This is a posted response by the group of Poor smouth fans, who are holding meetings with AA.
As you will be aware, a number of supporters groups have been meeting with the Administration team of UHY Hacker Young to discuss the clubs current insolvenct.
Following internal misgivings about the progress of the information we sent the following message to the Administration team. We have received an initial response but are waiting for a more complete statement about whether the team wish to consider the process.
Fans representatives would like to place on record their disappointment at the manner in which meetings with the administration team of UHY Hacker Young have been conducted to date.
Whilst we appreciate that the administrators are under no obligation to meet with supporters, the administration team stand to benefit as much as supporters from a full, frank and open dialogue. The general feeling among the group following the first two meetings was that the messages we were hearing from one member of the team were very different to the messages being relayed to the media by another.
It has also to be said that it was felt very little had been achieved by the administration team. Following the third meeting with two of the three co-administrators, even more questions have arisen over the transparency with which these meetings are being conducted.
Among our chief concerns are;
1.Supporter's representatives were told at the first two meetings with Mr Kiely that the overall debt was £78m. Three days after the second meeting Mr Andronikou published a debt figure £22m higher.
2.At the third meeting we were given a “definitive” break down of the debt, amounting to a total of £99.8m. Shortly afterwards again Mr Andronikou revealed a figure £22m higher to the media.
3.Following the initial meeting, a comment from Mr Kiely was excised from the minutes under the guise of making purely grammatical corrections. Although an apology was received, this change was transacted in a far from open and transparent manner.
4.At the third meeting the validity of Sasha Gaydamaks £32m loans to the club was raised. Mr Andronikou stated that all these loans were visible in the “last published independently audited accounts” and therefore beyond question. However, the recently issued Report to Creditors shows that £22.6m of these loans were not loans to Mr Gaydamak until August 2009, at least six months after the last independently audited accounts were issued. There is a further £2.5m tranche which is the subject of a subrogated right of security claim by Mr Gaydamak which did not arise until at least October 2009. Therefore, over £25m of the Gaydamak debt is NOT in the last independently audited accounts. This discrepancy is very difficult to accept.
5.Mr Andronikou claimed at the Thursday 8th April meeting that his team had seen the bank transactions and demonstrated that Portpins loans had come into the business and not left the business to any associates. However, he also subsequently revealed that he did not yet have access to the Fuglers accounts. As the club was operating from the Fuglers account at this time this raises the question of how the administration team could make this assertion?
6.Mr Andronikou said that significant copy fees were being paid to Fuglers for the bank records. As the club was paying Fuglers for banking services;
Why is the club paying again for copies of records it is surely entitled to?
What happened to the clubs copies of these records?
7.At the first meeting we asked Mr Kiely what the date was by which we had to exit administration to avoid a further points deduction. At the second meeting we asked this again and clearly Kiely had made no effort to ascertain this information. At the third meeting we asked again and were told “Must agree CVA by the time the fixtures for next season are published on 17th June” by Mr Andronikou. This is clearly incorrect and no such deadline exists for agreeing a CVA with regard to points deductions for season 2010/2011. We feel this speaks to a serious want of rigour as this information is freely available.
8.We asked at the first two meetings whether Mr Chainrais status as a secured creditor had been accepted by HMRC in line with HMRC barristers comments that this remained a matter likely to require adjudication at a later time. At the first two meetings Mr Kiely denied any knowledge of such a question mark over Mr Chainrais status. At the third meeting Mr Andronikou accepted that this query had been made but claimed it was simply a face-saving exercise by HMRC. We feel this demonstrates a clear lack of communication within the team and also fails to alleviate concerns over whether Chainrai really is a secured creditor.
9.At the first meeting we asked whether a meeting of creditors would be convened before the March 26th deadline we understood to have been imposed by the judge at our winding up hearing in March. We were told by Mr Kiely that no such deadline was specified in the consent order and promised a copy of the consent order would be sent immediately following the meeting. This has taken two months to produce, and at time of writing has still not arrived. At the second meeting we were given to understand the administrators could wait 10 weeks and again we asked for the consent order. At the third meeting Mr Andronikou specified a period of 12 weeks although he mentioned an informal meeting had been held sometime previously. In the Report to Creditors it transpires that the administrators are now claiming a meeting of creditors was held on March 25th. Please explain this discrepancy.
10.At the April 8th meeting we were given no intimation of the pending appointment of Mr Lampitt as CEO which was announced the following morning. We would not expect to be given the name of any candidate before one was appointed but it would certainly have been possible for the team to share with us that an appointment was imminent. As it was, we were not informed an appointment was even being sought. Again, this reflects poorly on the commitment to openness and transparency we were given by the administration team.
11.We were told that no-one would be given access to the data room without the members of their party being named and proof of funds shown to the administration teams satisfaction. The Lloyd group were given this access despite Andronikou claiming that he retained concerns over identities and proof of funds. Notwithstanding the weak proviso that “they were not allowed to take any information out”, this is completely inconsistent.
12.Mr Andronikou claimed that two groups initially provided proof of funds and these have now merged to form one and this gave him concern. He was absolutely unable to explain this discrepancy, as logic would suggest that two groups with proof of funds merging to form one group was a positive development. There is also great concern that Andronikou appears to be adopting a publicly negative attitude towards the Lloyd group, whilst asking them to observe a complete media silence.
13.Mr Andronikou explained that one part of the raison d'etre for Peter Storries continued employment by Portsmouth Football Club was his ability to advise on player sales. Again we were not informed that Icon Sports Management had been retained to perform this role, and this invites questions over openness and transparency.
14.Redundancy payments had not been made to the employees who left the club which is most regrettable.
15.We were told at the second meeting by Mr Kiely that no further redundancies were planned. At the third meeting Mr Andronikou more or less stated that further redundancies were inevitable. Again, this speaks to either a lack of communication between the team or a lack of candour to supporters representatives.
16.It took over two weeks to agree the minutes for this third meeting. We have received a request for the taking of minutes to be dispensed with as it is claimed that reading and agreeing them is too time consuming. This is unacceptable. The taking of minutes is a basic discipline for any business meeting, and it is felt by supporters representatives that the minutes have been critical in highlighting the many discrepancies outlined here.
The output from these meetings so far has been very disappointing in terms of both information gleaned and the administration teams ability to live up to the standards of openness and transparency they promised. Whilst we have every desire to work with the team to help ensure supporters are on board with the club and working with them during this difficult time it is imperative that the administration team raise their game substantially in these areas if the process is to continue.
