In order to get to the bottom of what went on between the Administration and WASC I posed questions to WASC, which were then forwarded onto their legal team. I felt it was a good thing to allow WASC to provide a response to the legal documents filed in companies house.
In the interest of openness and honesty the answers (and questions) are below, with a single note from myself to highlight an inconsistency:
=============================
Dear James
The context I hoped to hear from you is to explain in what capacity you feel you are asking these questions and are entitled to have the situation explained to you.
I have asked you repeatedly to put relevant questions to which you still feel you need answers to me, and again (as you have done every few months) you have just copied and pasted the email below.
Your vague references to ‘proceeding’, ‘taking a different path’ and ‘moving forward with [your] own legal position’ and ‘filing reports with the relevant authorities’ have, I must admit, left me perplexed.
If this relates to the privacy issue you appear to have with the administrators, I do not understand why you think this is a matter for the supporters club.
If there is some other objective you are pursuing, please be clear and state what it is.
I will try below to answer those of your questions as best I can, and I hope this draws a line under this correspondence.
1. The administrators have stated to the ICO that WASC and certain individuals within WASC were acting on behalf of the administration, in the act of discharging their statutory responsibilities (This is the reason they gave for sharing my information) is this factual and were legal agreements in place?
Neither WASC or any of its board members have at any time acted ‘on behalf of the administrators’. The only ‘legal agreement’ in place between the administrators and WASC or its board members was a non-disclosure agreement.
2. The administrators have also stated that in addition to acting on behalf of the administration WASC is covered by Wigan Athletic's privacy policy. Do you have legal agreements in place in regards to information sharing (Data Protection / GDPR / Privacy Agreements) with either the administration or Wigan Athletic?
There are no such agreements, and any privacy policy is a matter for the club and/or the administrators.
3. During call, in which you reached out to me, you stated the administration had contacted you in order for you to help stop the request for a public meeting from taking place. The reasons given was that they'd stop all work until the meeting was completed and as they had a bid which was close to completion this would result in its failure. Is this to your recollection? If not, what is your recollection in regards to the reason for the call and how it was prompted?
My understanding here is that the administrators had spoken to the WASC’s representative saying that a supporter had asked the administrator to call a creditor’s meeting. The largest creditor by far in the administration, who would have been entitled to exercise sufficient votes to pass the resolution approving the administrator’s report, had already indicated that they would vote in favour of the resolution which would be put to the meeting, if called. WASC took advice on this (from us) to confirm that this effectively would mean that a meeting would be a waste of time as far as the administration process was concerned. This view was then shared with you.
4. Begbies Traynor stated "Caroline asked me who the supporter / season ticket holder was and I discussed this with Caroline.". To confirm the administration made you aware a creditor was asking for a public meeting, which is a statutory right, and when you asked for their personal details this was provided to you?
The administrators had told WASC that a supporter had asked the administrator to call a creditor’s meeting. It was not for WASC to determine whether the supporter had standing as a creditor to request such a meeting. Given contact you had had with WASC on other matters, it was not difficult to guess that you were the supporter in question. Caroline already had your email address from previous correspondence.
**Note on this** I have email correspondence from Caroline which states they gave personally identifiable email and I'm unsure why the solicitors would have now changed their mind on this.
5. During the call you told me you would scheduled a meeting for the group of creditors I represented with the administration so they could address the concerns which we were hoping to raise during the public meeting, begbies offered the following:
"Subject to what is on the agenda, I have agreed to have a call with you as a potential creditor in the Administration. We have a duty to the creditors of each company and we have complied with our duties in relation to providing information to creditors. I do not have a duty to hold individual meetings with creditors to discuss the matter in general. As you are aware, there has been a report issued to creditors which is available to review at Companies House. I suggest that you read this and then should you have any further questions please advise." is that in line with what you believe I agreed to via the phone call?
WASC cannot be expected to comment on what was said between you and the administrators. It was not for Caroline to offer a meeting with the administrators or to set the agenda for that meeting. I understand that she put you in touch with the administrator so that you could arrange to speak with them.
6. During numerous bidders WASC positioned themselves as a voice of the fans, yet at no point considered including a public communication policy as part of those discussions, this continued even after our call. Is there a reason WASC decided it was more important to be part of discussions vs serving the fans they choose to represent?
This is an insinuation, not a question. The committee of WASC, on an entirely voluntary basis, committed a huge amount of time and effort at the time to try to ensure the continuation of the club. They provided updates as and when they could through appropriate channels.
7. WASC started to take forward forming a trust which included Open and Honest communication, from my dealing with WASC (emails ignored about questions, emails ignored about further investment from myself and other business, SLO providing conflicting/contracting information, WASC providing information which conflicts with legal documents provided by the administration) it does not appear this was enacted as a policy change within WASC itself in preparation for a future trust. What is the reason for this?
I can’t determine what the question is here. As above, WASC provided updates as and when they could through appropriate channels. In order to be in a position to engage and contribute positively throughout, members of the WASC board had entered into a non-disclosure agreement with the administrators. This meant that it was not always possible to share information to which they became privy. Again, the WASC representatives were a group of individuals giving their time and effort for the benefit of the club and its supporters, all while working their own jobs, and dealing with the same difficulties caused by the pandemic as the rest of the world. Communications were made to supporters through appropriate channels such as press releases and via the WASC website precisely so that all supporters received the same information.
You appear to be complaining that WASC did not provide responses or information directly to you when you requested it – respectfully, that was not their job.
In the interest of openness and honesty the answers (and questions) are below, with a single note from myself to highlight an inconsistency:
=============================
Dear James
The context I hoped to hear from you is to explain in what capacity you feel you are asking these questions and are entitled to have the situation explained to you.
I have asked you repeatedly to put relevant questions to which you still feel you need answers to me, and again (as you have done every few months) you have just copied and pasted the email below.
Your vague references to ‘proceeding’, ‘taking a different path’ and ‘moving forward with [your] own legal position’ and ‘filing reports with the relevant authorities’ have, I must admit, left me perplexed.
If this relates to the privacy issue you appear to have with the administrators, I do not understand why you think this is a matter for the supporters club.
If there is some other objective you are pursuing, please be clear and state what it is.
I will try below to answer those of your questions as best I can, and I hope this draws a line under this correspondence.
1. The administrators have stated to the ICO that WASC and certain individuals within WASC were acting on behalf of the administration, in the act of discharging their statutory responsibilities (This is the reason they gave for sharing my information) is this factual and were legal agreements in place?
Neither WASC or any of its board members have at any time acted ‘on behalf of the administrators’. The only ‘legal agreement’ in place between the administrators and WASC or its board members was a non-disclosure agreement.
2. The administrators have also stated that in addition to acting on behalf of the administration WASC is covered by Wigan Athletic's privacy policy. Do you have legal agreements in place in regards to information sharing (Data Protection / GDPR / Privacy Agreements) with either the administration or Wigan Athletic?
There are no such agreements, and any privacy policy is a matter for the club and/or the administrators.
3. During call, in which you reached out to me, you stated the administration had contacted you in order for you to help stop the request for a public meeting from taking place. The reasons given was that they'd stop all work until the meeting was completed and as they had a bid which was close to completion this would result in its failure. Is this to your recollection? If not, what is your recollection in regards to the reason for the call and how it was prompted?
My understanding here is that the administrators had spoken to the WASC’s representative saying that a supporter had asked the administrator to call a creditor’s meeting. The largest creditor by far in the administration, who would have been entitled to exercise sufficient votes to pass the resolution approving the administrator’s report, had already indicated that they would vote in favour of the resolution which would be put to the meeting, if called. WASC took advice on this (from us) to confirm that this effectively would mean that a meeting would be a waste of time as far as the administration process was concerned. This view was then shared with you.
4. Begbies Traynor stated "Caroline asked me who the supporter / season ticket holder was and I discussed this with Caroline.". To confirm the administration made you aware a creditor was asking for a public meeting, which is a statutory right, and when you asked for their personal details this was provided to you?
The administrators had told WASC that a supporter had asked the administrator to call a creditor’s meeting. It was not for WASC to determine whether the supporter had standing as a creditor to request such a meeting. Given contact you had had with WASC on other matters, it was not difficult to guess that you were the supporter in question. Caroline already had your email address from previous correspondence.
**Note on this** I have email correspondence from Caroline which states they gave personally identifiable email and I'm unsure why the solicitors would have now changed their mind on this.
5. During the call you told me you would scheduled a meeting for the group of creditors I represented with the administration so they could address the concerns which we were hoping to raise during the public meeting, begbies offered the following:
"Subject to what is on the agenda, I have agreed to have a call with you as a potential creditor in the Administration. We have a duty to the creditors of each company and we have complied with our duties in relation to providing information to creditors. I do not have a duty to hold individual meetings with creditors to discuss the matter in general. As you are aware, there has been a report issued to creditors which is available to review at Companies House. I suggest that you read this and then should you have any further questions please advise." is that in line with what you believe I agreed to via the phone call?
WASC cannot be expected to comment on what was said between you and the administrators. It was not for Caroline to offer a meeting with the administrators or to set the agenda for that meeting. I understand that she put you in touch with the administrator so that you could arrange to speak with them.
6. During numerous bidders WASC positioned themselves as a voice of the fans, yet at no point considered including a public communication policy as part of those discussions, this continued even after our call. Is there a reason WASC decided it was more important to be part of discussions vs serving the fans they choose to represent?
This is an insinuation, not a question. The committee of WASC, on an entirely voluntary basis, committed a huge amount of time and effort at the time to try to ensure the continuation of the club. They provided updates as and when they could through appropriate channels.
7. WASC started to take forward forming a trust which included Open and Honest communication, from my dealing with WASC (emails ignored about questions, emails ignored about further investment from myself and other business, SLO providing conflicting/contracting information, WASC providing information which conflicts with legal documents provided by the administration) it does not appear this was enacted as a policy change within WASC itself in preparation for a future trust. What is the reason for this?
I can’t determine what the question is here. As above, WASC provided updates as and when they could through appropriate channels. In order to be in a position to engage and contribute positively throughout, members of the WASC board had entered into a non-disclosure agreement with the administrators. This meant that it was not always possible to share information to which they became privy. Again, the WASC representatives were a group of individuals giving their time and effort for the benefit of the club and its supporters, all while working their own jobs, and dealing with the same difficulties caused by the pandemic as the rest of the world. Communications were made to supporters through appropriate channels such as press releases and via the WASC website precisely so that all supporters received the same information.
You appear to be complaining that WASC did not provide responses or information directly to you when you requested it – respectfully, that was not their job.
Last edited:
