Tony Xia (no longer involved with AVFC)

[ViewFromT2]

24 minutes ago, WaccoeOnline said:

And largely fictitious CV from the sound of it....

Bit like the owners CV then 

Gu Yanfang has been around a while. She was appointed as a director to Aston Villa Football Club in November 2016. I think she has replaced Wyness on the board of all the related companies he sat on, and she never!

[VillaChris]

Suppose the good thing about new ownership is we will still be restricted by FFP so any new ownership won't come in and waste 50m straightaway. We will need to develop a long term plan. Whether likes of Steve Round and Bruce are in that plan remains to be seen

[snowychap]

40 minutes ago, WaccoeOnline said:

So who is Yanfang Gu

She is Professor.

[DaveAV1]

5 minutes ago, VillaChris said:

Suppose the good thing about new ownership is we will still be restricted by FFP so any new ownership won't come in and waste 50m straightaway. We will need to develop a long term plan. Whether likes of Steve Round and Bruce are in that plan remains to be seen

Yes it’s would be good to spread the waste over a number of years 

[Rob182]

13 minutes ago, snowychap said:

That's only if there's a charge against the company, though, isn't it? So it is, for instance, when the company takes out a loan secured against a specific asset. If the company asks for payment to be brought forward (so the club owing pays in advance of when they are supposed to - I presume at a discount) and that happens then I don't see that any documents pertaiing to that would be relevant to Companies House.

That's true. But anything else is just a rumour. I don't know that many clubs will be keen on doing us a favour by paying us money early, and in turn effecting their own losses and, presumably at this point in time, the immediate money they will have available for summer transfers.

There was talk of us asking Burnley for some of the Westwood money, and there has been talk of Veretout as well, but there is nothing concrete, and I doubt that all Twenty Two clubs relating to potential remaining loan/transfer fees owed to us will be keen on emptying their pockets early for us. Perhaps we'd be offering a discounted rate of payment, but considering the amounts we're talking about, it would still eat into [insert club]'s current funds by millions, or at the least, hundreds of thousands.

[Rob182]

55 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Wait, you complained about these types of posts a few days ago. Now they are ok?

Without wanting to get into a discussion about moderation, which will result in deleted posts, I had an issue with the aggression and sarcasm on show. My post is neither.

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, Rob182 said:

That's true. But anything else is just a rumour. I don't know that many clubs will be keen on doing us a favour by paying us money early, and in turn effecting their own losses and, presumably at this point in time, the immediate money they will have available for summer transfers.

There was talk of us asking Burnley for some of the Westwood money, and there has been talk of Veretout as well, but there is nothing concrete, and I doubt that all Twenty Two clubs relating to potential remaining loan/transfer fees owed to us will be keen on emptying their pockets early for us. Perhaps we'd be offering a discounted rate of payment, but considering the amounts we're talking about, it would still eat into [insert club]'s current funds by millions, or at the least, hundreds of thousands.

My point was that lack of documentation does not mean that we haven't asked for cash payments to be brought forward.

I'd have thought that the club would have asked Fiorentina to do that before going to a bank to lend them the money. If they didn't then it would be concerning.

It wouldn't have any affect on any other club's 'losses', it would affect their cash flow. If they're in a position to do so then I'd have thought a lot of clubs would jump at the chance of an early settlement at a discount.

[Okonokos]

56 minutes ago, stewiek2 said:

I can exclusively reveal the preferred buyer is a super consortium consisting of Larry Ellison, Peter Freund, Julie Baily and Enda Stevens. Talks have been taking place in room 26 at the Belfry. Jermaine Defoe says hi.

What's your source on this? Would be amazing if true. Maybe finally Julie would finalise the deal for Hiroshi Kiyotake!

[Wainy316]

So is anything actually happening?

[PieFacE]

Only rumours and speculation

[Rob182]

50 minutes ago, snowychap said:

My point was that lack of documentation does not mean that we haven't asked for cash payments to be brought forward.

I'd have thought that the club would have asked Fiorentina to do that before going to a bank to lend them the money. If they didn't then it would be concerning.

It wouldn't have any affect on any other club's 'losses', it would affect their cash flow. If they're in a position to do so then I'd have thought a lot of clubs would jump at the chance of an early settlement at a discount.

By 'losses' I just meant the profit/loss for that particular month, ie: effecting the available cash flow, as you have rightly said.

You're right that lack of documentation doesn't mean that we haven't asked for these payments to be brought forward, but the point I was making, and the post that you have quoted, was in response to hippo stating that Tony has taken advances on a good percentage of our income, and that we effectively have no income but still outgoings.

Two pieces of evidence on Companies House, and a few rumours that may or may not be true, does not reasonably lead me to the conclusion that we have taken advances on a good percentage of our remaining transfer/loan income.

20% maybe?

10% maybe?

50%? I'm unconvinced.

More than 50%?  I see this as nothing other than speculation. Each to their own if they chose to believe it, of course.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Rob182

[WaccoeOnline]

53 minutes ago, snowychap said:

She is Professor.

Is she this professor? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yanfang_Gu

If so, her specialism is "Biofilm Formation" - ie managing scum...

[TheStagMan]

7 minutes ago, WaccoeOnline said:

Is she this professor? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yanfang_Gu

If so, her specialism is "Biofilm Formation" - ie managing scum...

She is at the wrong club then - needs to head down the road to the Sty!

[snowychap]

3 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

By 'losses' I meant just meant the profit/loss for that particular month, ie: effecting the available cash flow, as you have rightly said.

Cashflow and profit/loss are different things.

Quote

You're right that lack of documentation doesn't mean that we haven't asked for these payments to be brought forward, but the point I was making, and the post that you have quoted, was in response to hippo stating that Tony has taken advances on a good percentage of our income, and that we effectively have no income but still outgoings.

Two pieces of evidence on Companies House, and a few rumours that may or may not be true, does not reasonably lead me to the conclusion that we have taken advances on a good percentage of our remaining transfer/loan income.

20% maybe?

10% maybe?

50%? I'm unconvinced.

More than 50%?  I see this as nothing other than speculation. Each to their own if they chose to believe it, of course.

Indeed, anything that doesn't have evidence to back it up is speculation. You sit at one end and the other poster sits at another.

If you go back and reread your post, you've made the lack of documentation an important reason as to why you don't believe that the club have 'cashed in on many more of those twenty two other loan and transfer fees that we presumably have owed to us' because you say that if 'other documents appear in the coming weeks' then you'll start to join other people. I was merely pointing out to you that it would surely only be in certain circumstances that documents would have to be filed, e.g. actually taking out a loan secured againt those future payments. Other circumstances, like asking for the other club to bring forward their payment, wouldn't have to be documented in that way.

As to whether it's a good percentage of, all of or nothing of - I don't know and I'm not taking a view.

[imavillan]

2 hours ago, ViewFromT2 said:

TONY XIA IN TALKS TO SELL CLUB

MAIL EXCLUSIVE!

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/exclusive-tony-xia-talks-sell-14833584 

 

"Aston Villa’s precarious future could soon be resolved as Tony Xia discusses takeover bids with two interested parties.

BirminghamLive understands that Xia rejected a 51 per-cent offer from a European bidder yesterday.

A financial package that would have met Xia’s requirements of up to £40million of investment was put forward - but he knocked it back.

Negotiations with two other serious bidders are now planned as the Chinese owner tries to find a way out of the current mess."

 

Given the 'Mails' track record of exclusives being miles off the mark and even ordinary stories being totally incorrect and over exaggerated for click bait. (I can remember the day when the Birmingham Mail was a respected paper, yes, hard to believe but back in the day)

I really hope and prey that this is one of the few that they get right.

@TheEgo does this stack up with what you are hearing?

[omariqy]

26 minutes ago, imavillan said:

 

Given the 'Mails' track record of exclusives being miles off the mark and even ordinary stories being totally incorrect and over exaggerated for click bait. (I can remember the day when the Birmingham Mail was a respected paper, yes, hard to believe but back in the day)

I really hope and prey that this is one of the few that they get right.

@TheEgo does this stack up with what you are hearing?

Wouldn't be surprised if they are 100% wrong and Xia comes out with the I'm staying gif from Wolf of Wall Street.

[briny_ear]

3 hours ago, Rob182 said:

Where have I said that it makes it all Ok? Point me to that post wont you.

Unless you're just putting words in my mouth and trying to exaggerate my 'not everything seems clear' stance.

 

?

I’m sure you won’t find anyone to disagree with your “not everything is clear” stance! I’ve seen more informative sludge at the bottom of a sewer than what we have from the Dear Leader right now.

Just wondered why you were seeking to cast doubt on the bits of evidence that do clearly indicate financial problems for the club.

Still not really sure about the point you were seeking to make in that post.

[TheEgo]

13 hours ago, snowychap said:

 

Not trying to show any grasp other than having a look but on Recon Sports Ltd's acounts (note 17), it has a figure of £82.5m as loans and other borrowings. Is it that to which you're referring?

Yes Sir, I'd surmised we had around 83m losses to @Jareth  add that to the 57m from yesterday share allotment and you have your 142m that the share allotment stands at. All surmising though. I know and have said (well I know what I'm told anyway) that we are in an NDA period and under DD. Things are possibly looking better and moving forward.

[Rob182]

39 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Cashflow and profit/loss are different things.

Indeed, anything that doesn't have evidence to back it up is speculation. You sit at one end and the other poster sits at another.

If you go back and reread your post, you've made the lack of documentation an important reason as to why you don't believe that the club have 'cashed in on many more of those twenty two other loan and transfer fees that we presumably have owed to us' because you say that if 'other documents appear in the coming weeks' then you'll start to join other people. I was merely pointing out to you that it would surely only be in certain circumstances that documents would have to be filed, e.g. actually taking out a loan secured againt those future payments. Other circumstances, like asking for the other club to bring forward their payment, wouldn't have to be documented in that way.

As to whether it's a good percentage of, all of or nothing of - I don't know and I'm not taking a view.

I feel like you're splitting hairs about cashflow and profit/loss, but I'll leave it..

What you say is correct. I'm just viewing this lack of documentation as a 'lack of proof'. Yes there could be deals struck with other clubs which we wont know about, but also, as we see all too often in football, not much remains private for long. Clubs seem to relish the opportunity to release information to the press. Also, we're talking about another potential 20 clubs that we may have struck deals with. I've been guilty of giving players, managers and owners the benefit of the doubt for longer than most, so this is going to be another case of that.

[TheEgo]

3 hours ago, Rob182 said:

This is one of those opinions that really bugs me. There is documentation to prove that we've cashed in on the Amavi sale money and the money we should have had from Sanchez's 2016 loan to Fiorentina. Although these things are not a good signal of the clubs finances, why do those two pieces of debt management mean that we have taken a good percentage of future income, and that we now have effectively no income?!

 

Sanchez went to Fiorentina in 2016. In the same season we sold Gueye, Adama, Gestede, Clark, Ayew, Westwood and Sinclair. We also loaned out Cissokho, Gollini, Gil, Tshibola and McCormack. The following season we sold Baker, Sanchez, Amavi (coupled with a loan) and Bacuna, as well as loaning out De Laet, Gardner, Elphick, Tshibola and McCormack. Do people just assume that all of the staggered payments (as that's how the majority of football clubs work) for ALL of these players have also been cashed in?

People read two things in the paper (Amavi and Sanchez money cashed in), and immediately think that we must have no other income of any form coming in.

Mate whatever income we have our expenditure far exceeds it, hence not being able to pay tax bills (incidentally they'll be the last to be paid, so fair assumption there are others and since proven) It's not a case of having income, it's a case of not having ENOUGH income to pay for all the outgoings....surely you can see that?