reaper 0 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Sorry to interrupt but isn't the point (to a degree at least) that MediaHouse appeared to be the ones all too often deciding the strategy given they worked with so many of the relevant parties. In effect they were driving the narrative from a range of angles as opposed to just the one. And they still are. It's like me replying to my own post under a different user-name - rather underhand and mischievous. The relevant party at the time any time would be I suggest the one writing the check, the paymaster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,200 Posted June 11, 2013 Author Share Posted June 11, 2013 In what way do you feel they've decided strategy, why do you think that? Because they're advising more than one relevant party at any one time, it could be said they're driving individual issues. At the very least they have too much interest. For example, we have one thread on here with two different users both advised by MH. MH are the ones deciding the response from each user so while of course the user has their input, MH are effectively forming the narrative. Not saying I'm correct, just offering another way of looking at it... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,200 Posted June 11, 2013 Author Share Posted June 11, 2013 (edited) The relevant party at the time any time would be I suggest the one writing the check, the paymaster. So who is the relevant party at the moment as they all employ (or have employed) MH: RFC, MIH, LBG, Whyte, Green or the Easdales? MH's importance with respect to the last few years seems pretty clear because they've arguably been party to more information than anyone else. Edited June 11, 2013 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reaper 0 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 So who is the relevant party at the moment as they all employ (or have employed) MH: RFC, MIH, LBG, Whyte, Green or the Easdales? MH's importance with respect to the last few years seems pretty clear because they've arguably been party to more information than anyone else. Just as D&P were the relevant party at the time they were running the club and signing the cheques, RFC and the board/owners would now be the relevant paymasters, to suggest anything else would infer a weakness within the RFC board that I don't even begin to want to think about. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Because they're advising more than one relevant party at any one time, it could be said they're driving individual issues. At the very least they have too much interest. For example, we have one thread on here with two different users both advised by MH. MH are the ones deciding the response from each user so while of course the user has their input, MH are effectively forming the narrative. Not saying I'm correct, just offering another way of looking at it... If they had a conflict of interest don't you think one of the parties would have raised this? If they weren't achieving the outcomes they were being asked to why would their clients (be it Rangers, MIH, Duff & Phelps or whoever) retain them? Blaming the PR company is complete misdirection, as I keep saying to Forlan, Media House do what they are told. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,200 Posted June 11, 2013 Author Share Posted June 11, 2013 If they had a conflict of interest don't you think one of the parties would have raised this? If they weren't achieving the outcomes they were being asked to why would their clients (be it Rangers, MIH, Duff & Phelps or whoever) retain them? Blaming the PR company is complete misdirection, as I keep saying to Forlan, Media House do what they are told. You would think that but I've given up trying to analyse who had what interests and how they were related to others. MH's influence may well be a red herring compared to the bigger fish but I don't think we can under-estimate the affect they've had on this farce. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,200 Posted June 11, 2013 Author Share Posted June 11, 2013 Just as D&P were the relevant party at the time they were running the club and signing the cheques, RFC and the board/owners would now be the relevant paymasters, to suggest anything else would infer a weakness within the RFC board that I don't even begin to want to think about. Like I say, MH have been a key part of this story for around ten years. It's a cliché but they, more than most, will know where the bodies are buried. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 You would think that but I've given up trying to analyse who had what interests and how they were related to others. MH's influence may well be a red herring compared to the bigger fish but I don't think we can under-estimate the affect they've had on this farce. I think you can over-estimate it though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,200 Posted June 11, 2013 Author Share Posted June 11, 2013 I think you can over-estimate it though. Absolutely and maybe I am. However, you have to concede they'll know more than most about the issue from a variety of angles. And, they'd have to be very professional indeed not to let that impinge on their advice - even unconsciously. Essentially what I'm saying is that there was and still is a conflict of interest in MediaHouse's involvement with Rangers. I may be doing them a dis-service to a degree and I certainly sympathise with the job they have/had working within this crazy farce but the fact we are talking about them says a lot. Harsh but very fair IMHO. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Absolutely and maybe I am. However, you have to concede they'll know more than most about the issue from a variety of angles. And, they'd have to be very professional indeed not to let that impinge on their advice - even unconsciously. But Frankie if you employ a company to do a job for you, be it a PR company or a widget manufacturer you judge them on the job they do. The problem here is you/Forlan and many other Rangers supporters are judging them on a different job, they're being judged on the job you'd like them to do or wish they did. That's unfair. To use a football analogy it's like judging Lee Wallace on the number of goals he scores. If they were giving partial advice, if they were working an angle they'd be found out quickly because they wouldn't deliver what they were being paid to. Essentially what I'm saying is that there was and still is a conflict of interest in MediaHouse's involvement with Rangers. I may be doing them a dis-service to a degree and I certainly sympathise with the job they have/had working within this crazy farce but the fact we are talking about them says a lot. Harsh but very fair IMHO. What is the conflict of interest though? Are the people who pay them aware of it? If they are why don't they share your concerns? To be fair to Media House they don't stick their head above the parapet much, they are only the story because someone leaked confidential emails and taped meetings. They aren't the story, they are players in the game but it is someone else's game and someone else's rules. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.