Tony Xia (no longer involved with AVFC)

[TheEgo]

2 minutes ago, Jareth said:

You've said a few things...

I have indeed...got to get that post count up so I'm considered a regular in your eyes 

[srsmithusa]

2 minutes ago, TheEgo said:

Good job then as I have ankylosing spondylitis and I'd be useless at picking the ball out of the net 

Damn, my friend.  That's painful.  Sorry to hear about it.

[Jareth]

6 hours ago, DCJonah said:

Its like the trump mentality all over again. 

"There was no collusion with russia" turns to "we don't care that there was collusion with russia"

"Of course xia is wealthy and honest" turns to "who cares if it wasn't true, he is trying to pay the bills each month"

This is a man, who when he bought the club, said on the record that he was worth way more than a billion. Who now needs outside investments, or seeking other ways to pay £5 million bills. And some think thats a reason to defend him. 

Amazing.

I heard Tony keeps Mexican infants in cages too

[TheEgo]

1 minute ago, srsmithusa said:

how many club owners have debt?

Again, I'm not whistling a happy tune.  We are in bad shape.  But we don't really know how bad.  We will find out over the course of time.  There were some here claiming we would be in administration by now.  They were wrong. We weren't THAT bad.  It may not be as bad as many still seem to think.  But there is not doubt, we are in a poor financial position.  Personally, I suspect Wyness is the place where most blame should lie (although there's plenty to go around).

PS. I have debt too.  I owe on my house.  My house is worth more than I owe on it though, so I think I'm OK. 

I see your points and they're fair points to make. I think though when people are saying "All is fine, ner ner I told you" type posts, it's fair then to point out this isn't a Lerner situation where he spoke to mummy and got more cash with no interest or timescales to pay back, this is unknown date with unknown T&C's. 

It's a bit like living off your credit card and saying everything is fine. We are staying out of admin as our owner is getting loans to purely fund the running costs, that's scary. 

[TheEgo]

3 minutes ago, srsmithusa said:

Damn, my friend.  That's painful.  Sorry to hear about it.

It's fine mate, I have morphine patches and s**t loads of other opiates, probably explains many of my posts too 

Cheers though bud

Edited June 22, 2018 by TheEgo

[sharkyvilla]

2 minutes ago, srsmithusa said:

how many club owners have debt?

Again, I'm not whistling a happy tune.  We are in bad shape.  But we don't really know how bad.  We will find out over the course of time.  There were some here claiming we would be in administration by now.  They were wrong. We weren't THAT bad.  It may not be as bad as many still seem to think.  But there is not doubt, we are in a poor financial position.  Personally, I suspect Wyness is the place where most blame should lie (although there's plenty to go around).

PS. I have debt too.  I owe on my house.  My house is worth more than I owe on it though, so I think I'm OK. 

Also, being in financial trouble shouldn't be seen as being exclusive to Xia being owner, as I suspect that whoever owned us we'd be a bit buggered having not got promoted within two seasons.  You then have to ask, should we have spent so much trying (I think that gave us our best chance of going up personally) and should we have gone with different managers (again personally I thought the appointments of RDM and Bruce were fair enough without hindsight).  How much of the on-field failure can be down to an owner anyway?  50%, 20%?  It's hard to tell.

[TheEgo]

3 minutes ago, Jareth said:

I heard Tony keeps Mexican infants in cages too

Are they any good at football?? 

[Straggler]

15 minutes ago, TheEgo said:

I have indeed...got to get that post count up so I'm considered a regular in your eyes 

I think you will be better off looking at the posts to likes ratio.  Quality > quantity.

[TheEgo]

20 minutes ago, Straggler said:

I think you will be better off looking at the posts to likes ratio.  Quality > quantity.

You clearly didn't get the joke mate, don't worry though I'll take your advice, cheers 

[srsmithusa]

34 minutes ago, Straggler said:

I think you will be better off looking at the posts to likes ratio.  Quality > quantity.

just to be clear, so far, no-one has liked your post.     

 

[TheEgo]

9 minutes ago, srsmithusa said:

just to be clear, so far, no-one has liked your post.     

 

I wouldn't even know where to look for post likes. I don't post with a thought of will this be liked, I just post my opinion. I like to discuss/debate, but not bothered if people don't like my posts. I actually turned off the reputation thing you could have on the forum I had. People can get snooty about things like that (can someone like this please )

[Rob182]

10 minutes ago, TheEgo said:

I see your points and they're fair points to make. I think though when people are saying "All is fine, ner ner I told you" type posts, it's fair then to point out this isn't a Lerner situation where he spoke to mummy and got more cash with no interest or timescales to pay back, this is unknown date with unknown T&C's. 

It's a bit like living off your credit card and saying everything is fine. We are staying out of admin as our owner is getting loans to purely fund the running costs, that's scary. 

The problem we have is that no-one knows what Tony's financial situation is. He might have nothing. He might have huge debts. But as much as people scoff at the thought, he might also be worth hundreds of millions, as we were initially led to believe, and he apparently proved to the league.

It's been suggested that the majority of his rumoured worth is in the form of company assets, so perhaps that's part of the cashflow problem? Or perhaps it's not (I had to add that before the usual life-and-soul-of-the-party types edit my post in an attempt to rid me of my apparent rose-tinted specs).

An article posted a few days ago from an Eastern financial news outlet said that one of his companies employs 6,000 people, and that it had 10,000 until recently. That's not some small-time sweatshop employing 60 people on 20p a day, that's a huge nationally known company across, presumably, numerous locations. Some people chose to assume that this man employing 6,000 people in one of his companies has no money, others, like me, prefer to lean towards the, perhaps risky, angle of assuming that he does have money but we're (hopefully) just experiencing some short term difficulties which will soon be resolved.

 

In reality, none of us know the truth.

He might sell up, he might get investors, he might turn out to be a broke fraud in a jail cell, or in true Villa style, he might leave us, only for us to discover in years to come that he did in-fact have hundreds of millions.

[srsmithusa]

20 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

The problem we have is that no-one knows what Tony's financial situation is. He might have nothing. He might have huge debts. But as much as people scoff at the thought, he might also be worth hundreds of millions, as we were initially led to believe, and he apparently proved to the league.

It's been suggested that the majority of his rumoured worth is in the form of company assets, so perhaps that's part of the cashflow problem? Or perhaps it's not (I had to add that before the usual life-and-soul-of-the-party types edit my post in an attempt to rid me of my apparent rose-tinted specs).

An article posted a few days ago from an Eastern financial news outlet said that one of his companies employs 6,000 people, and that it had 10,000 until recently. That's not some small-time sweatshop employing 60 people on 20p a day, that's a huge nationally known company across, presumably, numerous locations. Some people chose to assume that this man employing 6,000 people in one of his companies has no money, others, like me, prefer to lean towards the, perhaps risky, angle of assuming that he does have money but we're (hopefully) just experiencing some short term difficulties which will soon be resolved.

 

In reality, none of us know the truth.

He might sell up, he might get investors, he might turn out to be a broke fraud in a jail cell, or in true Villa style, he might leave us, only for us to discover in years to come that he did in-fact have hundreds of millions.

ding, ding, ding.   Maybe the cut in numbers employed is a wise, cost-cutting measure produced by automation, or shifting of product lines, or...... I think people (me included) interpret vague facts differently because we have different experiences, backgrounds, and biases.   look up "foveal blind spot" to see a great example of how your brain (and mine) "makes up crap" to fill in missing information.

Edited June 22, 2018 by srsmithusa

[Jareth]

1 minute ago, srsmithusa said:

 look up "foveal blind spot" 

That safe for work computers?

[Rob182]

6 minutes ago, Jareth said:

That safe for work computers?

I'm not falling for it. I saw someone talking about feeding 'hand to mouth' a few days ago, and after I googled the term the resulting videos got me in trouble with my manager. Come to think of it, I think it swapped 'hand' for something else.

[terrytini]

1 hour ago, srsmithusa said:

 

PS. I have debt too.  I owe on my house.  My house is worth more than I owe on it though, so I think I'm OK. 

Well that depends.

Firstly on how much you are borrowing vs house value.

If you are borrowing against your house value to buy your house you may be ok - although many thousands that do this lose their homes every year.

If you are borrowing against the house to pay monthly bills that’d otherwise default I’d suggest you aren’t ok ( again though depends partly on equity).

In either case, you could still be on bother if the value ascribed to your house falls significantly.

So let’s hope for you, and the Club, it’s none of the risky scenarios.

Edited June 22, 2018 by terrytini

[srsmithusa]

6 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Well that depends.

Firstly on how much you are borrowing vs house value.

If you are borrowing against your house value to buy your house you may be ok - although many thousands that do this lose their homes every year.

If you are borrowing against the house to pay monthly bills that’d otherwise default I’d suggest you aren’t ok ( again though depends partly on equity).

In either case, you could still be on bother if the value ascribed to your house falls significantly.

So let’s hope for you, and the Club, it’s none of the risky scenarios.

now you have me all worried.  I won't be able to sleep tonight.  Are you an accountant?  Can I send you the loan balances and appraised value?        Just kidding. 

All fair points.  But so is my point, that just because someone has debt isn't proof that they are in financial ruin.  Maybe?  yes.   ARE?  maybe not.

[Rob182]

16 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Well that depends.

Firstly on how much you are borrowing vs house value.

If you are borrowing against your house value to buy your house you may be ok - although many thousands that do this lose their homes every year.

If you are borrowing against the house to pay monthly bills that’d otherwise default I’d suggest you aren’t ok ( again though depends partly on equity).

In either case, you could still be on bother if the value ascribed to your house falls significantly.

So let’s hope for you, and the Club, it’s none of the risky scenarios.

..and in the meantime, the whole family will hurl abuse at the homeowner because a bill was missed and an accountant was sacked. Then in the coming weeks, while the homeowner stays silent and tries to earn a few pounds to [save for the future / avoid it happening again / avoid losing the house / avoid being put in jail] everyone in the house, except for the dog, assumes the worst, changes the locks and rips up his favourite suit.

I think that's the best way our situation can be explained. Those of us not calling for Tony's head (just yet) are the dog, obviously. 

[TheEgo]

55 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

The problem we have is that no-one knows what Tony's financial situation is. He might have nothing. He might have huge debts. But as much as people scoff at the thought, he might also be worth hundreds of millions, as we were initially led to believe, and he apparently proved to the league.

It's been suggested that the majority of his rumoured worth is in the form of company assets, so perhaps that's part of the cashflow problem? Or perhaps it's not (I had to add that before the usual life-and-soul-of-the-party types edit my post in an attempt to rid me of my apparent rose-tinted specs).

An article posted a few days ago from an Eastern financial news outlet said that one of his companies employs 6,000 people, and that it had 10,000 until recently. That's not some small-time sweatshop employing 60 people on 20p a day, that's a huge nationally known company across, presumably, numerous locations. Some people chose to assume that this man employing 6,000 people in one of his companies has no money, others, like me, prefer to lean towards the, perhaps risky, angle of assuming that he does have money but we're (hopefully) just experiencing some short term difficulties which will soon be resolved.

 

In reality, none of us know the truth.

He might sell up, he might get investors, he might turn out to be a broke fraud in a jail cell, or in true Villa style, he might leave us, only for us to discover in years to come that he did in-fact have hundreds of millions.

You're right no one knows for sure, but this is the Tony Xia thread, so it's all up for discussion. I've said all along (maybe not on here, but Twitter) that he has his fingers in many pies and has shares in lots of companies, he isn't the main shareholder in any though, except Jian Tech info ltd. (Pretty sure that is what it's called) I'm sure he's ASSET rich, but I know for a fact (yeah yeah you say) that he has actual cash flow issues and not of the "I can't get it out of China kind" He doesn't have any significant cash (If I'm proved wrong, then I'll eat humble pie) What I I believe is he wants to sell, but whats to save face and allowing a buyer to come in initially as an investor, before selling the rest a few months down the line when the storm has passed and he doesn't look like he 'lost' That is my opinion, based on a little tiny bit of info, some educated guesswork and filling the gaps. I don't accept or need anyone to believe it, I'm just discussing Xia in a Xia thread.  

Edited June 22, 2018 by TheEgo
Typos

[eholm]

2 hours ago, srsmithusa said:

well good, because I don't believe anyone has said that.  I'll say again.  We are in very bad shape financially and (I fear) soon enough, on the pitch.  But nobody really knows exactly how bad, and those that have been reacting with certainty of the most extremely negative ASSUMPTIONS are probably not any more right than any hypothetical person saying that everything is rosy.

We are in very bad shape.  But only time will tell how bad.  But I doubt the sky is falling.  Villa is not likely to be shuttered and playing on the dirt foundation for an unlaid turf, with TRO as manager and TheEgo in goal.   

Fair enough; maybe I misconstrued the tone of your post. I see your point re the spectrum of assumptions and fully admit to being heavily in the negative camp. This is purely because I cannot see any other possible outcome than I have stated due this month to month ‘funding’ process. Respect your opinion as well though mate.