Andronikou

[Batch]

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.

[WorcesterRed]

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.

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.

[Simon Pieman]

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.

[ron dodgers]

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

[Batch]

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.

Ta,

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

[StrattonBornetc]

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.

[pauld]

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

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.

[Dazzza]

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.

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.

[ahounsell]

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.

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.

[Samdy Gray]

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

The Supervisors may at their absolute discretion exclude from any distrubiton any claims (or any part thereof) in respect of which a Proof of Debt form has not been lodged with the Supervisors on or before the expiry of 30th September 2002 by the relevant creditor

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

The Supervisors may, in their absolute discretion, admit any Claims from Creditors who did not receive notice of the creditors meeting at which the approval of the Proposal took place

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.

[Dazzza]

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.

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.

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?

[Summerof69]

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.

[pauld]

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

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.

[red macca]

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

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 ?

[pauld]

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

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.