Tony Xia (no longer involved with AVFC)

[TRO]

3 hours ago, BOF said:

When you want strength in the forward line or midfield you are not criticising an individual though.  You are asking for the existing starters to receive help and a boost to numbers.  When you criticise the goalkeeping position, you are very much criticising the individual.  It is unique in that sense.  All IMHO.

Well, way before you set out to be a goalkeeper, you are probably briefed with the words thats unique to goalkeeping is errors most likely equal goals against....kinda nature of the beast.

I think it is not surprising this game has attracted much criticism and much appraisal.

Its the manner and consistency of the surrender of the defeat that is so concerning.

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by TRO

[Skruff]

This is turning into footballs  equivalent to a hardcore leftist feminist movement forum. 

[VILLAMARV]

2 hours ago, baldivisvilla said:

Can't believe that people are getting Xia's back over liking a tweet, shall with have Villa park declared a "safe space" with a list of trigger words.Poor little things getting criticised when they stuff up.

They'll be using quotes off a marketing tool and calling it news in the corporate media next!!

[peterms]

13 minutes ago, TRO said:

I understand your point about keeping your own council.....but with respect, we have had years of that and had a young striker in Gabby wallow in it.....It seemingly hasn't worked.

I am all for this ,say it like it is mood ,that is emerging, it will never improve while a lid is put on the tin.

Tony Xia is human, before being a billionsire or intellect,he has responsibilities sure he has emotions like us all and with that come flaws, we all have them, lets not "spoil the ship for a ha' peth of tar"

My point is not that we should be secretive, or not confront problems, it's about demonstrating a basic level of professionalism.  That would include not tweeting about the details of pay arrangements for staff you are moving on, before negotiations have been concluded (which is what seems to have upset Joe Bennett, understandably).  Keeping schtum on that is not keeping a lid on things, it's just a very basic expectation.  It would also include giving accurate information about who is on the board and what companies Recon owns, but it appears we've been given wrong information about both those things, which one might think are pretty hard to get wrong.

It's also not about being soft, or pandering to players.  If their performance, conduct, attitude or demands are unacceptable, deal with it and ship them out.  But do it in a calm and professional way, don't chat about it on twitter.  Announce it after the event - like the early signings that were getting done, there was little gossip or hints, just do the business and announce it.  That was the right way to go about things.  But above all, don't suggest that you don't have confidence in a player (and by implication, the judgement of the manager who's just signed him).

As for emotions, yes, we all have them.  One of the challenges of a leadership role is managing emotions while acting professionally.  Especially in a highly visible, flagship role.

[TRO]

14 minutes ago, peterms said:

My point is not that we should be secretive, or not confront problems, it's about demonstrating a basic level of professionalism.  That would include not tweeting about the details of pay arrangements for staff you are moving on, before negotiations have been concluded (which is what seems to have upset Joe Bennett, understandably).  Keeping schtum on that is not keeping a lid on things, it's just a very basic expectation.  It would also include giving accurate information about who is on the board and what companies Recon owns, but it appears we've been given wrong information about both those things, which one might think are pretty hard to get wrong.

It's also not about being soft, or pandering to players.  If their performance, conduct, attitude or demands are unacceptable, deal with it and ship them out.  But do it in a calm and professional way, don't chat about it on twitter.  Announce it after the event - like the early signings that were getting done, there was little gossip or hints, just do the business and announce it.  That was the right way to go about things.  But above all, don't suggest that you don't have confidence in a player (and by implication, the judgement of the manager who's just signed him).

As for emotions, yes, we all have them.  One of the challenges of a leadership role is managing emotions while acting professionally.  Especially in a highly visible, flagship role.

I endorse your post in general, but I come back to  the point Tony may not be conventional.....We have to take the warts 'n all.

He isn't going to change for a few of our views.

not to be pedantic, but you use the contemporary term "professionalism"  3 times...what is it, its abstract in my view.... I Just think it is an over used word to cover a multitude of things,  my idea of professionalism may not be yours etc.

I was desperate for someone to relieve us of the arguably "professional" Randy Lerner in terms of etiquette and decorum,  he was possibly the Bees Knees.....never upsetting a soul and a pillar of diplomacy......No thanks.

There is no perfect owner and like it or lump it we have got Dr Tone.....for me I will embrace it as for the things he says i don't agree with.... I will lump it.

Edited August 29, 2016 by TRO

[peterms]

5 minutes ago, TRO said:

not to be pedantic, but you use the contemporary term "professionalism"  3 times...what is it, its abstract in my view.... I Just think it is an over used word to cover a multitude of things,  my idea of professionalism may not be yours etc.

I was desperate for someone to relieve us of the arguably "professional" Randy Lerner in terms of etiquette and decorum,  he was possibly the Bees Knees.....never upsetting a soul and a pillar of diplomacy......No thanks.

Yes, I agree professionalism can be a vague idea.  I'm using it here in relation to the examples I give, such as maintaining confidentiality about things which people would expect to be kept confidential, like the details of ongoing negotiations about terms and conditions for a member of staff, giving accurate information about corporate governance, not being seen to be (or giving the impression of) undermining staff in public.  I agree there are other things people would use the term for, but I'd be surprised if many people seriously disagreed that those examples were part of what professionalism involves, in this setting.

Lerner did some things right and some wrong.  But what you term diplomacy might be something else.  In terms of dealing with the media and the outside world, it came across as inappropriate lack of communication - inappropriate because communication is a necessary part of the job.  He tried to do it through others, but it seemed to fall apart after a while.  His approach also came across as indecisiveness, which to me is a sign of weakness, where I see diplomacy as a strength.

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, peterms said:

..professionalism can be a vague idea.  I'm using it here in relation to the examples I give, such as maintaining confidentiality about things which people would expect to be kept confidential, like the details of ongoing negotiations about terms and conditions for a member of staff, giving accurate information about corporate governance, not being seen to be (or giving the impression of) undermining staff in public. 

This sounds like I am defending him when I'm not really, but I don't think the examples you use are accurate, are they?

Joe Bennett - he (Dr X) said "why should we pay [part of Joe's wages] for him to play for others [a direct rival]" (or words very close to those). People may have different expectations of what might be "confidential" or not, but to me that's not a good example.

The details of T&C for staff - not sure who you mean, there? I haven't seen him do that. Do you mean mention of Release clauses? something else? Saying no more players have release clauses or the player had a release clause so we had to allow him to speak to Everton... - neither of those things are "unprofessional" in my opinion. Perhaps you mean something else? or just view it differently.

Corporate Governance. I think this is cross purposes isn't it? Samuelson (like Whyness) was on (and off and on and off...) the Recon board. Samuelson (we're told) is not on the board of Aston Villa Football Club". Now we can speculate all we like why that might be, but he's not given inaccurate info re corporate governance (unless you have info that says otherwise?)

Undermining staff in public - I think we've done that one already.

I think there are reasons to if not exactly be wary, but to withhold some judgement, but I just don't seem to have the same ones as others.

 

[peterms]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

This sounds like I am defending him when I'm not really, but I don't think the examples you use are accurate, are they?

Joe Bennett - he (Dr X) said "why should we pay [part of Joe's wages] for him to play for others [a direct rival]" (or words very close to those). People may have different expectations of what might be "confidential" or not, but to me that's not a good example.

The details of T&C for staff - not sure who you mean, there? I haven't seen him do that. Do you mean mention of Release clauses? something else? Saying no more players have release clauses or the player had a release clause so we had to allow him to speak to Everton... - neither of those things are "unprofessional" in my opinion. Perhaps you mean something else? or just view it differently.

Corporate Governance. I think this is cross purposes isn't it? Samuelson (like Whyness) was on (and off and on and off...) the Recon board. Samuelson (we're told) is not on the board of Aston Villa Football Club". Now we can speculate all we like why that might be, but he's not given inaccurate info re corporate governance (unless you have info that says otherwise?)

Undermining staff in public - I think we've done that one already.

I think there are reasons to if not exactly be wary, but to withhold some judgement, but I just don't seem to have the same ones as others.

 

The t&c's point relates to Bennett.  Xia said " Simple&fair.We won't pay4him 2play 4others.Either cutting wages 2play 4others or getting full pay by club 2watch. "

Bennett later commented " Can you get anymore disrespectful tweeting about a players career like somebody has the last week " and later " My comment yesterday had nothing to do about contracts or fans. It was simply that I didn't want my situation to be aired all over Twitter before anything had been sorted."

I read this as dissatisfaction with the club discussing his situation and the detail of negotiations.  The examples you give about release clauses are quite appropriate to disclose, and I don't think players would reasonably feel it would be wrong to explain that.  If it were me, I would feel that tweeting to the world at large about what aspects of my pay might be holding up a transfer was not appropriate.  Especially coming from a company that wrongly claims to own four others but when questioned won't even give the names of those it doesn't own but is hoping to acquire...not much commitment to open information there.

The inaccurate information about Recon governance is him stating " No more rumors! Chris and the Socfin helped the takeover and we paid for service. Never was related to Recon!", which is simply untrue, as Companies House records show.  I can accept that some things are lost in translation, but this is a pretty clear statement that the relationship with Samuelson extended to no more than a paid service.  I also think his command of English is certainly good enough to understand the difference between "never was" and "isn't any more".  And if it isn't, then he needs to ask someone to read it over before he sends it.  But since the claims of ownership of other companies were also not the case, I'm getting an impression of being casual with the facts rather than having trouble with translations.  Is that unfair?

These things, together with things like the story about being Harvard's youngest ever professor (not the case), and the Birds Nest story, do make me wonder about what is happening.

I know that lots of fans really don't give a monkey's, if players are signed and we win some games.  That's not a view I share.

[briny_ear]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

I think with twitter, and particularly with someone with English as a second language, reading too much (either way) into some of the tweets is unwise. There are many of his tweets that are unclear in meaning and some which have been clear, but then he's said "no not  that, what I meant was..."

This sums up perfectly for me why it would be better if Xia wasn't doing all this Twitter stuff. People praise him for being honest and open with the fans but he isn't really, is he? Because virtually everything he tweets is borderline incomprehensible and sparks a massive debate about what he might actually have meant. Also about 1 in every 15-20 tweets is ill-advised either offends someone or even has to be deleted. Eventually this is going to end in big tears over some comment or other.

I don't really want the club to become a laughing stock.

[Phumfeinz]

3 minutes ago, briny_ear said:

I don't really want the club to become a laughing stock.

I hate to break it to you

[briny_ear]

48 minutes ago, peterms said:

I know that lots of fans really don't give a monkey's, if players are signed and we win some games.  That's not a view I share.

I agree with all the concerns you have been raising here Peterms.

Just a smaller, tangential point - we have actually only won one senior game since the Doctor came on the scene. 

Some posters are talking as if he has sorted out the club's problems.

Maybe that's not happened just yet, and maybe  he could keep that tweeting digit in check a little until we have a slightly more solid record in the Championship to boast about. 

[blandy]

 

42 minutes ago, peterms said:

an impression of being casual with the facts rather than having trouble with translations.  Is that unfair?

No, I think that's a fair view to reach.

My concerns / reasons to withhold judgement just yet are basically not having full transparency of what's going on and a vague worry that he may get to involved in trying to pick players etc. for the team or lose patience too soon due to inexperience.

He's been good in very many respects, and I hope that carries on. There's nothing in the twittering that bothers me at all, the revamping, energy and engagement have all been excellent. The Bennett stuff  - I just don't agree with you, but that's fine. Recon and company stuff, I look at it as basically I don't understand the Chinese system and politics even remotely enough to know if there's been stuff lost in translation, someone making press releases based on badly translated info or whether there's any attempt to gild the lilly on the part of Dr X or the previous board. Time may, or may not tell.

til the picture is clearer, most of the stuff that I do have to go on is positive, though.

Proper football people involved, funds for manager, correct policies on player recruitment and departure, overall good communication with supporters, some good stuff about ticketing and prices and a clear enthusiasm and drive.

Niggles - unclear background, involvement of non-ideal person in parent company, hope he doesn't turn out to be a interferer.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Niggles - unclear background, involvement of non-ideal person in parent company, hope he doesn't turn out to be a interferer.

The twitter stuff is the least of my concerns.  The future of the club is the bigger issue.

Why would we want to be involved with someone whose speciality is secrecy jurisdictions?

And why did we have on the board a vet with some dissolved companies behind him, who was working with Harris against the Portsmouth fans?  The same Harris who worked with Yeoung and Shinawatra, helping them get control of clubs?

Why would having these people on the board be in the best interests of our club?  The view of the Portsmouth fans was that these people very much did not have the interests of the club at heart.  Are they still involved with us in any capacity at all, I wonder?

Non-ideal, as you say.  Other expressions might come to mind.

[wazzap24]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

 

No, I think that's a fair view to reach.

My concerns / reasons to withhold judgement just yet are basically not having full transparency of what's going on and a vague worry that he may get to involved in trying to pick players etc. for the team or lose patience too soon due to inexperience.

He's been good in very many respects, and I hope that carries on. There's nothing in the twittering that bothers me at all, the revamping, energy and engagement have all been excellent. The Bennett stuff  - I just don't agree with you, but that's fine. Recon and company stuff, I look at it as basically I don't understand the Chinese system and politics even remotely enough to know if there's been stuff lost in translation, someone making press releases based on badly translated info or whether there's any attempt to gild the lilly on the part of Dr X or the previous board. Time may, or may not tell.

til the picture is clearer, most of the stuff that I do have to go on is positive, though.

Proper football people involved, funds for manager, correct policies on player recruitment and departure, overall good communication with supporters, some good stuff about ticketing and prices and a clear enthusiasm and drive.

Niggles - unclear background, involvement of non-ideal person in parent company, hope he doesn't turn out to be a interferer.

That sums up perfectly where I am with Xia. 

In terms of communication we've gone from an owner who said nothing, except vague ramblings about shunning Termites and romantically nourishing himself over videos of Ashley Young, to the complete extreme opposite. Communication overload. He's also using a pretty bonkers medium in Twitter. 140 character messages in a second language? Things are bound to get lost in translation, before you even get to the cultural differences. 

I can understand the concern and I can see the potential for it to go a bit pear-shaped if he goes off in one on there, but so far I can't see an issue. In fact, I hope he carries on and I hope it does put the players 'on notice' a little bit. We've had five years of players and club management pretty much taking the piss out of us. I like the idea of an owner who might be on our side a bit and let us know more about what actually goes on. If that ruffles a few feathers then so be it.

I'm reserving any overall opinion on him until I've seen more about his plans (and some actin) and maybe found out a bit more about him, but so far as a personality, I'm warming to him. Can't fault the way he's backing the manager either and if the next couple of days go well, then on paper, I think this could go down as one of our best transfer windows ever (modern age, since transfer windows were a thing, not as in 'all time'). 

[Guest av1]

17 minutes ago, peterms said:

The twitter stuff is the least of my concerns.  The future of the club is the bigger issue.

 

Exactly. This football club has been a laughing stock for years now, so im happy with a few excited, if naive tweets as long as he keeps making decisions that improve us, and keeps spending money. 

When you consider the state this club was in a few months ago, he has done a wonderful job so far. 

Edited August 29, 2016 by av1

[TB]

1 hour ago, wazzap24 said:

 ...vague ramblings about shunning Termites ...

genuine Laugh Out Loud moment. Thank you.

Edited August 29, 2016 by limpid
fixed quote

[TRO]

if more time was spent on the football issues and less time on the business side on this forum I would be happier.

On the business side it seems we have few problems , money seems no object,which some fans seem to be obsessed with.

That to date ....the c £100 mill in 12 months gross has  not made its way on to the pitch.

We have a football problem.......not a business problem.

[TRO]

3 hours ago, peterms said:

The t&c's point relates to Bennett.  Xia said " Simple&fair.We won't pay4him 2play 4others.Either cutting wages 2play 4others or getting full pay by club 2watch. "

Bennett later commented " Can you get anymore disrespectful tweeting about a players career like somebody has the last week " and later " My comment yesterday had nothing to do about contracts or fans. It was simply that I didn't want my situation to be aired all over Twitter before anything had been sorted."

I read this as dissatisfaction with the club discussing his situation and the detail of negotiations.  The examples you give about release clauses are quite appropriate to disclose, and I don't think players would reasonably feel it would be wrong to explain that.  If it were me, I would feel that tweeting to the world at large about what aspects of my pay might be holding up a transfer was not appropriate.  Especially coming from a company that wrongly claims to own four others but when questioned won't even give the names of those it doesn't own but is hoping to acquire...not much commitment to open information there.

The inaccurate information about Recon governance is him stating " No more rumors! Chris and the Socfin helped the takeover and we paid for service. Never was related to Recon!", which is simply untrue, as Companies House records show.  I can accept that some things are lost in translation, but this is a pretty clear statement that the relationship with Samuelson extended to no more than a paid service.  I also think his command of English is certainly good enough to understand the difference between "never was" and "isn't any more".  And if it isn't, then he needs to ask someone to read it over before he sends it.  But since the claims of ownership of other companies were also not the case, I'm getting an impression of being casual with the facts rather than having trouble with translations.  Is that unfair?

These things, together with things like the story about being Harvard's youngest ever professor (not the case), and the Birds Nest story, do make me wonder about what is happening.

I know that lots of fans really don't give a monkey's, if players are signed and we win some games.  That's not a view I share.

Well, regarding the last paragraph its all i care about.

being a person that spent most of my footballing life fighting doug ellis....to which now I have doubts about.

What do you realistically propose we should do with Dr Tony Xia?

On a realistic and positive note.

Edited August 29, 2016 by TRO

[Mjvilla]

I really, really miss him today. 

[peterms]

10 minutes ago, TRO said:

Well, regarding the last paragraph its all i care about.

being a person that spent most of my footballing life fighting doug ellis....to which now I have doubts about.

What do you realistically propose we should do with Dr Tony Xia?

On a realistic and positive note.

I would say three things.

First, find out more about who he is and Recon are and where the money actually comes from - the story so far is unconvincing.  Depending on the answers to that, further action might or might not be needed.

Second, lobby for changes in the law to prevent football clubs being bought and sold like they were stocks and shares - they are part of the common good, their worth and value comes from what supporters have done to build up the clubs over more than a hundred years, not from some fancy spreadsheet work or whizzy deal.  Ownership must recognise, respect and reflect that; in other words, clubs are not to be traded like commodities, they are to be safeguarded and protected like in more enlightened countries that haven't sold their soul to the devil for a quick buck.

Third, prepare for that change by developing, funding and educating supporters trusts.

These are not sequential.