwater before his move to Chelsea; he didn't manage to persuade him, but he gave it a go. Forest come in for Tavernier, for example, and Tavernier is off to Nottingham where he'll be met by Warburton & Davie Weir; all while Caixinha is at a university in Portugal.

It isn't good enough, he isn't good enough and neither is this squad.

He's very, very fortunate that we scraped a win in Dingwall at the weekend. Otherwise, I believe the backlash will have been heavier regarding this scenario.

[Smell the hotdog 4,015]

18 minutes ago, WeirFleckNRothen said:

You never know what can happen, though.

If he's giving a lecture, he'll finish that lecture with 75 missed calls from agents, offering Rangers the opportunity to sign their player(s). The Peterborough chairman was on the radio yesterday talking about going for a haircut and coming out to numerous missed calls. What if one of those calls was to catch our attention? What if a transfer fell through elsewhere, opening an opportunity for us? Meanwhile, he's in Portugal.

On the other hand, what if one of our players head was turned? Last night on Sky Sports News, Jim White mentioned Craig Shakespeare having a chat with Danny Drinkwater before his move to Chelsea; he didn't manage to persuade him, but he gave it a go. Forest come in for Tavernier, for example, and Tavernier is off to Nottingham where he'll be met by Warburton & Davie Weir; all while Caixinha is at a university in Portugal.

It isn't good enough, he isn't good enough and neither is this squad.

He's very, very fortunate that we scraped a win in Dingwall at the weekend. Otherwise, I believe the backlash will have been heavier regarding this scenario.

Caixinha left saying that all transfer dealings is in the hands of Mark Allen. After all that is the guys job to deal with that and allow PC to focus on the team.

Deary me man, some of our fans will go to any lengths to have a go at PC. I'm the first to admit he's not covered himself in glory but dealings of transfers in and out are Mark Allens job. Caixinha will have briefed him on who he wants and who he wants to go.

Absolute nonsense off you.

[WeirFleckNRothen 1,789]

1 minute ago, Smell the hotdog said:

Caixinha left saying that all transfer dealings is in the hands of Mark Allen. After all that is the guys job to deal with that and allow PC to focus on the team.

Deary me man, some of our fans will go to any lengths to have a go at PC. I'm the first to admit he's not covered himself in glory but dealings of transfers in and out are Mark Allens job. Caixinha will have briefed him on who he wants and who he wants to go.

Absolute nonsense off you.

What an utterly horrific input.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

I didn't want him as manager, but I'm beginning to like him; it appears he has the character required to manage this club. His team are better than what we had before he arrived, which makes it a bit disappointing that we didn't go the extra mile to get Walker, but I think there are certain pieces of evidence to suggest we are getting better with him as manager. 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,715]

53 minutes ago, WeirFleckNRothen said:

You never know what can happen, though.

If he's giving a lecture, he'll finish that lecture with 75 missed calls from agents, offering Rangers the opportunity to sign their player(s). The Peterborough chairman was on the radio yesterday talking about going for a haircut and coming out to numerous missed calls. What if one of those calls was to catch our attention? What if a transfer fell through elsewhere, opening an opportunity for us? Meanwhile, he's in Portugal.

On the other hand, what if one of our players head was turned? Last night on Sky Sports News, Jim White mentioned Craig Shakespeare having a chat with Danny Drinkwater before his move to Chelsea; he didn't manage to persuade him, but he gave it a go. Forest come in for Tavernier, for example, and Tavernier is off to Nottingham where he'll be met by Warburton & Davie Weir; all while Caixinha is at a university in Portugal.

It isn't good enough, he isn't good enough and neither is this squad.

He's very, very fortunate that we scraped a win in Dingwall at the weekend. Otherwise, I believe the backlash will have been heavier regarding this scenario.

Most of that says more about your emotions towards him than an objective assessment.

What ifs and hypothetcals mean nothing. Facts are what's important.

We did our business early. Graeme is right. If we'd flipped the window and got Alves in last minute it would be bedlam in here. Instead, most of us fell into the trap of hoping our spending policy could outdo what we know is realistic, and listened to guff from a nobody who allegedly became Pedro's best pal for a flight.

The world still rotates on transfer closure day. The fact internationals are taking place suggests exactly that. 

Interesting that neither the Board nor dof have come in for your fire. Just Pedro who like other managers such as Benitez can actually plan ahead with his personal timetable and be elsewhere.

You say we scraped a win at the weekend. Others could say we dug deep but thoroughly deserved our victory. And had it not been for Beaton would be sitting level with the bheasts. But then those others probably don't simply look to put the boot in at any opportunity.

I'll accept the squad is light, and many factors for it. A lack of effort to overhaul it with 11 new players in and the same out isnt one of them.

Regardless, the window has closed, it IS now his squad, and now there's no excuses for him getting his team to deliver on realistic objectives (which for me this season isn't and hasn't been winning league).

 

[Alves70 393]

1 hour ago, WeirFleckNRothen said:

You never know what can happen, though.

If he's giving a lecture, he'll finish that lecture with 75 missed calls from agents, offering Rangers the opportunity to sign their player(s). The Peterborough chairman was on the radio yesterday talking about going for a haircut and coming out to numerous missed calls. What if one of those calls was to catch our attention? What if a transfer fell through elsewhere, opening an opportunity for us? Meanwhile, he's in Portugal.

On the other hand, what if one of our players head was turned? Last night on Sky Sports News, Jim White mentioned Craig Shakespeare having a chat with Danny Drinkwater before his move to Chelsea; he didn't manage to persuade him, but he gave it a go. Forest come in for Tavernier, for example, and Tavernier is off to Nottingham where he'll be met by Warburton & Davie Weir; all while Caixinha is at a university in Portugal.

It isn't good enough, he isn't good enough and neither is this squad.

He's very, very fortunate that we scraped a win in Dingwall at the weekend. Otherwise, I believe the backlash will have been heavier regarding this scenario.

Not a Pedro out type of fan but I do agree that he should have been here this week. The last week of the window is one of the most important of the season.

Also serious doubts about Allen for me in the very short term his remit was to wheel and deal in the market and try and get players in on loan at the very least. Not really sure what he brings to the table? The two loan guys we have brought in since he's been here look ordinary at best.

[WeirFleckNRothen 1,789]

8 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Most of that says more about your emotions towards him than an objective assessment.

What ifs and hypothetcals mean nothing. Facts are what's important.

We did our business early. Graeme is right. If we'd flipped the window and got Alves in last minute it would be bedlam in here. Instead, most of us fell into the trap of hoping our spending policy could outdo what we know is realistic, and listened to guff from a nobody who allegedly became Pedro's best pal for a flight.

The world still rotates on transfer closure day. The fact internationals are taking place suggests exactly that. 

Interesting that neither the Board nor dof have come in for your fire. Just Pedro who like other managers such as Benitez can actually plan ahead with his personal timetable and be elsewhere.

You say we scraped a win at the weekend. Others could say we dug deep but thoroughly deserved our victory. And had it not been for Beaton would be sitting level with the bheasts. But then those others probably don't simply look to put the boot in at any opportunity.

I'll accept the squad is light, and many factors for it. A lack of effort to overhaul it with 11 new players in and the same out isnt one of them.

Regardless, the window has closed, it IS now his squad, and now there's no excuses for him getting his team to deliver on realistic objectives (which for me this season isn't and hasn't been winning league).

 

"And had it not been for Beaton would be sitting level with the bheasts."

I, hand-on-heart, profusely disagree with absolutely every single element of your post, but that comment I've quoted defines you.

A referee didn't cost us the game - stop deflecting the blame - our abysmal defending cost us that game. Collective individual errors cost us that game, emphasised by their first, before we were down to ten men.

What I will add is that Pedro's timetable should revolve around us.

[Getstiffed 8,863]

I reckon Pedro could cut of yella teeth's head and shit down his neck and some cunts would find fault with it.

You don't rate the guy. We get it.

[Smile 26,600]

1 hour ago, graeme_4 said:

Agreed. But if our only legit target was Walker, I don't think it is an issue. 

I get the impression the club had done their business. 

If we flipped the window we'd all be jizzing our drawers. 

I agree I think he was away as the business for the season was done it was all the daft ITK posters who had everyone thinking we were still in for players.

[geneva_ger 9,331]

1 hour ago, WeirFleckNRothen said:

You never know what can happen, though.

If he's giving a lecture, he'll finish that lecture with 75 missed calls from agents, offering Rangers the opportunity to sign their player(s). The Peterborough chairman was on the radio yesterday talking about going for a haircut and coming out to numerous missed calls. What if one of those calls was to catch our attention? What if a transfer fell through elsewhere, opening an opportunity for us? Meanwhile, he's in Portugal.

On the other hand, what if one of our players head was turned? Last night on Sky Sports News, Jim White mentioned Craig Shakespeare having a chat with Danny Drinkwater before his move to Chelsea; he didn't manage to persuade him, but he gave it a go. Forest come in for Tavernier, for example, and Tavernier is off to Nottingham where he'll be met by Warburton & Davie Weir; all while Caixinha is at a university in Portugal.

It isn't good enough, he isn't good enough and neither is this squad.

He's very, very fortunate that we scraped a win in Dingwall at the weekend. Otherwise, I believe the backlash will have been heavier regarding this scenario.

Apart from the chairman having a haircut, nothing you have said there is actually true though is it?

[ElBufalo20 7,890]

1 hour ago, WeirFleckNRothen said:

How he felt it appropriate to be in Portugal at some university, giving a lecture about Mourinho - a connection his career appears to be based on - during transfer deadline day is beyond me.

I'm fond of a footballer's autobiography and it's incredible how many players are sold on a club based on the welcome recieved by the manager of their prospective employer. Vardy joined Leicester over Cardiff & Peterborough due to the welcome he recieved from Nigel Pearson; Lampard joined Chelsea thanks to his first interation with Claudio Ranieri; there's a trend and it's no wonder.

On deadline day, the manager should be in and around the stadium or the training ground. Anything can happen.

Is it all regardless? Possibly, considering we weren't competitive in the market on deadline day. Did Pedro know this? Maybe, who knows?

 

You are looking for negatives here for the sake of it. He's done all the impressing he's needed for Alves etc. Going over to Portugal early in the window when he was targeting players he wanted.

I wouldn't be impressed as a player if a manager is scrambling last minute in the deadline to sign me whens he's had 2 months previous to try and 'impress' me.

Dodoo left cos not part of the plans so that would've been handed over and I'm sure Caixinha would've been at the end of a phone call for any serious potential outgoings.

[Smell the hotdog 4,015]

1 hour ago, WeirFleckNRothen said:

What an utterly horrific input.

Great input.

What you blaming Caixinha for tomorrow? the shite weather?

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,715]

19 minutes ago, WeirFleckNRothen said:

"And had it not been for Beaton would be sitting level with the bheasts."

I, hand-on-heart, profusely disagree with absolutely every single element of your post, but that comment I've quoted defines you.

A referee didn't cost us the game - stop deflecting the blame - our abysmal defending cost us that game. Collective individual errors cost us that game, emphasised by their first, before we were down to ten men.

What I will add is that Pedro's timetable should revolve around us.

Should Stokes have been sent off for the first incident, and would we have had an incredibly strong chance of winning versus 10 men?

Jack should not have been sent off, hence the appeal winning. Did us going to 10 men significantly hinder our performance and chance of winning?

Should stokes have received a second yellow minimum for his involvement in Jack being sent off? Again, would this have had a significant impact on the result?

There were plenty other dubious decisions, some for some against. But it is irrefutable that they should have seen red first, and to more players than we should have. 

And red cards change games, again I have no doubt.

Yes hivs had brought it back to equal, but with 11 men when most would say it should have been 10. Our options were then restricted as it was us not them that had 10 men, especially given it to have been a key CM sent off.

If this 'defines' me I can live with that.

Those decisions cost us that game.

60 mins with 10 men, wrongly,  against 11 men, wrongly, is the significant factor.

And yet you blame Pedro for it more than Beaton. Blinkered.

And your last point.

What specifically did Pedro not do (by being elsewhere) that he was required to do? Other than the what ifs, hypotheticals about Tav etc. Specifically what has he failed to do that cost us anything that deserves criticism here? Which players did we lose as he wasn't here? Or is your boot in as hypothetical as all thr scenarios you criticise him for....

 

[WeirFleckNRothen 1,789]

34 minutes ago, geneva_ger said:

Apart from the chairman having a haircut, nothing you have said there is actually true though is it?

Of course I don't, hence the reason I used the word "hypothetically"'.

It is very, very likely to happen, though.

[jbm26896 995]

He has done well in getting rid of all the players that we don't require and has replaced them with better players.

I think we are in for a good season. 

[WeirFleckNRothen 1,789]

8 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Should Stokes have been sent off for the first incident, and would we have had an incredibly strong chance of winning versus 10 men?

Jack should not have been sent off, hence the appeal winning. Did us going to 10 men significantly hinder our performance and chance of winning?

Should stokes have received a second yellow minimum for his involvement in Jack being sent off? Again, would this have had a significant impact on the result?

There were plenty other dubious decisions, some for some against. But it is irrefutable that they should have seen red first, and to more players than we should have. 

And red cards change games, again I have no doubt.

Yes hivs had brought it back to equal, but with 11 men when most would say it should have been 10. Our options were then restricted as it was us not them that had 10 men, especially given it to have been a key CM sent off.

If this 'defines' me I can live with that.

Those decisions cost us that game.

60 mins with 10 men, wrongly,  against 11 men, wrongly, is the significant factor.

And yet you blame Pedro for it more than Beaton. Blinkered.

And your last point.

What specifically did Pedro not do (by being elsewhere) that he was required to do? Other than the what ifs, hypotheticals about Tav etc. Specifically what has he failed to do that cost us anything that deserves criticism here? Which players did we lose as he wasn't here? Or is your boot in as hypothetical as all thr scenarios you criticise him for....

 

I refuse to read that entire rant.

I got as far as "Jack should not have been sent-off", but disagree.

Stokes should have been sent-off for the Tavernier incident, then Dorrans should have been sent-off for grabbing the Hibs player by the throat, sparking the incident which lead to Jack being sent-off. The SFA over-turned it, of course, but Jack motioned his head towards Stokes and in this day and age, that's a dismissal.

Regardless, my biggest concern that day was how fucking bad our defending was. Their equaliser was amatuer.

[STEPPS BOY 73,890]

Caixinha didn't have to be here this week.

Transfers fall under the remit of the DOF.

[geneva_ger 9,331]

6 minutes ago, WeirFleckNRothen said:

Of course I don't, hence the reason I used the word "hypothetically"'.

It is very, very likely to happen, though.

Possibly the stupidest hypothetical statement with no logical reason for posting it. You further defend and advance your stupidity by saying "It's very, very likely to happen though" and even post the original statement AFTER the the window closed. You had the information you needed to NOT make that statement.

I'm baffled.

[OhW 4,669]

15 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Should Stokes have been sent off for the first incident, and would we have had an incredibly strong chance of winning versus 10 men?

Jack should not have been sent off, hence the appeal winning. Did us going to 10 men significantly hinder our performance and chance of winning?

Should stokes have received a second yellow minimum for his involvement in Jack being sent off? Again, would this have had a significant impact on the result?

There were plenty other dubious decisions, some for some against. But it is irrefutable that they should have seen red first, and to more players than we should have. 

And red cards change games, again I have no doubt.

Yes hivs had brought it back to equal, but with 11 men when most would say it should have been 10. Our options were then restricted as it was us not them that had 10 men, especially given it to have been a key CM sent off.

If this 'defines' me I can live with that.

Those decisions cost us that game.

60 mins with 10 men, wrongly,  against 11 men, wrongly, is the significant factor.

And yet you blame Pedro for it more than Beaton. Blinkered.

And your last point.

What specifically did Pedro not do (by being elsewhere) that he was required to do? Other than the what ifs, hypotheticals about Tav etc. Specifically what has he failed to do that cost us anything that deserves criticism here? Which players did we lose as he wasn't here? Or is your boot in as hypothetical as all thr scenarios you criticise him for....

You are both arguing about hypotheticals.

[WeirFleckNRothen 1,789]

27 minutes ago, Smell the hotdog said:

Great input.

What you blaming Caixinha for tomorrow? the shite weather?

And the 5-1 defeat in an Old Firm game at Ibrox, handing the tarriers a place in the Scottish Cup final, losing our 20+ years home record against Aberdeen, losing the first home game of the season to Neil Lennon's newly promoted Hibs, turning McKay into an outcast & punting him, telling the press that O'Halloran, still an employee of the club, isn't good enough despite the fact that, unlike our entire squad, he's playing well and scoring, etc., etc.

Then, there's the Progrés result. We lost over two legs to a side who finished four in last season's Luxembourg league. Without a shadow of a doubt, the worst and most humiliating result in Scottish football history.

And, as you've said, the weather.

 

[WeirFleckNRothen 1,789]

7 minutes ago, geneva_ger said:

Possibly the stupidest hypothetical statement with no logical reason for posting it. You further defend and advance your stupidity by saying "It's very, very likely to happen though" and even post the original statement AFTER the the window closed. You had the information you needed to NOT make that statement.

I'm baffled.

My stupidity? Your use of the word "stupider" renders you unentitled to bring into question anyone's intelligence. I'll bet you're the type of person who uses words like "worser", but you're oblivious.

For your actual post, I've got no idea what you're talking about. You don't convert your thoughts into words very well. Understandable, given the above.

Pedro should have been in Glasgow last night.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,715]

13 minutes ago, OhW said:

You are both arguing about hypotheticals.

Apart from the Jack red card which has been found to be unjust.

And much of it wasn't hypothetical but asking an opinion and then applying logic to the impact.

 

[geneva_ger 9,331]

4 minutes ago, WeirFleckNRothen said:

"stupider"

I have no recall of this being in my post and will have my secretary to whom I dictate check this to be true, but thanks for confirming that you are indeed a dick and will have her spell dick properly.