Tony Xia (no longer involved with AVFC)

[Jareth]

22 minutes ago, peterms said:

I don't think you've followed what I said.  I referred to Companies House records showing that Samuelson had been a Recon director, when Xia had said he had never been related to Recon.  Those are facts, aren't they?  Do you accept that?

I don't understand why he would give a false account like that, but it makes me wary of simply accepting things at face value.

1) they are not facts

2) they are your opinion

3) you'd get more sympathy on breitbart

[peterms]

1 minute ago, Jareth said:

1) they are not facts

2) they are your opinion

3) you'd get more sympathy on breitbart

Samuelson was a Recon director.

Xia said 'No more rumors! Chris and the Socfin helped the takeover and we paid for service. Never was related to Recon!'

In what way do you think these things are matters of opinion, and not simple, verifiable facts?

 

[Tommo_b]

Does it matter? 

[Jareth]

16 minutes ago, peterms said:

Samuelson was a Recon director.

Xia said 'No more rumors! Chris and the Socfin helped the takeover and we paid for service. Never was related to Recon!'

In what way do you think these things are matters of opinion, and not simple, verifiable facts?

 

Samuelson was a director at the new company that purchased villa while the process went through. He subsequently departed. He was a financier, he continued to be a financier and he still is one. He was not a director at Recon. Try reading Tony's tweet again. 

[peterms]

9 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Samuelson was a director at the new company that purchased villa while the process went through. He subsequently departed. He was a financier, he continued to be a financier and he still is one. He was not a director at Recon. Try reading Tony's tweet again. 

He was a director of Recon Group UK, twice. 

I've read the tweet again.  It's the words 'Never was related to Recon' that make me think he was saying that he was never related to Recon.

[Jareth]

48 minutes ago, peterms said:

He was a director of Recon Group UK, twice. 

I've read the tweet again.  It's the words 'Never was related to Recon' that make me think he was saying that he was never related to Recon.

You should ask yourself why this perceived mistruth outweighs in your mind everything tony has done for the club. 

[peterms]

It's not a 'perceived mistruth' or an 'opinion', it's a simple fact that he made a false statement about the involvement of someone who many fans wouldn't want to see anywhere near the club.

It's very odd that you seem to keep denying that this simple observable fact is a fact.  Why are you doing it?  Would you prefer it not to be the case?  Do you think you can make it go away by denying it?

It's also odd that you are making up things about this outweighing in my mind anything else.  It's like you are trying to reduce everything to 'Tony good' or 'Tony bad', and are trying to arrange reality and the views of others around this simple distinction.

I welcome the investment that has been made so far.  I don't welcome untruths.  I have serious doubts about the choices he has made about advisers.  I think his choice of manager doesn't at all fit his claims about long term strategy or his professed philosophy of forming a young team to grow over time (I mean managerial team, not players).  It's quite a mixed picture, in my view.  Apparently not in yours.

[DCJonah]

50 minutes ago, Jareth said:

You should ask yourself why this perceived mistruth outweighs in your mind everything tony has done for the club. 

I find it so odd that you will passionately defend a man you have never met or really don't know much about. 

Now I'm a big fan of what he's done so far but you have no idea what he will do in the future. He could be amazing but he could also be terrible. There were people who would defend Lerner to the hilt for years as we declined. Never understood it. 

[Keyblade]

Wait, what did he do? What did he lie about?

[Darth Villa]

7 minutes ago, peterms said:

It's not a 'perceived mistruth' or an 'opinion', it's a simple fact that he made a false statement about the involvement of someone who many fans wouldn't want to see anywhere near the club.

It's very odd that you seem to keep denying that this simple observable fact is a fact.  Why are you doing it?  Would you prefer it not to be the case?  Do you think you can make it go away by denying it?

It's also odd that you are making up things about this outweighing in my mind anything else.  It's like you are trying to reduce everything to 'Tony good' or 'Tony bad', and are trying to arrange reality and the views of others around this simple distinction.

I welcome the investment that has been made so far.  I don't welcome untruths.  I have serious doubts about the choices he has made about advisers.  I think his choice of manager doesn't at all fit his claims about long term strategy or his professed philosophy of forming a young team to grow over time (I mean managerial team, not players).  It's quite a mixed picture, in my view.  Apparently not in yours.

I never realised VT had a conspiracy thread but I always thought Dr X would make a great bond "Villain" with his secret South China Sea hideout..

[Eastie]

36 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

Wait, what did he do? What did he lie about?

He said Steve bruce was a good manager  

[Jareth]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

It's not a 'perceived mistruth' or an 'opinion', it's a simple fact that he made a false statement about the involvement of someone who many fans wouldn't want to see anywhere near the club.

It's very odd that you seem to keep denying that this simple observable fact is a fact.  Why are you doing it?  Would you prefer it not to be the case?  Do you think you can make it go away by denying it?

It's also odd that you are making up things about this outweighing in my mind anything else.  It's like you are trying to reduce everything to 'Tony good' or 'Tony bad', and are trying to arrange reality and the views of others around this simple distinction.

I welcome the investment that has been made so far.  I don't welcome untruths.  I have serious doubts about the choices he has made about advisers.  I think his choice of manager doesn't at all fit his claims about long term strategy or his professed philosophy of forming a young team to grow over time (I mean managerial team, not players).  It's quite a mixed picture, in my view.  Apparently not in yours.

The fact upon which you are basing your entire opinion of Tony on, is not a fact, regardless of how many times you spit it out stating it to be one. You think Recon Group UK is what exactly? It was incorporated May 2016 - it was a brand new UK company set up which then purchases Villa - all owned by Tony. Samuelson is added as a Director - why? So that he has the executive authority to run the transitional company while Tony is abroad (you know, running Recon group) and the sale goes through and when all is done he moves on. What part of this is incorrect?

[Jareth]

2 hours ago, DCJonah said:

I find it so odd that you will passionately defend a man you have never met or really don't know much about. 

I won't put up with lazy xenophobia which is running rife behind some 'opinions' disguised as simple criticisms. There is nothing the good Dr has done that you can get at him for, he hasn't put a foot wrong - and you'd think there might be a tad more appreciation of that. 

[DCJonah]

2 hours ago, Jareth said:

I won't put up with lazy xenophobia which is running rife behind some 'opinions' disguised as simple criticisms. There is nothing the good Dr has done that you can get at him for, he hasn't put a foot wrong - and you'd think there might be a tad more appreciation of that. 

Think you're being paranoid with the xenophobia. 

Not sure you can say he hasn't put a foot wrong. His first managerial choice lasted 11 games and we're currently having a poor start after finishing 13th. If that's not putting a foot wrong then we truly are **** for the future. 

The appreciation thing, you again sound just like those that defended Lerner till the end. I appreciate that he's trying to improve the club, but he's not doing it for charity is he? It's all part of a business plan, so I'm not sure we should be bowing down to a very wealthy man trying to make even more money. It's great that he's chosen this club as a way to potentially do that, and he speaks brilliantly about his plans. I hope it all goes perfectly for him. 

Edited August 26, 2017 by DCJonah

[peterms]

15 minutes ago, Jareth said:

The fact upon which you are basing your entire opinion of Tony on, is not a fact, regardless of how many times you spit it out stating it to be one. You think Recon Group UK is what exactly? It was incorporated May 2016 - it was a brand new UK company set up which then purchases Villa - all owned by Tony. Samuelson is added as a Director - why? So that he has the executive authority to run the transitional company while Tony is abroad (you know, running Recon group) and the sale goes through and when all is done he moves on. What part of this is incorrect?

This is getting bizarre.  You've just set out how Samuelson was connected to Recon, while at the same time asserting it's not a fact.

[Dr_Pangloss]

Some really bizarre posts going on. @peterms has done a pretty good job at demonstrating the issue from what I can see. If anyone's deluded it's not him.

[Jareth]

Just now, Dr_Pangloss said:

Some really bizarre posts going on. @peterms has done a pretty good job at demonstrating the issue from what I can see. If anyone's deluded it's not him.

Jump on why don't you..

[Jareth]

2 minutes ago, peterms said:

This is getting bizarre.  You've just set out how Samuelson was connected to Recon, while at the same time asserting it's not a fact.

Xia said 'No more rumors! Chris and the Socfin helped the takeover and we paid for service. Never was related to Recon!' 

How can that statement mean what you think it means?

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, Jareth said:

Xia said 'No more rumors! Chris and the Socfin helped the takeover and we paid for service. Never was related to Recon!' 

How can that statement mean what you think it means?

I understand "never was related to Recon" to mean that Samuelson had no connection to Recon.

Do you think it means something quite different?  Perhaps it means "Three bananas and a pint of milk please madam", or "These new shoes are a little tight"?

[Jareth]

18 minutes ago, peterms said:

I understand "never was related to Recon" to mean that Samuelson had no connection to Recon.

Do you think it means something quite different?  Perhaps it means "Three bananas and a pint of milk please madam", or "These new shoes are a little tight"?

What do you think pre May 2016 Recon is? What do you think Recon UK is? Which one of these companies is Tony referring to in that tweet?