From Hull Website ''The new owner was not made aware of the full UKAD investigation until completing the takeover of the club, but once the new management team were briefed on the investigation they cooperated fully with UKAD and the RFL and understand the stance both organisations have been forced to take. The new board are extremely disappointed at the handling of the entire process by the former Chairwoman, CEO and board and of course the player for taking a banned substance in the first instance'' Looks like Kath H, got them to sign on the dotted line, banked the cheque and then once it cleared told the new owners "by the way there is a big drug investigation about to blow up soon......i meant to tell you about it before you bought us out but it must have slipped my mind !! www.hullfc.com/newsarticle.aspx?n=20051

From Hull Website ''The new owner was not made aware of the full UKAD investigation until completing the takeover of the club, but once the new management team were briefed on the investigation they cooperated fully with UKAD and the RFL and understand the stance both organisations have been forced to take. The new board are extremely disappointed at the handling of the entire process by the former Chairwoman, CEO and board and of course the player for taking a banned substance in the first instance'' Looks like Kath H, got them to sign on the dotted line, banked the cheque and then once it cleared told the new owners "by the way there is a big drug investigation about to blow up soon......i meant to tell you about it before you bought us out but it must have slipped my mind !! www.hullfc.com/newsarticle.aspx?n=20051

Quote Rhino Roy="Rhino Roy"From Hull Website ''The new owner was not made aware of the full UKAD investigation until completing the takeover of the club, but once the new management team were briefed on the investigation they cooperated fully with UKAD and the RFL and understand the stance both organisations have been forced to take. The new board are extremely disappointed at the handling of the entire process by the former Chairwoman, CEO and board and of course the player for taking a banned substance in the first instance'' Looks like Kath H, got them to sign on the dotted line, banked the cheque and then once it cleared told the new owners "by the way there is a big drug investigation about to blow up soon......i meant to tell you about it before you bought us out but it must have slipped my mind !! www.hullfc.com/newsarticle.aspx?n=20051'" Its very strange because when I sold my business there was a very tight legal process to go through which included full disclosure not only of the accounts but also the day-to-day trading situation, forthcoming orders and any s[ihi[/it that was likely to hit the fan, it also takes a long time to do the diligence checks during which you are under the microscope - its not like they do in Eastenders where they swap the pub ownership over a pint every week. Someone either hid something very well or someone's solicitors just didn't ask the right questions.

Quote Rhino Roy="Rhino Roy"From Hull Website ''The new owner was not made aware of the full UKAD investigation until completing the takeover of the club, but once the new management team were briefed on the investigation they cooperated fully with UKAD and the RFL and understand the stance both organisations have been forced to take. The new board are extremely disappointed at the handling of the entire process by the former Chairwoman, CEO and board and of course the player for taking a banned substance in the first instance'' Looks like Kath H, got them to sign on the dotted line, banked the cheque and then once it cleared told the new owners "by the way there is a big drug investigation about to blow up soon......i meant to tell you about it before you bought us out but it must have slipped my mind !! www.hullfc.com/newsarticle.aspx?n=20051'" Its very strange because when I sold my business there was a very tight legal process to go through which included full disclosure not only of the accounts but also the day-to-day trading situation, forthcoming orders and any s[ihi[/it that was likely to hit the fan, it also takes a long time to do the diligence checks during which you are under the microscope - its not like they do in Eastenders where they swap the pub ownership over a pint every week. Someone either hid something very well or someone's solicitors just didn't ask the right questions.

due diligence sprang to mind when iread that, hypothetically speaking what are the implications of something not being declared / uncovered, professional negligence ?

Hypothetically speaking, when I sold my business it was on the firm (and contract binding) provision that myself and our Leeds team were to continue running the business as a subsiduary of the Birmingham based purchasers - if after successfully completing several months worth of negotiations and contracts I had suddenly revealed something that I had previously had knowledge of that inevitably would result in my and my teams dismissal, then at the very least I would expect my purchaser to come after me for compensation, at the very least for the substantial legal fees that they picked up the tab for.

Due diligence can be used by either the purchaser or the seller to verify the material facts of a transaction but is more usually the responsibility of the buyer to undertake this audit. Lawyers acting for the purchaser should include a 'full disclosure' clause in the contract to cover not just the financial elements but also any potential or pending legal actions that may effect the valuation or viability of the business.



Hypothetically speaking, and purely as an example you understand, when you sold your 'place of purveyance' known as "Ye Olde Cake Emporium" had you not disclosed the possibility of any impending legal action brought by say, the family of a late customer who demised after eating some of your 'fermented curd comestibles' you may have been liable to pay compensation.





I am not sure if failing to declare something seriously negative when there is a full disclosure clause in the contract could also be construed in law as fraud. If there is no 'full disclosure' clause in the contract it may prove difficult to win compensation unless it could be proved to have materially effected the valuation seriously or it incurred future liabilities that would have effected the valuation.



Maybe in this case it is only the former board members themselves who will be held responsible rather that the club. However if the club becomes liable for any fines and legal costs then the new owners could seek compensation from the former owners. It is usually very difficult to value 'goodwill' in a business purchase

The only other thing I'd add into the mix is never under estimate the vanity aspect of wanting to own a sporting club, whereas in a "normal" commercial world "normal" business heads would tear up a contract and sue the [iars[/ie off a seller who had withheld information (in our hypothetical example), the "normal" rules of doing business seem to go out of the window when sporting clubs are involved, Premier League football to one side there aren't too many sporting club owners who are in it to make another fortune, most of them usually find that they end up spending the fortune they had made "normally" in order to massage their egos each and every match day.

Let's hope Mr H does not have to cover financially Mrs H out of our salary cap headroom!

You are worthy of better comments than this. I doubt if these two Yanks you mention are even aware of any of the issues I have commented on let alone share an opinion, so your comparison is odious. I may disagree with, but still give respect to your outdated and discredited socialist/marxist viewpoint. But I would not resort to likening your postings to those of Stalin just because we disagree.

0/10

ok ok Juan thats me put in my place,and of course you speak much more sense and intellect than Newt or Mitt,sorry mate

.Over the Christmas period we have had every film version of "A CHRISTMAS CAROL"and ive been talking to people in the local bar they said" oh how bad it was in Britain then,"I said yes and remember Britain was the most powerful nation on Earth with the largest Empire ,and to think of all the unequality,they say the gap between rich and poor is wider now in Britain than in those days,but thanks to writers like Dickens and the new socialist movement things did get better in the following 100years".If you send me statistics and facts and figures,please make them easy for me?

Happy new year Juan all the very best

"The rich" in Dickensian times were not just rich, they had wealth the equivalent of Bill Gates, they were the men who built entire towns from their own wallets and not for any humanitarian reasons - the gap between rich and poor in Britain is nothing like the Victorian example and the welfare safety net prevents anyone from falling as far as the Victorian poor did - but I would question the rich/poor gap in the USA with your friends and ask them what is available when a wage is removed through unemployment ?

Ive heard them say welfare,but I'll have a chat tomorrow when I go for a beer.There seems to be more talk about foreclosures over here ,I wonder if its more prevelant in the the USA than in Britain.What I have noticed in the bars and diners where I drink is the amount of young graduates working in these places and doing 3 jobs a week.The local mall was very busy over the holiday and the talk is like it is in Britain people saying '"they are using credit cards to buy christmas".I cant get my head round this health system at all ,they all moan about it they say we should have a system like European nations.The only time I here anyone speak up for the one they've got is on the political adverts.

There is only political dogma to hold an opinion that a nation should or should not provide some basic health care for its citizens, where that level of health care should be pitched is open to debate but the minimum IMO should be at a level where any individual should not have to take additional insurance to guarantee treatment for any ailment or accident he/she may come across during their natural lifetime - I do understand that for some Republicans that is almost a communist attitude but if central government cannot provide the basic welfare for its citizens then why the fook do we hand over our taxes to them ?



Just one example that I came across recently was a mobile home for sale on a Florida holiday park, the reason for the sale was that the Floridian owner needed cancer treatment and their insurance cover had reached its treatment limit - excuse me ? You will pay for cancer treatment but only to a prescribed limit regardless of whether a cure or remission has been reached , what sort of f'kin cover is that ???