JohnMc

Okay, I'm not being condescending but do you know much about the Mexican domestic league? Caixinha didn't 'win the league' in Mexico as we would understand it. Mexican domestic football is a confusing array of split leagues and convoluted knock-out tournaments. In his first season managing Santos Laguna in Mexico they finished second in the 'first' league of the season. The top 8 sides then qualify for a knock-out tournament to decide the Champions, Santos Laguna lost in the 'semis'. In the 'second' league of season 2013/14 Santos Laguna finished 4th and again qualified for the knock-out part of the league where once again they lost in the 'semis'. In season 2014/15 Santos Laguna finished 9th in the 'first' league of the season and so didn't qualify for the knock-out tournament. In the 'second' league Santos finished 8th on goal difference (a goal difference of +3 over 17 matches) they qualified for the knock-out tournament which they surprisingly won. That's the 'league' he won. In actual fact they finished in 8th place on aggregate but get to call themselves Champions because they won one of the knockout competitions. He resigned a month into the following season with Santos Laguna bottom of the league. But please be clear Santos Laguna at no time under PC won more games or accumulated more points than the rest of the Mexican club sides. His time in Portugal is really nothing to boast about and his period in Qatar saw his side finish 9th in a 14 team league and then 5th last season. So I'm sorry but 'sketchy' is a fair word to describe his managerial record to date. I agree about young players, they'll either sink or swim and will be the better for playing some first team games. I disagree entirely about a manager not being able to change a player's mental strength. For me that's one of the core attributes a manager should have. Again I disagree, a lot can be achieved in a week. Celtic have been better than us in every match this season but in our last visit to Parkhead we at least competed with them and earned a credible draw. The side knew how to play that formation and those tactics already, that was what PC should have spent the week drilling them in. We have the players we have, those are the ones he needs to coach. See again I don't think PC has actually had that much stick. The team has and certain players have but criticism of PC hasn't been over-the-top. Yes he's not been here long but in that time I've yet to see anything that's made me think he's the man to take us forward. We've won a couple of matches we shouldn't have and were the better side when we beat Aberdeen at Pittodrie, but Aberdeen learned from that match and were far better than us in the return at Ibrox. Time will tell which of us is correct on this (and I genuinely hope it's you).

I agree. My post wasn't meant to be passed off as fact, merely explain that TheBoyHarley's post wasn't sharing some ridiculous gossip, rather that some fairly well connected and influential Bears were sharing very similar information quite openly this week.

Everyone can see that some of our current players aren't good enough, that doesn't make someone a managerial visionary. I don't think PC has had anything like the opprobrium poured on him that some of our performances have deserved. I don't have a huge issue with the fact his CV is sketchy. Bill Struth, John Grieg, Graeme Souness and Walter Smith hadn't managed anyone else before taking the Rangers first team job and Jock Wallace had only managed Berwick Rangers. I do have a problem with the teams he's put out since taking the job, the tactics and formations he's employed and performances Rangers have produced. I've seen nothing that makes me believe he can take a player and make him better, that he can mould a team and make them stronger than the sum of their parts, because that's what we need. Criticism of Pedro, at least on here, as been considered. Everyone wants him to succeed, it's just proving very difficult for some of us to see how that'll happen based on what we've seen so far. I'd be the first to say 'give him time' if I could see what he's trying to do. It's not that Celtic inflicted our worst home defeat for a century, it's that we learned nothing from playing them the week before. How doesn't that worry all of you? Fuxake, fill the midfield, sit deep and deny them space, frustrate them and try and hit them on the break or make the most of set-pieces. All of us would have accepted a turgid 0-0 draw in that match. I genuinely think we've been lucky not to be on the end of some serious doings since that game too. If Thistle and Aberdeen had a striker of any kind of quality both would have been out of sight by half time. It's fairly clear he'll get to bring in his choice of players in the summer and will at the very least get to start next season as manager. No one hopes I wrong about him more than me. But balanced criticism, particularly between fellow bears, should be encouraged, not decried.

The rumour told to me earlier this week wasn't that he wants to be DOF but that he's acting as Director of Football in the absence of one. Whether that's through choice or necessity wasn't made clear. The same person told me the Park family are financially keeping the whole show on the road currently as no one else is investing. He maybe deluded too of course.

It's the difference between religion and science. Some of us are looking for evidence but we're being offered faith. It's not a lack of patience that afflicts me it's a lack of evidence. For the foreseeable future we're going to have less money to spend on players, both salaries and transfer fees, than Celtic. So we're going to have poorer players than them overall, that's the reality we need to work in. We need a manager who can create incredible team spirit and who can inspire that team to a higher level of performance than they'd otherwise produce. That's the type of manager we need. McLeish managed that, Smith managed that, finding someone who can do that isn't beyond us. I've seen nothing from PC yet to suggest he can. I hope I'm wrong.

Here's my problem Gaffer, a number of people are saying it's the players fault, he's inherited the players and they're not good enough. Well, those are the players we've got and part of his job is to craft a team from them. We won't have much more money next season so the chances are any players who leave will be replaced by players on similar salaries, so there's a good chance they'll be of a similar quality. What we need just now is a manager who can make a silk purse from a sow's ear. There aren't too many of them about unfortunately and I'm far from sure Pedro is one of them. Anyway, to the point of the thread. It's nice to be back in the top flight, we shouldn't take that for granted. Qualifying for European football I can't think of any others.

Interesting, thanks. See, I do expect the 'bounce' that a new manager brings. The players who have been underperforming suddenly start performing, the changes in training and coaching staff pick the place up and the players are keen to impress the new gaffer. It might only last for a few matches but it's discernible even to the uneducated eye of a supporter. I've not seen that. I disagree that most of our players aren't able to compete at this level. They aren't good enough to win the league and compete with Celtic but they are capable of competing with every other side. A good coach makes the best of what he's got, again I'm not seeing that. Our tactics against Celtic at Ibrox were bewildering, against Thistle and Aberdeen last night again there seemed to be no plan beyond a long ball to Garner. When McCall took over you could see right away how he wanted his team to play, there was a clear pattern to our play. It was also clear the players understood it too. Likewise when Warburton came in, you could see very clearly what he wanted his team to do, it didn't always come off but there were no doubts what was being tried. My big concern is no one seems to know what PC is trying to do, and I include the players in that. Why is Kenny Miller in midfield? Why play Toral when the league is finished and he's going back to his home club? I recall discussing PLG with BlueDell back in the day. I was a believer, give him time was my mantra, don't judge him on performances and results 'yet' he needs time to instil his ideas, it's the fault of the players not the manager. Basically everything I'm hearing said now about PC. The team last night looked demotivated, slow and disorganised. Being organised and 'up-for-it' is the bear minimum I expect from a Rangers team. A manager should be able to achieve that at least, whether they are his players or not. Rousseau explained we played a 433 . Well a 433 as I understand means you play a 451 when you don't have the ball. We didn't do that last night. We were completely over run in midfield, as we were against a 10 man Hearts and against Thistle before that. I hate criticising a Rangers manager, I've stuck up for almost all of them in past long after most had turned on them. But I'm afraid I fear the worst with PC.

What have you seen Uilleam to make you think PC has the first idea what's required and how to achieve it? I'm not trying to pick a fight but I'm curious what you're seeing in what Pedro is doing that's invisible to me?

At what point do we start to accept that a mistake has been made with the appointment of our current manager? Do we accept the evidence of our own eyes that he's tactically inept, slow to change formations and seems unable to motivate and communicate with players? Or should we wait until he's spent our summer transfer budget on players his successor might not want? I'd be willing to give him time if I could discern even the slightest clue as to what he's trying to do, but his formations are puzzling and tactics currently seem to involve a long ball to Garner for a knock-on. I'm sorry but Pedro Caixinho was a mistake and we'd be better grasping that nettle now rather than in six months time.

Just me that thinks McInnes was correct then? McInnes understands what managing Rangers really means, I'm not sure Caixinha does yet. Finishing second will eventually get you the sack at Rangers, McInnes knows this because he's an ex-player and a fan. I personally think Caixinha talks too much and would be better advised to keep his counsel more. He should have avoided speaking about the Aberdeen captain, he should have seen that fishing attempt a mile off and batted it away. Instead he riles up the Aberdeen manager and quite possibly the Aberdeen side before we play them. This follows him naming his team early before Kilmarnock and his tactical masterclass against Celtic at Ibrox. I know as Rangers fans it's in our DNA to stick up for our own, particularly if the criticism is coming from the Aberdeen manager, but I couldn't even find fault in what Lennon said on this occasion. What people see in Caixinha is baffling me. Sure he speaks well, but you know what so do I, really I do, but you wouldn't want me managing Rangers. The only positive I can take is we've managed to win games we really shouldn't have. Thistle outplayed us for 80 minutes and even a dire 10 man Hearts deserved more than they got. But we took full points despite watching us being painful at times. I think McInnes was an under-rated player who never let us down and has done a pretty decent job at Aberdeen. He's built a team made up of home grown players, loan signings, players picked up from the depths of the English leagues and frees from Inverness and St Mirren. Anyway, all that being said I hope Caixinha makes me eat my words and we thrash Aberdeen tonight.

What is the Darren Cooney situation?

Believe it or not we actually did have a very good PR agency at Rangers for a number of years, however the issue isn't always who does the PR but what strategy they employ to achieve the brief they've been given. That was certainly the case when Media House were retained. I can't comment on Level 5, I've no personal experience of them. What I would say though is they are simply a company employed by the club to carry out a task. None of us know what their brief is and how their performance is measured. In my opinion the issue lies with our board of directors and our Chief Executive. They do the hiring and firing, they set the strategy. None of us know what Level 5 have been asked to do, what resources they've got to do it and how it's being measured. Until we do it's hard to criticise the PR company involved. I would point out though that our current board haven't received much criticism in the media, so the PR company might actually be doing the job they are paid to do very well. I agree entirely with the OP that our PR needs over-hauled, I'm just not convinced the issue lies entirely with the PR agency we employ.

Oh, I don't know about that, I was certainly fearful whenever I saw him on the team sheet...

Au contraire. The Swiss were regarded as being the finest soldiers in Europe for centuries, their mercenaries were sought after by all the great powers as they were seen as being virtually unbeatable and they didn't change sides once they made an agreement. The Swiss were employed as Royal guards by almost every royal family in Europe as well as to guard the Vatican. The mixture of Germanic discipline, French cunning and Italian fire plus yomping up and down mountains all day meant the Swiss were feared and respected. Senderos might be the exception that makes the rule of course.

I understand the players took a salary deferment on the agreement that no non-playing staff would then be made redundant. They were told that if cuts in outgoings (ie salaries) were made the club would be able to leave Admin and then salaries would go back to their previous levels. There was an agreement with Whyte that the players would receive the deferred salary back when the club left Administration. In the event the club didn't leave Admin (at least not the way everyone hoped it would) and, I understand, the players never received the salary they agreed to defer. I was told that by the agent of one of the players, but he could be lying I suppose. There was a degree of bitterness towards Whyte and the Admin team as some of the players felt they'd been misled. There was a huge degree of suspicion towards Green and having felt they'd been shafted by Whyte and Duff & Phelps they weren't in the mood to be shafted again. Any Christmas bonuses paid were either before the Admin event, when the good ship Whyte was sailing on as if nothing untoward was happening, or after we failed to emerge from Admin and we were in Div 3 and controlled by Green. Duff & Phelps didn't pay anyone any bonuses, well, maybe themselves!

Who by? Who paid the players who had deferred their salaries? I understood that salaries were deferred on the understanding that the club would be taken out of administration, remain in the top flight and carry on as if nothing had happened. At the time we went into administration most people assumed we'd come out of it in a few months. When that didn't happen no one got paid. Are you saying the players were paid their salary in full whilst we were in Administration?

Are people complaining about loyalty from professional footballers, really? Look, forget about that, for 99% of players it's a job, first and foremost, it's the way they make a living and they approach it it in that way. You know what that's how clubs approach it too, once a player is past his usefulness don't expect loyalty. Frankly most supporters are like that too. If a player has five good seasons and then one poor one a fairly high percentage of supporters want that player dropped and shipped out. Loyalty? Naismith (and Whittaker) was badly advised. His press conference was a mistake, (although reading his comments again his view of green was on the money). It hurt because he was a supporter and a talismanic player, he as much as anyone in the team at the time, could win us matches, produce that wee bit of magic every side needs. Plus he was a leader in the dressing room. He, along with Davis and McGregor, represented the players when deferring salaries and ensuring non-playing staff were treated well. Naismith leaving hurt. But loyalty? Kenny Miller has left Rangers twice and had a stint playing for Celtic, yet there's a clamour to give him a new contract. Loyalty? What kind of lives do you people lead? Have you never made a mistake, ever? Has someone close to you not made a mistake and apologised later? Did you refuse their apology and never speak to them again? If Naismith wants to come back, if our manager at the time wants him and if the club can afford him it would be insane not to sign him. In the grand scheme of people who have treated Rangers badly in recent years Naismith is far down the list. It would be just another example of a support intent on self-harm if he didn't sign because of some insane Albanian blood-fued bollocks.

The Glazer's bought Man Utd with a 'leveraged buyout' where they basically borrowed money, at eye-watering interest rates, and used Man Utd as collateral for the loan. So they borrowed money against something they didn't own to buy the thing they didn't own. I'm reluctant to type much more on this subject currently other than to say using a football club as collateral for a loan to buy that football club has been done before.

Mmm, he'll be our manager this time next season...

It's difficult to compare eras but I don't believe Messi would have close to the influence he is today if he'd played in the 90s or before. Put simply he'd have been kicked senseless in those days. The protection players get today allows guys like Messi to flourish, and that's a great thing, but if you watch some of the stuff players like Maradona put up with when they were playing you'd really question if Messi is physically capable of taking that kind of punishment. If Maradona had played in an era where you could barely tackle far less foul your opponents he'd have been literally unstoppable. Anyway, I've still got my doubts about our manager, I've seen nothing to make me change my mind on his appointment. Not yet at least.

It was my first chance to see Gilmour play live. He can certainly play, his movement and vision was noticeable and he's got a big heart too, challenging clearly bigger and older boys when some reticence might have been excused. I can see why we want to keep him and others want to take him. At that age group you have players who still look like kids, slight build, smaller and more child like and then you've got the strapping lads who could pass for 25 year olds. I always assumed the wee small ones must be really good to get on the same pitch as the boys who are clearly physically much stronger than them. Although I long ago realised you can't tell who is going to make it and who won't from watching one youth game I couldn't help speculating. Aitchison and the boy who got sent off caught the eye for Celtic, also I thought their full backs looked quite decent too. For us, Gilmour aside, I liked the defender Mayo and Kelly who I think was in midfield. But they could be flipping burgers or playing for AC Milan in 10 years for all I know. I started watching saying it doesn't matter what the score is, the score isn't important at this level, it's about performance and style and learning. Of course when our sub put that header over in the final minutes I was howling at the TV like a maniac and cursing him all ways, as ever it came down to really wanting to beat them.

Aye, that makes sense, take him out of school and move him to London would be the obvious reaction to that...

I do have an issue with kids going to pro-clubs. The churn rate of boys is appalling, the number who simply drop out wouldn't be tolerated in any other profession. Professional football clubs are by and large poorly run, with erratic football cultures, short-termism and self interest embedded in their DNA. They are no place for children. I also don't buy into this not being an easy decision because of the money. The boy's from Ayrshire, not a shanty town on the edge of Brazzaville. He already has a comfortable life in one of the wealthiest, Western liberal democracies in the world. I mean let's get some perspective here, if he doesn't make it in football there are still thousands of opportunities open to him. As for the mentality, he may well believe he can be a world beater, maybe his parents too, and maybe they are correct. But Rangers have helped get him where he is now and some degree of loyalty isn't too much to ask. And if for any reason they don't want to stay at Rangers then Chelsea is a bizarre choice of club to join. They've literally not produced a first team player from their own ranks since John Terry. They'll had 3 managers by the time the lad turns 18. I agree with you about the coaches though!

The nurturing and developing of talented footballers isn't actually something us, or anyone else in Scotland, has done particularly well in recent years. I don't want the lad to leave, but being brilliant at 15 means very little if history is any judge. I imagine if he was leaving to join Southampton or Spurs you could see the logic, both clubs have a good recent record developing top flight players, but to join Chelsea is clearly all about chasing money. If that's his mindset at 15 and that's the parental advice he's getting then we might be better without him. Football isn't just about ability, it's about mentality too. That this is even a discussion being had in his home suggests he has the former but perhaps not the latter. I read a great article about late developers recently. Ed Smith was a professional cricketer and although his piece is largely about rugby it's equally relevant to football. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/sport/2017/03/praise-late-developer Professional football clubs shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children. No one suggests the kid who is best at Maths should spend five hours a week at PWC or the kid who excels in English should do a couple of shifts at the Herald during the week. It's madness, the whole structure of football needs to change, it needs re-thought and rebuilt. Gilmour clearly has ability, but he's 15 years old. We shouldn't even know his name yet, he should be playing with his school and Ayrshire schools and enjoying his football against boys his own age, he even looks like a child.

Actually, I've been thinking about this again and we've got our definition of 'hard' all wrong. We're all associating it with tough tackling, partial to violence, don't-mess-with-him types. Fine, but genuine hard are the players who went out knowing they'd be kicked, punched, fouled and verbally abused all match, and were still expected to win the game for you. Tommy McClean is no ones idea of a hard man, yet McLean was hacked mercilessly in almost every match he played. This in a time when the tackle from behind was legal and the entire sport accepted serious fouling as simply part of the game. Willie Henderson is another who got kicked every match as did Baxter of course. Before the modern era ball players, the genuinely skilful players, were subjected to almost laughable levels of physical abuse. Kicking people is easy, being kicked, every game, that takes guts.