Thetownend.com

http://www.truststfc.co.uk/news_item.php?id=1103

CVA supervisor, Andrew Andronikou, has written to creditors announcing he will not be holding a creditors meeting despite an almost unanimously vote calling on him to do so.

Following the clubs failure to meet the final CVA payment by the June deadline, Mr Andronikou wrote to creditors in July asking if they wanted to convene a meeting or wind up the company. According to Mr Andronikou :"Of the votes received only one creditor voted to wind up the Company, therefore the majority decision of the creditors was to hold a meeting to discuss the way forward."

The CVA supervisor then goes on to say :"However, in light of recent events and the fact that the Company has been sold to a new investor who has provided an undertaking to pay the final contribution of £900,000 into the CVA in a short time, I do not feel it necessary to hold such a meeting." This is somewhat at odds with a club statement last weekend which claimed that the sale process was still underway and had yet to be completed.

The letter also contains a couple more surprises for creditors which would seem to indicate they will have to wait some time yet for their money and may well receive rather less than they had been expecting.

Mr Andronikou sates :"I have been notified of one hundred and twenty four unsecured claims totaling £8,216,452.94 these claims have not yet been adjudicated.".

The original CVA proposal included a debt figure of around £5.9 million, it is far from clear if this new figure is additional debt or if the original £5.9 million is included within the new total. Either way it seems that the £400,000 distribution to unconnected creditors will have to stretch much further than previously indicated, and the projected 24p in the £ dividend will be much lower, possibly less than half.

The letter asks creditors to contact Mr Andronikou if they do not agree with the amount recorded for their debt by 31st October 2007, which would indicate that even when the £900,000 is paid, creditors will not be receiving their money until the end of the year at the earliest.

For someone who is supposed to represent the creditors he does a fucking rubbish job of it.Were fucked,im going to watch Ready,Steady Cook and ignore all this bollocks.

This doesn't add up.  If HMRC or your landlord tell you they want a creditors' meeting, you don't turn around and tell them they're not getting one.

Either way, this is proof that the CVA has not been paid...and that there are still no concrete plans to do so.  I am finding it increasingly difficult to understand how the Football League has not yet got involved.

Back to Gazette watch it is then.

green tomatoes

who was the little moster that voted for winding-up then?

I'm a little confused by it all, it's been a headache inducing day at work today.

Am I reading this right:

The 900K was to finalise the CVA, calculated at 24p in the pound to the creditors under the CVA, based on a debt of £5.9M, hence the CVA was circa £.1.4m

So is this saying that because the actual debt under is now £8.2M, creditors may only receive 17p in the pound (or less) because the 1.4m CVA pot has to strtch further (8.2m rather than 5.8m)?

If so I didn't realise CVA worked on 'projections', I thought it was fixed as "these are the current (qualifying) creditors, we WILL pay them X", rather than "we think the debt is Y so, based on that assumption you'll get Zp/£".

Can the creditors complain about this "shortfall" of actual p/£ compared to projected p/£. Or is it a case of tough tits?

Fried, at the Whistle Stop Cafe?

Back on topic, the mystery deepens.....

That's exactly what I was thinking.

Imagine agreeing to be paid A FRACTION OF WHAT YOU ARE OWED, FIVE YEARS DOWN THE LINE and then being told 'SORRY, YOU ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO GET LESS THAN YOU WERE EXPECTING'.

SURELY someone's head has got to roll for this - either the CVA Supervisor for not making 100% sure of the extent of the debts or someone within the Club for stating a lower debt than was really due?

Wouldn't it be interesting if the extra claims were from people within the Club as well!

Surely someone in the know can get the full SP on this?

STFC - Never a dull moment eh?

Something really really stinks about this, even more than the stench of bullshit that normally comes out of SN1.

Surely the original CVA (£5.9M) was sanctioned on the basis that those debts contained within the CVA are the ones that would be cleared and that is what the creditors voted on?

How can the fact that another £2m worth of debts now appear be anything to do with the CVA agreement?

This is financial mis-management gone mad methinks.

sounds to me like there is a bit of a con going on....the CVA document gives a list of all creditors, surely they can't just add creditors as the deadline for claims was years ago........this is deeply suspicious

[in reply to Batch]
Kind of - the CVA total payment was £1.3m, of which £400k has already been paid (to the taxman/HMRC), leaving a 900k "bullet payment". Of that, a further £500k is allocated to the taxman/HMRC, leaving £400k to be divided between the remaining unconnected creditors, who were stated in the original CVA to account for £1.6m of the £5.5m that was in the CVA in total (the remainder being connected creditors plus the taxman/HMRC). So that £400k, spread proportionately across creditors owed £1.6m would give them 24p in the pound.

Now it would appear that another £2.7m worth of unconnected creditors (124 of them apparently) has popped out of the woodwork, meaning that £400k left after the taxman/HMRC have had their slice of the bullet payment seemingly has to be shared proportionately across a total of £4.3m. Which the maths/accountancy bods among you will be able to work out as being somewhat less than 10p in the pound.

Although, that said, that's what it seems like from the letter - it's pretty badly written and that aspect isn't very clear. You could also read it that the £8.2m is not the new total but additional to the original £5.5m, but that really would be ludicrous. That said, if the above is the correct reading, new claims amounting to about 50% of the original is also fairly crackers.

But it's none of our business anyway - you busybodies should stop worrying your pretty little heads about it.

Thanks Paul

Seems really fucked up. Could it be that a certain sale has given rise to now unconnceted persons (previously connected) staking a claim against the club?

I haven't got a Scooby what the hell AA is playing at :shrug:

No, because they were connected creditors at the time the CVA was adopted. Whether they have become unconnected (or even disconnected) subsequently is immaterial.


Were I a less chivalrous person, I might suggest neither does he. Fortunately I'm not, so I'll sleep sound in the assurance that we are, as ever, in safe hands of experienced businessmen and financial engineers who know what they're doing.

The question still stands, I assume it is a case of "tough tits" to those that will get less than they thought. Unless they can force a creditors meeting through not being payed.

I'm amazed that there isn't a freeze on who is owed money, a "claim by" date if you will to prevent this happening.

I'm guessing there are scenarios where that would not be fair on certain creditors.

Phew - thank goodness for that - was starting to worry that we had a bunch of incompetent clowns at the helm.

I can now sleep safely tonight.

It says in the cva that other creditors, if become known after the date, can be bound into the cva, so I'm guessing this is what has happened.

so the CVA is on the old (holding?) company - so Bill Power's 1.2 million would not be lumped in this then?

Ta,

A projection that is nearly 50% out is fucking shocking!

For crying out loud this may be above my pay grade but as far as I can see Andronikou is the problem - is there no way the Creditors can petition to have him removed or have his whole handling of this matter brought into investigation.

He is the sole reason this whole affair has been allowed to go on for so long - We must get him and more importantly whatever company he works for on the front page of the local press for as long as possible.

No, the CVA is on the football club, not the holding company and it pertains only to debts as the situation stood in '02 - anything subsequent to that would fall outside the CVA.

Do you know if that's standard practice?

It seems madness as a creditor you agree to be repaid x amount only to leave the window open like that for further debts and subsequent creditors to then appear on the scene.

Have I got the wrong end of the stick, because it sounds like a license to run up more debt and then turn around and say no it’s ok I have a CVA so I’ll only repay a fraction of what I owe you back?

If not I’ll have to be getting one of these CVA’s for myself.

The CVA only applies to debts incurred prior to the CVA being agreed. Any debt incurred after that date would be repayable in full as normal.

The amount covered by the CVA can vary if debts which were incurred prior to the CVA being agreed are then uncovered later.

I've had a quick browse of the CVA proposal. 3.16 (a) states:



So bascially, Andronikou can tell them to fuck off if he wants to. Although 3.16 (b) states:



So they might be owed if they didn't get told about the creditors meeting. Seems a bit strange though that 124 creditors didn't get told.

Cheers Andrew.

So going by Paul’s post 124 individuals or companies have come forward following with debts incurred prior to the original CVA agreement.

Presumably these must have been tallying up since 2002 and are not fresh claims made in the past few months.  Would that have something to do with the accounts only recently being brought up to date so those claims could be verified?

This smells like something like what happened to Leeds a few months ago. The administrators KPMG sent a list of creditors (or what they believed to be). By the time the creditors meeting happened, the total of creditors ballooned by millions, helping Ken Bates get his 75%, which he needed to pass the CVA. It has been alleged, that most if not all this extra millions of creditors, were all from companies that Mr Bates had his 'hand in the pie' to ensure he won the vote.

By finding these extra 'unsecured creditors', it seems to dilute the % that is owed to the HMRC, and now they have to wait an extra 6 months for their money.

This smells...No stinks.

Yes unless the letter is trying to say that there are now 124 unconnected creditors in total in the CVA, with a total claim of £8.2m. But I don't see how that can be the case as there was substantially more than 124 in the original proposal document (several hundred at the very least), unless they've somehow whittled them down. Either way, it would appear that the amount of debt in the CVA has increased substantially, either through new creditors piling in or old ones increasing their claims, unless of course Mr Andronikou has some totally rational explanation for the apparent discrepancy.

Quite a few were for stupid amounts like £35 etc, maybe these ones were cleared off when the £400k was paid. Is that possible ?

No the £400k (ie the £100k pa for four years) was all specifically earmarked for the taxman/HMRC. In any case the letter appears to be talking about either the new total or new claimants, so that wouldn't account for shrinking numbers. Like I say, this could be a product of it being badly worded - all we're trying to do is make sense of the letter sent to creditors.

Ah right i see.All goes over my head

Could I possibly suggest that the majority of these "new" 124 creditors come from the Newbury area, or is that just my fertile and suspicious mind? :shock:  :shock:  :shock:

...a point that I made in an earlier post.

One assumes that the list of 124 additional creditors will be available for review?

Assuming they are additional, or even if they're not, I wouldn't assume anything of the sort. "Openness" and "eager to demonstrate there's nothing to hide" haven't exactly been watchwords throughout this whole process have they?

shame on you for thinking such a thing !

How do you just not know about (at least) £2m+ worth of creditors?  and how does it take more than 5 years for them all to remember themselves?

I would presume the creditors will be advised as I would expect proper documentation to account for the final distribution etc is required.

So all that time stalling was just Mickey D setting up 124 bogus companies?  :shock:

I fucking give up with Sndy Gray.  Seriously every business owner, or ina  large company knows what they owe.  Surely this is a simple thing.

I'm desperately trying to get my head round this latest round of bollocks. Is Andrew Andronikou seriously claiming that 120 odd creditors have popped out of nowhere (I notice the cunt conveniently didn't mention them in his 'busybody' press despatch a couple of months ago) and that they are collectively owed roughly what the clubs annual turnover was back then in 2002?

Is that what he's saying? If he is saying that, what does he take us for? What does he take the creditors for? Or the Inland Revenue? Or the council?  

Fucking hell, when is this shit going to end? The club and the fans deserve so much more than this. The time is surely comming when something has to give.

What the hell is going on?

My experience with a CVA is that you submit your proof of debt prior to a CVA being agreed with the creditors. Any debts arising after this time are not deemed part of the CVA.

Where has this extra suddenly come from? I can honestly see the league intervening now

If the interpretation of Andronikous latest bollock-fest is proved to be correct, then we WILL suffer a points deduction when the league get a sniff of it.

Don't forget to wave to Dennis and Gus as they pass by in the other direction, laughing their fucking cocks off at the fine mess that 'a nice man called Mike' has created.

my dads stepson was owed 2k by the club and got a letter saying he would be offered less than 1k back.

Wouldn't that be your step-brother?

That sounds about right with the cva stuff. Do you know if he voted winding up or meeting?

I thuoght I read somewhere that Carson had been paid back his £400k and was told to FRO. Wasn't he one of the creditors expecting xp in the £ or do we pick and chose who we repay outside the CVA.
Or did I just dream we'd pay Carson his money back.
My head hurts.

No as far as i am aware he didn't petition to wind em up. the winding up is done by the club most days.

I would imagine the league would see this as entering a new agreement, as additional debts can only be added upon agreement of the creditors to vary the original CVA.

So very possible that a points deduction will follow if this happens

Oh change the fucking record Bart.

Its the truth regarding how a CVA works- go and check for yourself.

Once you have submitted a proof of debt and the creditors have voted that is it basically. New debts can only be entered upon agreement of the creditors-a new arrangement

No, you're wrong. Again.

Once the CVA Proposal has been accepted by Creditors, any Creditor who has not submitted a Proof of Debt has no claim against the company - only in the Supervisor's absolute discretion.

So up yours, Bart.

Alright lads it aint a fucking competition.We all want this shit sorted dont we

God no!!

What would we all do then? 8)

And it wouldn't be seen as entering into a new agreement, for that to happen a Creditor's Meeting would need to be called and they would need to approve a new Proposal.

My guess is this £2.3 million has accrued in the 5 years we were in the CVA, so they don't have a claim on the 'pot'.

Either that or Andronikou is seriously fucking shit at his job.

Surely not??!!

No it can't have done - if so it would be outside of the CVA. Any new claims must relate to debts incurred prior to the CVA starting in 2002 but which were not accounted for in the original proposal document.

As for the "cut-off" point etc, the CVA proposal is very clear that there is a cut-off (Sept 2002) for any claims not noted in the original proposal, and that after that time any new claims will not ordinarily be admitted except at the supervisor's discretion.

That's a lot of debts not accounted for though.

And at an average of £18,000 per creditor (£2.3m / 124 creditors), how could they 'forget' to claim it? Or alternatively, how could Andronikou not know about it?

Coz Sandy Gray is in charge of finances :mrgreen:

She wasn't in charge of them in 2002 though...

i know, but its fun taking the piss out of sandy gray! :mrgreen:

Well, quite.

Do creditors have the right to see the proof of debt and who these "new" creditors are or is that only Android that see it and decides ?

And is there anyway existing creditors could have come back and said "oh btw I am also owed x amount as well as what is stated" ?

Also any debts incurred AFTER the CVA has been proposed and accepted must be paid in full as normal trading debts

when it says yet to be adjudicated, does that mean yet to be agreed or to be settled?

yet to be agreed Si - ie not proof of debt forms have been recieved by AA

There are people who send spurious claims in whenever they see CVA's etc, hoping that they will be paid without too much checking. Rather like the invoices for directory entries or, in the good old days, for boxes of carbon paper that never existed.

To the tune of two and a half million quid??

Of course! If you think you will only get 10p in the £ or less, inflate the claim.

I was getting more at the fact that AA said he has received 124 unsecured claims totalling £8.2m which have not yet been adjudicated ...
so somewhere between all or none could be spurious.

Is the £5.9m chunk, which is already known about, adjudicated? Presumably 5 years ago when the CVA was established this would have happened so the relevant creditors were allowed to vote? If that is so, the £8.2m is an unbelievable amount of additional claims (not necessarily forgotten debts) and one wonders what is included therein. As claimants need to complete a proof of debt form and return it "if you have not already submitted your claim", could there be even more to come out of the woodwork?