Weber Shandwick and PR Companies (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter lewys33
- Start date
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Although there's never a 'truth' as such, PR's a deliberate attempt to skew the 'truth' to a perspective that's beneficial, not necessarily for the people receiving the message, but those giving it.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Public relations is about talking to the public. Yes you want to portray yourself in the best light. Who doesn't however it is not about lying its about communicating. I don't understand why we have an issue with ACL hiring professionals to help them do that.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
That depends on which perspective you come at it from!
L
limoncello
Guest
Maybe propaganda is a less PR word for what they actually do.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Have they lied about anything?
In the recent court case the judge commented that allegations thrown their way were unfortunate and unfounded. (Words to that effect)
So it sounds like the people not using the PR company were close to wire as oppose to ACL
I'm afraid i don't really buy into this ,the damage was done way before It got to asking to cheat the bank out of £7M. whatever It was .
When they let the orange loose in the Stadium ,the alienation towards them came from there .
That Derby game at Easter had at least half the ground shouting SISU OUT,The PR was done at that point .
They've screamed "Victim" ever since.
Were they Forced out ? No IMO .
The attempted admin from ACL was taken on the Basis the Share /CLUB /LEASE and LICENSE were all together and however admin were exited would remain together and alive.
The Action of SISU entering Admin with the share /License /lease seperated out was the only way to kill the Lease/License,thus leaving no contract to play . IMO
When they let the orange loose in the Stadium ,the alienation towards them came from there .
That Derby game at Easter had at least half the ground shouting SISU OUT,The PR was done at that point .
They've screamed "Victim" ever since.
Were they Forced out ? No IMO .
The attempted admin from ACL was taken on the Basis the Share /CLUB /LEASE and LICENSE were all together and however admin were exited would remain together and alive.
The Action of SISU entering Admin with the share /License /lease seperated out was the only way to kill the Lease/License,thus leaving no contract to play . IMO
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Paying people to portray you in a good light okay, but to actively portray others in a negative way not quite the same.
If confident in your own company and case then shouldn't need to denigrate others.
Unless not that confident of your own case of course.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Does ACL employ it's own media/press/communications/pr/marketing officer/team?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Last edited:
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
As an entity itself or as part of ACL?
L
limoncello
Guest
Any chance of linking to your legal teams skeleton argument please?
The lack of this is used anytime mention is made of some of the worrying information from Sisu's skeleton argument. And it would no doubt help support the assertion you've just made.
Unless there's some legal reason not to, of course.
Cheers.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Wouldn't it be more surprising if a company like ACL did not have anyone covering any of those things you mention? Its important to make a distinction between PR that is untruthful, designed to mislead or discredit others and run of the mill day to day PR that most companies of this type would use. Just because a PR firm is engaged by ACL, Higgs, CCC or SISU it doesn't necessarily follow that they are up to no good.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
My point was rather if they already have their own PR team why would they need to spend £600 per hour for a company to cover the ccfc dispute? And is that a good use of public funding if ccc are paying or even good use of funding for what was a financial unstable company when they already have in house expertise.....that is unless they needed something more specialised? (ie spinning the press)
Allocating PR officer on what £30-35k per annum full time on this is worth just 50-58 hours expertise at £600 per hour. That's less than 2 weeks full time work for the price of an entire years salary.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Last edited:
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Who knows, maybe they feel those employed directly should be getting on with the job they are employed to do rather than dealing with this sideshow. Maybe they were concerned that someone working in events PR didn't have the skills to work on something like this. The point I'm making is that just because a PR firm has been engaged it doesn't automatically follow that they are up to no good. They may well be and that may come out in the JR but it shouldn't be an automatic assumption.
As for who's paying for it ACL are a private company so I would assume they are and that they have budgeted for it and feel they can afford it. If that's not the case then you would have to ask serious questions of the person(s) who authorised it on the ACL side. If public money is being spent on it then that is a different argument and a local taxpayer could probably establish that through a FOI request. Maybe a worthwhile exercise and if the council is spending local taxpayers money on PR relating to this then local taxpayers would have every right to be asking for justification of the expenditure.
L
limoncello
Guest
I believe the Private Eye article suggested FOI applications have been rebuffed due to the client being a private company.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Would that not be a FOI request to or regarding ACL? An FOI asking the council how much they had spent, if anything, on PR relating to the Ricoh dispute wouldn't involve a private company.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I can assure you no company the size of ACL would ever consider recruiting a company like WS unless it was to deploy a national campaign of guerrilla tactics.
The expense is not justified otherwise. In surprised this thread is still going. Normally any mention of WS and threads and posts get strangely deleted.
Danceswithhorses
Well-Known Member
SISU should ditch their PR people, save a fortune, and just pay Grendel - he is doing a fine hatchet job of abusing anything to do with the CCC, ACL or Higgs Charity.
Anyone would think that SISU are as clean as a whistle, as they never seem to on the receiving end of his ire.
As much as SISU's PR is trying to make them out as 'the victim', they most certainly are not...the victims are us, the fans, and anyone who stands in their way of achieving their original, and ultimate goal ie ownership of the Ricoh Arena.
Anyone would think that SISU are as clean as a whistle, as they never seem to on the receiving end of his ire.
As much as SISU's PR is trying to make them out as 'the victim', they most certainly are not...the victims are us, the fans, and anyone who stands in their way of achieving their original, and ultimate goal ie ownership of the Ricoh Arena.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
You clearly have been reading the WS communication and taking it in well done.
If their original goal was ownership why didn't they refuse rent from day one rather than propping up a company that at the time hadnt a hope in hell of survival. In addition if "honest" ray had done it most would have followed. So why not then?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Maybe the threats from emails about media assaults made people suspicious? Not that I'm saying anybody is or have,.but when they are throwing comments about media assaults about etc
I think it is quite obvious if a charity and council attempt to do something to save a business and a bank blocks their reasonable solution. Of course it is likely the next tactic for the charity and council would be to ensure the public know what the bank did. It would be a natural step surely to try and exert pressure and ensure the bank accepted a fair deal.
There are lots of stories at the moment about banks ensuring business go under rather than do a deal.
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
Ahhh standard business to threaten media assaults then i guess
What next, threatening fans?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Ahhh standard business to threaten media assaults then i guess
What next, threatening fans?
It pretty much is though isn't it if a big bank rejected a reasonable deal to would save a business ran by a local council and charity. In all honesty and not stirring as you out it. What Di you think would happen?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Are you saying that the bank blocked their reasonable solution? If you are does that not raise questions as to why?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
I'm not suggesting anything untoward necessarily, but they were talking about SISU buying out the distressed debt at about £6m, then when they go and do another deal.. the bank reject all offers up to the full £14m amount.
Why would they do that (and I mean the bank), if the talk was that £6m would have the got the deal done.
Why would they do that (and I mean the bank), if the talk was that £6m would have the got the deal done.
Astute
Well-Known Member
It comes down to how much you believe SISU. Do you?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
It's not about believing SISU is it? All sides agreed that discussions did occur and that was the value talked about.
I'm merely wondering why the apparent shift in the value from the bank?
Probably because David Alvey joined the board of said bank,who had been privy to Fishers roadmap?
Maybe YB got tipped off by someone who had left ACL with the full knowledge of the roadmap - someone who later became director at YB.
But as long as there is no evidence, then it's pure speculation.
