Andronikou

[Fred Elliot]

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.

[yeo]

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.

[Ardiles]

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.

[Dazzza]

Back to Gazette watch it is then.

[STFCBird]

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.

green tomatoes

[RobertT]

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

[Batch]

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?

[pumbaa]

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.

green tomatoes

Fried, at the Whistle Stop Cafe?

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

[WorcesterRed]

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?

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?

[WorcesterRed]

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.

[glos_robin]

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

[pauld]

[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.

[Batch]

Thanks Paul

[Simon Pieman]

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

[pauld]

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?

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

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

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.