Tony Xia (no longer involved with AVFC)

[backofthenet]

11 hours ago, limpid said:

I'm not really assuming it, it's the law of the land.

What similarities? You mean the takeover of Reading that didn't happen? In what way is that similar and why are you blaming one individual for its failure when you know nothing about why it failed?

No this reading takeover

http://www.royals.org/readingfc-news/Chris-Samuelson-Former-Reading-FC-director-involved-in-Aston-Villa-takeover

llast time I checked it was also not illegal to be sceptical of someone's motives 

[AshVilla]

2 hours ago, maqroll said:

[blandy]

2 hours ago, limpid said:

From that link (which appears to be a random conspiracy theory site, not the telegraph

It's  a reproduction of a daily telegraph article from 2012.

My feeling is extreme wariness is entirely appropriate regarding Samuelson.

[limpid]

9 hours ago, backofthenet said:

No this reading takeover

http://www.royals.org/readingfc-news/Chris-Samuelson-Former-Reading-FC-director-involved-in-Aston-Villa-takeover

That's a one line article. Very revealing.

I'm not sure what makes you think that any part of that shows Samuelson in a negative light. Unless you think he made Zingarevich disappear.

9 hours ago, backofthenet said:

llast time I checked it was also not illegal to be sceptical of someone's motives 

I don't know where you "checked", but defamation is an offence. If he can show that he's been defamed he can sue you for the damage his reputation has received. You've been talking like these are facts when it appears you are repeating other people's opinion (which wouldn't be a defence).

[Stevo985]

16 hours ago, Richard said:

Too soon to say Xia out?

I'm surprised it's taken you this long

[sparrow1988]

1 hour ago, limpid said:

That's a one line article. Very revealing.

I'm not sure what makes you think that any part of that shows Samuelson in a negative light. Unless you think he made Zingarevich disappear.

I don't know where you "checked", but defamation is an offence. If he can show that he's been defamed he can sue you for the damage his reputation has received. You've been talking like these are facts when it appears you are repeating other people's opinion (which wouldn't be a defence).

Maybe he could also make Lescott, Richards et al disappear????

[hippo]

4 hours ago, limpid said:

That's a one line article. Very revealing.

I'm not sure what makes you think that any part of that shows Samuelson in a negative light. Unless you think he made Zingarevich disappear.

I don't know where you "checked", but defamation is an offence. If he can show that he's been defamed he can sue you for the damage his reputation has received. You've been talking like these are facts when it appears you are repeating other people's opinion (which wouldn't be a defence).

Hes been investigated by the FBI and other governments for money laundering. - Nothing proven no convictions of course.

But I m extremley wary of his motives....

[andyh]

10 minutes ago, hippo said:

Hes been investigated by the FBI and other governments for money laundering. - Nothing proven no convictions of course.

But I m extremley wary of his motives....

don't be.

worry about things that really matter 

[limpid]

7 minutes ago, hippo said:

Hes been investigated by the FBI and other governments for money laundering. - Nothing proven no convictions of course.

But I m extremley wary of his motives....

He's been investigated and there was nothing wrong or they'd have brought charges. It's an amazingly simple concept. 

Life's too short to worry about things that might be.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, limpid said:

He's been investigated and there was nothing wrong or they'd have brought charges. It's an amazingly simple concept. 

You're right of course, in terms of allegations of criminal behaviour.

There are walks of life which are perfectly legal, but which nevertheless cause degrees of concern. There are hundreds, if not thousands of activities that are legal, but which are considered by many to be shady - one such example is the avoidance of tax and the avoidance of identity behind companies via off-shoring. There can be perfectly respectable and legal reasons why someone might wish to set up company in the Cayman islands, or Panama for example.

it is also true that not every one who moves money to Panama does so for entirely legitimate reasons. And perhaps some of the facilitators of these transactions might be considered worthy of treating warily? To look at it in football terms, as far as I am aware, Sepp Blatter hasn't been convicted in any court of law for any illegal conduct - so he's innocent, right? or would it be reasonable to question, or have concerns about his propriety - even before even FIFA found him to have been a naughty man?

Unfortunately someone who has been investigated by the FBI and other authorities for activities which they apparently deemed worthy of investigating will cause unease and concern almongst supporters.

Again, he's innocent. He has not been charged or convicted with any crime. Supporters, given what has happened to other clubs - Pompey, Leeds etc. have reason to be wary of people who seem only to have involvement ion football as part of moving money around.

[limpid]

38 minutes ago, blandy said:

You're right of course, in terms of allegations of criminal behaviour.

There are walks of life which are perfectly legal, but which nevertheless cause degrees of concern.

I agree completely. Having a degree of concern is not the same as repeating unproven claims as if they are facts.

[blandy]

No one's done that, Simon. At least not that I've seen. 

[limpid]

@blandy I think this quite clearly states as fact that Samuelson has a chequered past, without any evidence:

Quote

and a point that I've raised before is that why xia didn't appear to have another soul from the recon group attached to Aston villa, every single member of the board is connected to Chris Samuelson who has a chequered past when it comes to having involvement in football clubs

He does not have a chequered past. Unless someone has evidence that has done something wrong then he appears only to be guilty by association when no crime has been committed.

Of course, this could have been clumsy wording by the poster, but that's why I asked them to back it up or retract it.

[srsmithusa]

3 hours ago, limpid said:

He's been investigated and there was nothing wrong or they'd have brought charges. It's an amazingly simple concept. 

Life's too short to worry about things that might be.

as an american, let me say, that I agree completely.  He's been investigated by the FBI and they've brought no charges.... like Hillary. . . oh.

 

[Villan4Life]

That Retweet has now reached The Sun.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/1461971/aston-villa-owner-dr-tony-xia-goes-on-chinese-charm-offensive-after-being-duped-into-jimmy-savile-tribute-by-prankster/?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-TWITTER-_-TheSunFootball-_-20160718-_-Football-_-519332229

 

Quote

ASTON VILLA chairman Dr Tony Xia has taken the stage to sell the Claret and Blues to China – hours after being duped into retweeting a ‘tribute’ to disgraced star Jimmy Savile.

Xia kicked a ball around on stage in Beijing as he was joined by boss Roberto Di Matteo and CEO Keith Wyness for a Chinese charm offensive.

But the press conference for around 150 journalists came in the wake of Xia being fooled by an internet prankster.

Xia started using Twitter earlier this month to communicate with Villa fans, in addition the regular posts he sends to fans in his homeland on Chinese social media site Weibo.

The move has been welcomed by Villa supporters who were furious at the lack of interaction from former owner Randy Lerner, who seldom gave written interviews – let alone televised ones.

An account named ‘thisispreece’, which was later deleted, sadistically requested a retweet for “my Uncle Jimmy”.

Xia then replied: “Happy Birthday to UNCLE Jimmy.

When he realised his error, the Villa chairman then served up an apology, with Villa fans blasting the user who had tricked Xia.

One fan posted: “Full respect to new Villa owner Dr Tony Xia for chatting and engaging with fans. Just a shame about the few idiots on here.”

Another said: “I like having our owner on here, reaching out to fans after years of silence from Randy Lerner, good on ya."

Tycoon Xia, 39, paid around £75million to buy Villa from Lerner last month.

He also admitted that he was open to the idea of Chinese players joining Villa - if they were good enough.

The Italian boss said: “[It was] a house that needed to be knocked down and start afresh.

"That’s so far what I have seen.

“I don’t want to put it into numbers. I’m certainly looking to freshen up the squad … [but] I don’t know if it is one more, three more or four more.

“Obviously if there is a Chinese player that has the quality and the ability we will certainly be looking to recruit.

“[But] I think the main focus is to get promoted with Aston Villa. That is the main focus of the chairman, the owner and everyone involved in the club.”

 

[7392craig]

20 minutes ago, srsmithusa said:

as an american, let me say, that I agree completely.  He's been investigated by the FBI and they've brought no charges.... like Hillary. . . oh.

 

I think even if he was found innocent of any wrong doing, it does raise other questions. Was anybody else found guilty? If so then was he not aware of people he was working with and their actions? Or did he just not know? Which is also not a good sign. However this is all pointless, I have no idea if anybody he's ever been associated with has ever been convicted of any wrong doing.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, limpid said:

@blandy I think this quite clearly states as fact that Samuelson has a chequered past, without any evidence:

He does not have a chequered past. Unless someone has evidence that has done something wrong then he appears only to be guilty by association when no crime has been committed.

Of course, this could have been clumsy wording by the poster, but that's why I asked them to back it up or retract it.

"when it comes to having involvement in football clubs" is the bit you missed off the original quote. And his involvement Reading, and some of the information about his actions there do, IMO, justify the original poster using the term chequered, with regard to football

[Qwpzxjor1]

I think a lot of the Samuelson 'wariness' comes from "no smoke without fire". There a fair bit of smoke surrounding him, but nothing ever seems substantial. Every claim about him has been 'that seemed a little dodgy' but absolutely no evidence or anything further to go on. 

I can see why the moderators here are getting anxious with some of the comments about him, and there isn't anything solid to back up any claims. Even the FBI couldn't find anything - but in itself you have to wonder why the FBI were looking at him in the first place. 

I'm in the 'not quite sure of him' camp, but he's obviously good at what he does. Lets just hope he's here on a completely legitimate basis and he's able to put his talents to use for positive reasons. 

 

There, I think that's suitable "on the fence".

[limpid]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

"when it comes to having involvement in football clubs" is the bit you missed off the original quote. And his involvement Reading, and some of the information about his actions there do, IMO, justify the original poster using the term chequered, with regard to football

How so? He brokered a deal which was completed. He's not responsible for the new owner doing a vanishing act.

[limpid]

2 hours ago, 7392craig said:

I think even if he was found innocent of any wrong doing, it does raise other questions. Was anybody else found guilty? If so then was he not aware of people he was working with and their actions? Or did he just not know? Which is also not a good sign. However this is all pointless, I have no idea if anybody he's ever been associated with has ever been convicted of any wrong doing.

You can't be found innocent. Not in the UK and not in America. You are always innocent until proven guilty.

To your point. What if no-one was charged because there wasn't anything illegal? It's the FBI's job to be suspicious. They investigated and found nothing.