amms 0 Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 Doesn't alter the fact that the relationship between Jack Irvine/Media House and RFC while having been extremely rewarding for the former has been extremely damaging for the latter as witnessed by the trashing of the former directors whilst beatifying Whyte. Also the fact that they were batting for both sides simultaneously during the Whyte takeover Hay & McKerron being merely a fig leaf. In fact the FARE and Desmond stuff just demonstrate how ineffective they were at defending the club as opposed to certain individuals. But to blame the PR company is to miss the point, that's like blaming the knife when someone stabs you. Media House specialise in 'protecting' individuals and they are very good at it to. Many people judge PR companies by what gets into the public realm without having any idea what never got our into the public realm or indeed why some stories do but others don't. What most Rangers supporters get angry about is our PR strategy, but that isn't set by Media House, that's set by whoever pays them. So that's the person(s) who should be criticised. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,066 Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 But to blame the PR company is to miss the point, that's like blaming the knife when someone stabs you. Media House specialise in 'protecting' individuals and they are very good at it to. Many people judge PR companies by what gets into the public realm without having any idea what never got our into the public realm or indeed why some stories do but others don't. And it's apparent that Media House aren't very good at stopping anti-RFC stories or attempting to shift the agenda elsewhere. What most Rangers supporters get angry about is our PR strategy, but that isn't set by Media House, that's set by whoever pays them. So that's the person(s) who should be criticised. The invoices are submitted to and paid by RFC that's who pay them not any individual it's solely the club that is the client, yet we have recordings of Ramsay Smith dancing to David Grier's tune on the RFC coin. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 And it's apparent that Media House aren't very good at stopping anti-RFC stories or attempting to shift the agenda elsewhere. Maybe. None of us actually know what's not been reported or followed up. The invoices are submitted to and paid by RFC that's who pay them not any individual it's solely the club that is the client, yet we have recordings of Ramsay Smith dancing to David Grier's tune on the RFC coin. But wasn't Grier running Rangers at the time? Most of us are paid by corporate entities but in reality we work for the people who run or own them, and forgetting that isn't a wise career move. I'm not defending Media House, they don't need me to do that, I'm simply trying to point out the reality of the situation. Media House do what they are told, the person to be unhappy with is the person doing the instructing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,066 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 But wasn't Grier running Rangers at the time? Most of us are paid by corporate entities but in reality we work for the people who run or own them, and forgetting that isn't a wise career move. Not according to Clark and Whitehouse who went to great lengths to reassure us that Grier "would play no part in the administration process" which begs the question why Grier (and for that matter Whyte) were directing Ramsay Smith to issue statements in May 2012 whilst RFC plc was in administration and paying the bill for Media House. I'm not defending Media House, they don't need me to do that, I'm simply trying to point out the reality of the situation. Media House do what they are told, the person to be unhappy with is the person doing the instructing. It's clear Media House have a little difficulty in understanding just who their client is, if they were acting on behalf of Duff & Phelps and Craig Whyte then they should have invoiced Duff & Phelps and Craig Whyte for doing their bidding not RFC plc. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 media house have pretty much always been doing pr of individuals like murray, whyte, grier, muir, clark and whitehouse. never for rangers but always at our expense. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 Not according to Clark and Whitehouse who went to great lengths to reassure us that Grier "would play no part in the administration process" which begs the question why Grier (and for that matter Whyte) were directing Ramsay Smith to issue statements in May 2012 whilst RFC plc was in administration and paying the bill for Media House. That's a question for Duff & Phelps, not Media House. Duff & Phelps were running Rangers at the time, they decide who gives who instruction, not the other way round. It's clear Media House have a little difficulty in understanding just who their client is, if they were acting on behalf of Duff & Phelps and Craig Whyte then they should have invoiced Duff & Phelps and Craig Whyte for doing their bidding not RFC plc. Do you think they sent SDM their bill directly too? Again you seem intent on blaming the gun, not the person who pulls the trigger. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,066 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 That's a question for Duff & Phelps, not Media House. Duff & Phelps were running Rangers at the time, they decide who gives who instruction, not the other way round. It's as much a question for Media House as it is Duff & Phelps Do you think they sent SDM their bill directly too? Again you seem intent on blaming the gun, not the person who pulls the trigger. Of course he didn't which proves my original point that the relationship has been an extremely fruitful one for Media House but extremely detrimental to the client who has always been the one constant through Media House's tenure and that is RFC not Murray, not Whyte, not Duff & Phelps and most certainly not David Grier. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted June 11, 2013 Share Posted June 11, 2013 It's as much a question for Media House as it is Duff & Phelps No, it really isn't, they ran the club, much as we all wish they didn't, they did. They called the shots. Of course he didn't which proves my original point that the relationship has been an extremely fruitful one for Media House but extremely detrimental to the client who has always been the one constant through Media House's tenure and that is RFC not Murray, not Whyte, not Duff & Phelps and most certainly not David Grier. You are criticising a company for doing their job, simply because you don't like the brief they were given. The brief came from the people running Rangers, that's who is to blame, Media House do what they are asked to do by the people who sign the cheques. That they are well remunerated for it is neither here nor there frankly, clearly someone was/is happy with the job they did/do. This isn't hard FS, the person the pays the bills decides the strategy. Thats the person you should take issue with. 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 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. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 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. In what way do you feel they've decided strategy, why do you think that? 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.