I'm under no illusions about either of them. You may have worked at city and I have no doubt that you saw and heard many things. But I am not talking about rumour or gossip and I have been told a completely different story to the one you paint. I cannot reveal what I know openly and will not as it would get me into trouble. I know this is a cop out but, that's all I can say. I don't trust him.
I remember Daisy "finding things out" on another board back in the day. I apologise now for arguing the toss re: the INVESTEC loan, which in the end very nearly crippled us. You could have found a better way of disseminating this information though - at less personal cost, perhaps anonymously through trusted intermediaries? But then again - I guess there is a reason I remember those posts nearly 6 years on, and I probably won't remember the above post in 6 years time. Oh, and I very much doubt Daisy trusts him either - given the history....
In hindsight - probably no surprise it was dropped, given the level of legal scrutiny they would have been under - i.e. whether what you were saying was true or not - and whether indeed the aforementioned investment bank were our de-facto major shareholders as a result of it..... They sacked you - which was probably reasonable - given the breech in corporate confidentiality. The potential court-case was to scare you and potential others, which worked. You should have probably got in-touch with David Conn under condition of anonymity though and done us all a big, big favour.
Anyone that has screwed us before, even if they acted on behalf of others, shouldn't be allowed back. Some people think they know things but as normal no one knows the true story. No chance I want him back in any position.
There's no evidence in the public domain that Duffen did actually screw us over. He's a media man - with extensive contacts and I suspect he was given constraints to work within - i.e. based on the shareholders instructions. He was probably to Bartlett, Walker and later INVESTEC what Alastair Campbell was to the Labour Party, or what Andy Coulson or Grant Shapps (AKA Sebastian Fox/Michael Green) are/have been to the incumbent bunch of self-interested crooks running the country. At least Duffen didn't resort to a psuedonym - or is that really his real name.....? Certainly ain't his real hair! I also think it likely - given Bartlett's now evident high-risk business-plan - that Duffen was allowed some budget to wine, dine and (in purely innocent terms of course) powder the noses of potential inverstors. This would also explain "**** or bust" signings aimed at raising the profile of the club - so long as the medical warnings didn't manifest themselves before a buyer was hooked.... Then all of a sudden the crash happened - debts were called in, benefactor's property investments (and thereby credit-worthyness) significantly shrunk in value and the rest (post 2008-9) was a sad inevitable tale.... The fact remains though, that without the Duffen/Bartlett era there would have been no premiership - not then and not now either as the Allam's wouldn't have seen the business potential and personal commercial benefit in Hull having a top-flight football club. Pearson took us "as far as he could" remember - mainly due to him being bankrolled by a Leeds fan throughout his tenure here - except when employed by the (alledged) crook that Duffen walked away from that is.... If Bates hadn't miraculously won (or apparently stitched up - for those more sceptically inclined) the IVA at Bellend road, Pearson would have quite probably have walked away from Hull in favour of the Shyte for good. Pearson just had twice the brain and half the charisma Duffen had. That's the only real difference. I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up back at Leeds again (he's been making noises that way even recently - probably backed by Wilkinson) and probably with a personal stake in Hull F.C. at the same time. There is no trust in business - that's why contracts are there. You can only judge personal gain vs contractual obligation in these matters. Sad thing is these are seldom reported. Press fixation on persona is simply fluff - and that stands true in every manifestation of public business and political life.
Oh yeah - another thing that doesn't figure - why, if Duffen is just "giving an interview", doesn;t he give it to a commercial concern such as the YP, HDM, one of the tabloids,Sky ect.... Local BBC radio - won't get much of a fee for that. Must be something more to it.
MikeHull - Under that criteria you are left with precisely no-one who'd be interested with both financial backing and competitive experience of running a significant corporate entity. You'll be left with (ex) public sector managers, (ex) CEO's of charities, small-time local businessmen and "fans". If you want to organise a fans buyout of enough shares to get a seat on the board then I'm sure some of us would be all ears - or maybe not as no-one has yet managed to achieve the necessary backing, despite plenty of open invitations over the not un-recent years - which is tragic in itself really.... .... and if you do have that capability than I'd have to ask - where were you in 2000? When all is said and done - there are currently several successful and quite major corporate entities who are more than happy to have Paul Duffen as a leading board-member. He continues to be a very ****ing successful businessman. Don't let your own myopic view of hull get in the way of a little research.
Eh? Are you suggesting he'd get any kind of fee for any of these outlets? People have a strange idea of how the media works.
It's quite simple, the Allams know everything that went on and seem to be happy to employ him again which obviously means he can't have really done anything wrong. They run multi million pound businesses so I think they know a bit more than the herberts who post on here
Duffen had nothing to do with KCFM, it was AP who was involved in the Planet Broadcasting consortium.
Bollocks, he was a thieving **** who took backhanders from agents and used club money to fund his lifestyle. He's more slippery than a haddock having a piggy back on a jellyfish.
So because I know something about Paul Duffen before he came here, I am a fool and a Herbert. J B Septum posts that he thinks, Dazed worked for City and lost his job, I don't doubt the validity of what they post, I just have a completely different view, based on conversations with someone who knows.
Is it possible that some local people/groups would want some of his activities from when he was here before kept quiet, and the current regime see that as a factor in him being invited back?
