Kosh wrote:Have you ever been through the Due Diligence process involved in purchasing a company?
Have you?
Your point, whatever it is has no bearing on what on the face of it looks like a fook up of monumental proportions if the £200k wasn't known about. If you think this type of liability and/or the amount is something that shouldn't have being uncovered (so it wasn't a 'surprise') then you obviously don't know much about much or just hire the wrong people right? It's not as if this kind of thing is a complete unknown and just some rudimentary work would have sussed out something wasn't right even if the Hetherington's hdn't said anything
As it happens I've being involved in takeovers of multiple companies (at the same time) incorporating them into ours en-masse, I wasn't the owner of the principal PLC but a cog like most others but that's none of your business nor does it excuse yet another cock up by pearson. I mean, there's this, the seemingly massive contracts he allowed/OK'd to be handed out to various family members/friends of Gentle & bomber, the fallout from McDonnal, the way he dealt with the Seymour incident and plenty more besides. It would appear to me Pearson doesn't know everything that people think he does about running a business and has just got lucky, fair play to him.
Your point, whatever it is has no bearing on what on the face of it looks like a fook up of monumental proportions if the £200k wasn't known about. If you think this type of liability and/or the amount is something that shouldn't have being uncovered (so it wasn't a 'surprise') then you obviously don't know much about much or just hire the wrong people right? It's not as if this kind of thing is a complete unknown and just some rudimentary work would have sussed out something wasn't right even if the Hetherington's hdn't said anything
As it happens I've being involved in takeovers of multiple companies (at the same time) incorporating them into ours en-masse, I wasn't the owner of the principal PLC but a cog like most others but that's none of your business nor does it excuse yet another cock up by pearson. I mean, there's this, the seemingly massive contracts he allowed/OK'd to be handed out to various family members/friends of Gentle & bomber, the fallout from McDonnal, the way he dealt with the Seymour incident and plenty more besides. It would appear to me Pearson doesn't know everything that people think he does about running a business and has just got lucky, fair play to him.
Mr Wonderful. What an amazing career you've had. Thank God it wasn't with Hull FC.
Is Hodgson the new Griffin, or is it all about pace?
Last edited by ccs on Thu Jun 11, 2015 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
knockersbumpMKII wrote:Have you?
Actually, yes I have.
The buyer has no legal authority to demand a forensic audit of accounts. He, and his accountants, can only work with what is voluntarily supplied by the vendor. If the vendor doesn't disclose something - and whether or not an EBT actually contained any cash would be easy to avoid disclosing - there is no way to discover it if it isn't otherwise in the public domain. Again, the content of an EBT would not be in the public domain.
Carrying out Due Diligence does not guarantee finding all the skeletons in the closet, no matter who you hire. What it does is provide a basis for - and protection from - any ensuing legal action. So your assertion that AP's ignorance of the £200k (if that is actually the case) was a 'monumental fookup' is nonsense.
Mind you, a mere cog (your term) wouldn't know any of this anyway as only the directors would be involved.
Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One
Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29812 Location: West Yorkshire
Kosh wrote:Actually, yes I have.
The buyer has no legal authority to demand a forensic audit of accounts. He, and his accountants, can only work with what is voluntarily supplied by the vendor. If the vendor doesn't disclose something - and whether or not an EBT actually contained any cash would be easy to avoid disclosing - there is no way to discover it if it isn't otherwise in the public domain. Again, the content of an EBT would not be in the public domain.
Carrying out Due Diligence does not guarantee finding all the skeletons in the closet, no matter who you hire. What it does is provide a basis for - and protection from - any ensuing legal action. So your assertion that AP's ignorance of the £200k (if that is actually the case) was a 'monumental fookup' is nonsense.
Mind you, a mere cog (your term) wouldn't know any of this anyway as only the directors would be involved.
ccs wrote:Mr Wonderful. What an amazing career you've had. Thank God it wasn't with Hull FC.
Thank god I will never have someone like you working for me, but if you have a point to make about the effectiveness of Pearson and the 200K please do make one instead of wagging your tail in the wind, there's a good boy.
The buyer has no legal authority to demand a forensic audit of accounts. He, and his accountants, can only work with what is voluntarily supplied by the vendor. If the vendor doesn't disclose something - and whether or not an EBT actually contained any cash would be easy to avoid disclosing - there is no way to discover it if it isn't otherwise in the public domain. Again, the content of an EBT would not be in the public domain.
Carrying out Due Diligence does not guarantee finding all the skeletons in the closet, no matter who you hire. What it does is provide a basis for - and protection from - any ensuing legal action. So your assertion that AP's ignorance of the £200k (if that is actually the case) was a 'monumental fookup' is nonsense.
Mind you, a mere cog (your term) wouldn't know any of this anyway as only the directors would be involved.
Good on you, so what you are saying is that it CAN be found, there's nothing inherrantly obvious from a legal standpoint stopping you finding it is there? I'm sure that your organisation works wonderfully well, I'm sure 'your' people have everything in hand and leave no stone unturned...I'm pleased as hell for you.
Now, aside from your dick waving and spouting about the legalites re the responsibility of the seller, and I never mentioned anything about guarantees in any case but if you genuinely think something like this can't be found then clearly you and your team aren't very good at what you do but that's your problem not mine fella.
knockersbumpMKII wrote:Thank god I will never have someone like you working for me, but if you have a point to make about the effectiveness of Pearson and the 200K please do make one instead of wagging your tail in the wind, there's a good boy.
Thank god, indeed, bumpy, you must be an employee's worst nightmare.
Is Hodgson the new Griffin, or is it all about pace?
knockersbumpMKII wrote:I'd be your worst nightmare as a boss but as I said I wouldn't employ your type period, that's just based on the way you post on here.
Sums you up perfectly.
Is Hodgson the new Griffin, or is it all about pace?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Good on you, so what you are saying is that it CAN be found, there's nothing inherrantly obvious from a legal standpoint stopping you finding it is there? 
