amms

I think you can over-estimate it though.

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.

In what way do you feel they've decided strategy, why do you think that?

No, it really isn't, they ran the club, much as we all wish they didn't, they did. They called the shots. 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.

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. 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.

Maybe. None of us actually know what's not been reported or followed up. 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.

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.

No, there's no difference at all. By setting the tone they set the character and attitude of a place, in this case a forum. They achieve that by setting and enforcing rules, rules which they create. But to suggest the tone of a forum isn't set by the admins of that forum is bewildering. It seems deeply ironic that your original post bemoaned the lack of unity in our online support yet you seem unable to accept the one point of similarity they all have, indeed all forums have.

I think many people misunderstand what his role is. His primary role is to improve and help monetize the club's in-house media, improve the standard of what is produced and so encourage people like us to use the Rangers created media outlets more and more. It's far to early to judge if he's been successful at that.

I've only seen a couple of them but the ones I did read seem to have been doing exactly what hundreds of posters on various Rangers messageboards have been urging the club to do. Journalists being taken to task, a 'Rangers' viewpoint being put to editors and organisations like FARE being taken to task. In the end Mediahouse work for whoever is in charge of the club, they set the strategy and Media House execute it, but blaming them is shooting the messenger.

Yip, it's difficult to argue with commonsense isn't it.

This thread has almost turned into parody. Mark Dingwall can say and do what he wants on his forum because it's his. If you don't like it don't use it, what's difficult about that? Of course the admin's on RM set the tone, they decide what's acceptable behaviour, they decide when to step in or when not to, they decide what can and can't be said. That's setting the tone D'art, whether it is heavy handed and proscriptive or softly, softly and liberal it is still setting the tone. I don't know Mark Dingwall, I've never met or spoken to him. But I've seen him called some fairly unpleasant things by fellow Rangers supporters, I could see why he might not want people associated with some of them posting on his forum.

Aye, no problem Anchorman, I'm sure they're just misunderstood.

Good for you. Unfortunately I feel it is a good description, I guess that makes me an old wife then. It's not my place to educate you, I value my knees.

I think the definition of that word is fairly well known. If you don't feel it is a good description then fair enough, others do.

I don't understand what that has to do with anything we're talking about?

In what way?

I find criticism of FF puzzling. It's fairly well known it belongs to one person and as you'd expect that person has a lot of influence over it, I don't believe he hides that. It's his, why shouldn't he? It's not a public service funded by tax-payers, it's not the Washington Post, it's an online version of a fanzine. If he or his admins disagree with something or someone it is their right to censor as they see fit. There are plenty of alternative online outlets for Rangers related discussion if FF isn't for you. I've not posted on FF for years, I wasn't banned I simply stopped enjoying it, I disagreed with much of the sentiment being expressed and the sheer size of it made it difficult for some more reasonable posters to be heard in my opinion. That being said that mainly applies to the message-board. The articles the site publishes remain of a good standard, sometimes very good, their guy on Twitter comes across really well too and the last time I saw the printed fanzine I enjoyed it. So I chose not to post on FF, in the same way I very rarely go onto RM anymore either. I enjoyed it at one time, Rangers gain was RM's loss when Rabbit left and it reached a point last year when I simply stopped enjoying it, I disagreed with much of the sentiment, content and style of the messageboard. So I left and found somewhere else. Rangersmedia, like FF, take their lead from their owner and admins, they set the tone and it flows from that, you either like it or you don't. If you don't then go elsewhere, it isn't hard. I've never been on the VB site, I'd a few run-ins with a couple of them on RM a long time ago who took exception to my wishy-washy, liberal, hand-wringing attitude to something or other. That's fine, that forum is none the poorer for not having me on board, we'd disagree on stuff I'm fairly sure. However none of this should prove an impediment to working together. This is what I've never understood, we don't need to agree on everything, indeed it would be really very odd if we did, that's Stepford Wives territory not football fandom. The only thing we need to agree on is wanting success for Rangers, everything else will stem from that. Having a support more closely involved with the running of the club is in the best interests of Rangers, having a support informed about the financial realities and the hard work many at the club do would also be good for us. I fail to see how it is possible for one or a handful of people to exert undue influence over an organisation like the RST if that organisation is large. Whilst it remains small it can be dominated, if it grows then it's less likely that can happen. I guess that's where we need to come in then.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what "others may think" I can assure you. It has everything to do with the type of people involved in owning and running our club, that should concern all Rangers supporters, particularly with what has happened before.

Do people really think they are being tagged with the sobriquet 'Gangsters' because they cut some corners or avoided some tax? Those activities are not what get you that reputation for. I'm with Bluedell, this is not good news for the club, a very worrying turn of events.

It's not out of spite, you've not been paying attention. It's because it's the right thing to do, something that thankfully it seems the club agrees with too.

Right, that's what you remember. You're usually quite a focused poster but you're all over the place on this.

I've posted this before although I remember some didn't believe me. Gullane Sands and Murder Hill was entirely psychological, you get no fitter running up sand dunes than you do on a track, a cross country run or a stairmaster. One of Wallace's much undervalued traits, indeed entirely dismissed by some, was psychology. This is the guy who eventually out-thought Jock Stein, his gruff, angry persona was a front for a much more thoughtful and considered trainer. Celtic had Rangers beaten before the season began, there was very little between the sides in terms of talent and ability but they had the mental edge. They knew how to win leagues and we'd forgotten and Wallace knew they had the edge on us in terms of belief. Murder Hill became our edge. Players ran until they were sick and then ran some more, Wallace told them that if they could beat Murder Hill they could beat anyone, that it made them fitter than every other team in the league, they'd have more stamina than the rest and they believed him. In reality if they'd ran any distance until they were sick it would have had the same effect on them physically but not psychologically. Wallace tried the same at Leicester City and it worked, the players believed they were the fittest in the league. A young Gary Linekar bought every word of it and it wasn't until he joined Barcelona a few years later he discovered it was all in his head. But it gave him an edge, it had helped him become the player he did because he knew he could keep going all game because he thought he was fitter. It's worth listening to Linekar's thoughts on Wallace, he speaks highly of him and in particular his man-management. It's time someone reassessed Wallace's time at Rangers, there was much more to him than the 'jungle fighter' stuff.

We've not had a competitive top division since the mid 80s, the same two teams fighting it out every year doesn't make it competitive. It doesn't help the greater good it simply puts back in place the shit that went before. You remember how that worked out for us, right?