Andy Muirhead's Shitzine interviews Jack Irvine!!!

[ian1964 10,416]

Leggat

 

JACK IRVINE ATTACKS SUN EDITOR HARRIES AND RECORD EDITOR RENNIE

 

JACK IRVINE has trashed the reputation and abilities of the men he needs to have on his side the most if he is to get stories backing the current Rangers board into Scotland’s top two selling daily newspapers.

 

I can reveal that Irvine has made disparaging remarks about Sun editor Andy Harries and Daily Record editor Allan Rennie.

 

The latest revelations come just days after the big three Rangers fans groups released an angry statement condemning Irvine, recently re-employed by Rangers as a £100,000-a-year part time consultant spin doctor, following the release of an email in which Irvine branded the man voted as the Greatest Ever Ranger, John Greig, as thick.

 

And they also follow the smug Irvine treating those Rangers fans with complete contempt by being interviewed by Rangers hating Andy Muirhead on his rabidly pro Celtic website.

 

But it is the news which I am breaking which will damage Jack Irvine the most, especially with Andy Harries, the editor of the Sun, the paper which has backed all of Irvine’s clients during the Rangers saga, beginning with Craig Whyte and going right up to the Easdales.

 

It is the Sun which has been firmly in the Irvine backed Easdales camp.

 

Now Irvine cannot deny the truth of what I am about to reveal. For I have emails from him to prove what he really thinks about Sun supremo Harries and Record editor Rennie.

 

Irvine made his remarks about Andy Harries in the wake of the controversy which followed the Harries U-turn over his original decision to publish extracts of Philmacgiollabhain’s book a year ago.

 

Harries justified his change of mind in an usually long Sun editorial – known in the newspaper business as the leader – and said he had not been aware of Philmacgiollabhain’s background. Harries then added that Philmacgiollabhain was tarred with the brush of sectarianism, something the Press Complaints Commission agreed with after Philmacgiollabhain complained to them.

 

But in an email Jack Irvine wrote: “Harries says he was completely unaware of Phil’s background. That is a sackable offence in itself. If Harries was warned he is an even bigger idiot. The Sun leader was lies from start to finish. If they didn’t know his (Philmacgiollabhain’s) background they should all be sacked.”

 

The Irvine verdict on Record editor Allan Rennie is even more devastating!

 

Jack Irvine wrote: “He (Rennie) was promoted way above his capabilities. However, he does have one major shot in his locker. He is best buddies (and running partner) with the equally incompetent management supremo, Mark Hollinshead. As long as the latter stays in situ, then Rennie cannot be moved.”

 

If Andy Harries, the editor of Scotland’s biggest selling daily newspaper, the Sun and Allan Rennie, the editor of Scotland’s second biggest selling daily newspaper, the Record, did not previously know what Jack Irvine really thought about them, they do now.

 

 

......

AND.....

 

 

THERE’S a new kid on the block fighting for and agitating for Rangers. It’s to be found on Facebook and is appropriately called SonsOfStruth, inspired, I am told, by the blog I wrote asking Rangers fans which side they believed Bill Struth would have been on, were he around today.

 

It can be found at http://www.Facebook.com/SonsOfStruth

 

 

Keep your eye on it!

[amms 0]

There are two issues to consider here. Firstly why he gave the interview and secondly what he said in the interview.

 

On the first point it's worth noting a few things. Jack Irvine previously kept a low profile, but then he wasn't the day-to-day contact for Rangers and wasn't particularly involved in setting and executing strategy. For all he's the best known person at MediaHouse don't be fooled into thinking he's all they have, he's got some very able and intelligent colleagues. So perhaps there has been a change in personnel on the 'account' leading to greater involvement by JI.

I'm an admirer of his work (believe it or not he's well thought of professionally) and I'm quite sure his decision to go high profile is deliberate and probably because they don't want a magnifying glass put onto the Easedales, but that's just my opinion. Mediahouse specialise in keeping you out of the papers, not in them, that's always been their core skill. So for what it's worth I think this is simply an error of judgement on Irvine's part. His age and background lead me to believe he doesn't fully understand the internet world and it's various cliques, histories and personalities. He's probably taken Scotzine at their word. Scotzine site looks professional, has contributors from various clubs and carries mainstream advertising, to the uninitiated it looks like a serious independent and impartial Scottish football website. Muirhead sells himself as a journalist, and to be fair he does work for some 'real' news organisations. We know different, I don't believe Irvine did, but he probably does now though.

 

The second thing is what he actually said. Whether you think Irvine picked Scotzine deliberately or through misjudgement he still chose to give the interview and will have thought his responses through. For me he'd only one point he wanted to make -

 

"AM: If you could stand in front of the Rangers fans today and talk to them what about the club and the way it is working and those wanting to take over – what would you say?

 

JI: Give the board a chance. The Chief Executive has sunk a million of his own cash into the club. Fellow director James Easdale and his family have put in even more.

 

Let’s all be mature. I know Frank Blin and Paul Murray are passionate about the club but to quote Mr Churchill: “To jaw jaw is always better than to war war.”

 

I think that was the sole reason he spoke, to keep the message of give the board and specifically the Easedales a chance. They are paying him after all (or at least commissioning him, we're probably paying him) so it makes sense.

Also remember there's a section of our support open to this message, a read of some posters on here shows they are still more than willing to give Mather and co a chance for a number of reasons. Irvine is reaching out to them.

 

I think Irvine is making some mistakes here but he's far shrewder and capable than I am so what do I know.

[Frankie 8,151]

I do agree with your pro-Easdale conclusion but I'd say this interview will have the opposite affect on both them and Mather. It's a crazy decision but because of his shrewdness and obvious talent, he must have accounted for the reaction. I can't believe for a second that Jack (and his advisors - especially Ramsay) would not have known about Scotzine's reputation beforehand.

[amms 0]

I do agree with your pro-Easdale conclusion but I'd say this interview will have the opposite affect on both them and Mather. It's a crazy decision but because of his shrewdness and obvious talent, he must have accounted for the reaction. I can't believe for a second that Jack (and his advisors - especially Ramsay) would not have known about Scotzine's reputation beforehand.

 

You could be right, I don't know how involved Ramsay is currently. Nothing else makes sense to me though. Many of us inhabit an internet bubble and assume everyone else understands things they way we do. The truth is many don't, unless you are immersed in it a lot of the nuance and history can pass you by. From the outside Scotzine look independent and important and i'm not convinced Irvine has his finger on the internet pulse.

[andy steel 0]

I admire all the reasoned, logical analyses put forward by well informed and thinking posters on this, but I don't find them convincing (I don't think the posters find them convincing, either, to judge from their tone).

 

Mr Irvine has simply made a colossal and unforgivable mistake, one from which any shred of reputation he retained amongst the Rangers support cannot recover. You just can't - really, really, can't - discuss our boardroom doings with the online version of The Celtic View and expect to be taken seriously.

[Frankie 8,151]

You could be right, I don't know how involved Ramsay is currently. Nothing else makes sense to me though. Many of us inhabit an internet bubble and assume everyone else understands things they way we do. The truth is many don't, unless you are immersed in it a lot of the nuance and history can pass you by. From the outside Scotzine look independent and important and i'm not convinced Irvine has his finger on the internet pulse.

 

Again, I disagree.

 

From a cursory look across the main forums, MH clearly have people running interference on some issues and have done for years - certainly since the Whyte 'era'. All information will be fed back to the high heid yins so I'd be astonished if they weren't aware of Scotzine's anti-Rangers outlook.

 

Juxtapose this interview with the recent comments about McConville and, indeed, the answer to one interview question about influential bloggers during the Whyte debacle then Irvine is telegraphing his mockery. Ignorance may well be a valid excuse from time to time, but not in this case. No way.

[andy steel 0]

You could be right, I don't know how involved Ramsay is currently. Nothing else makes sense to me though. Many of us inhabit an internet bubble and assume everyone else understands things they way we do. The truth is many don't, unless you are immersed in it a lot of the nuance and history can pass you by. From the outside Scotzine look independent and important and i'm not convinced Irvine has his finger on the internet pulse.

 

So why give an interview to an internet outlet, when he plainly has a direct line to The Sun?

[der Berliner 3,249]

The actions of some of our current employees beggar belief. Somesuch almost makes you pray that King takes over and chases the whole lot of them out of the house.

[Frankie 8,151]

I admire all the reasoned, logical analyses put forward by well informed and thinking posters on this, but I don't find them convincing (I don't think the posters find them convincing, either, to judge from their tone).

 

Mr Irvine has simply made a colossal and unforgivable mistake, one from which any shred of reputation he retained amongst the Rangers support cannot recover. You just can't - really, really, can't - discuss our boardroom doings with the online version of The Celtic View and expect to be taken seriously.

 

Agreed, I find it difficult to believe any of my empirical theories. However, as AMMS says, you don't get to where Jack is without being a knowledgeable guy.

 

Hence, for the life of me, I can't see this as a mistake. It has to be deliberate strategy and there must be a reason for it.

[andy steel 0]

Again, I disagree.

 

From a cursory look across the main forums, MH clearly have people running interference on some issues and have done for years - certainly since the Whyte 'era'. All information will be fed back to the high heid yins so I'd be astonished if they weren't aware of Scotzine's anti-Rangers outlook.

 

Juxtapose this interview with the recent comments about McConville and, indeed, the answer to one interview question about influential bloggers during the Whyte debacle then Irvine is telegraphing his mockery. Ignorance may well be a valid excuse from time to time, but not in this case. No way.

 

Frankie, Phil 3Names couldn't have done a better hatchet job on the club than Irvine did in that interview. Rangers man? I don't buy it.