Tony Xia (no longer involved with AVFC)

[thabucks]

Big T Dr X it's gunna cost ya a few more $$$ than you expected  me thinks. Valencia, Hernadez Morrison, Alberto, Pantilimon, and a CB loan maybe Hector from Chelsea. We have to add quality ASAP ! 

[NurembergVillan]

2 hours ago, Nabby said:

 

Agreed he bombed out Gabby etc , if RMD isn't delivering he will be gone I have no doubt of that

Reapons of Mass Destruction?

[terrytini]

30 minutes ago, TRO said:

And again and again and again.

I was truly rocked by that result and the second half, from what I hear is a typical case us not been able to contain a team ready for the fight back.

We are changing players constantly, so i fail to see how it can be a player mental issue.....Why do we allow teams to pull us around.

We have a goal scoring issue, but we still could have won 0-1 and that would have been an indication of progress..... I still think our main issue is we cannot contain teams for significant periods of the game.

I don't disagree with you often but IMO we do exactly that, which is why we have good halves etc.  What we can't do is contain them for an entire game - but who can ?

The second goal always makes a massive difference as it enables any side having it to sit and invite the opposition to overpress  - we don't score enough goals. If in every game you are at 0-0 or at best 1-0 in the second half you are always going to come under intense pressure.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Well, perhaps I'm failing to understand something here.  What I can see from his timeline suggests the rumour he objects to is something about Chris Samuelson being connected to Recon, and he states that Samuelson was never related to Recon.

As people have shown in this thread, Companies House records show that Samuelson was appointed as a Recon director in May and removed in June, reappointed in July and removed again in August.  Since this is a matter of public record, it seems very strange to deny it, and odder still to threaten legal action.

That's a slightly different tack, if I may say so.

You're right, both Samuelson and Wyness have been appointed, left, appointed left, appointed.. to the recon board, each time (so far) has been a matter of weeks.

So a very good question for Ian to ask would have been why? - (there may well be, and probably is some sort of rational reason why this might be so). Many would be interested to understand, I'm sure.

[In the Samuelson thread, I think I mentioned some concerns about him and how it's not surprising some people are wary of him being involved.  Though of course he's never been charged with, or convicted of any wrongdoing, despite having been investigated by the FBI etc... so he's innocent.]

Thing is though, Ian's twitter feed has been, er, assertively, hostile in terms of mentions about only being a front man, about Chinese Gov't control, about quoting something Mao said, about motives and unsuitability and such like - and Dr X has been copied in on this succession of "views" (till they blocked each other).

My feeling is that it was a culmination of things "rumor" over a period of some time that led to the post quoted - the implications of um, ne'erdowellism.

And my post to you was more about your use of terms along the lines of using his "wealth" to "crush" Ian - I just feel that was slightly exaggerating. It's also the case that things that are verifiably true - the board appointments, the presence of CS in India and other stuff Ian has put on twitter is fine. It's the linking of those things - that freely available, verifiable, information - to the earlier "theories" about who is in control and such like that has caused the irritation.

But I could be wrong.

 

[briny_ear]

2 hours ago, AntrimBlack said:

This. I don't think he is used to failure. And I don't think he has a lot of patience either.

And, to repeat my earlier point, he has no experience of how to make a football club successful, so impatience/sackings/foot-stamping may just not do the trick.

[TRO]

49 minutes ago, terrytini said:

I don't disagree with you often but IMO we do exactly that, which is why we have good halves etc.  What we can't do is contain them for an entire game - but who can ?

The second goal always makes a massive difference as it enables any side having it to sit and invite the opposition to overpress  - we don't score enough goals. If in every game you are at 0-0 or at best 1-0 in the second half you are always going to come under intense pressure.

Terry, I accept your reasoning, but we were in the ascendency during the first half and by all accounts were very unlucky to be only 0-1 up......we ,according to reports were taking the game to them, so in fact it was only the second half any plan of containment was necessary.....They came at us and I am trying to give them a bit of credit, but we must be able to nullify teams like Bristol City.

I seem to recall a few teams winning the league on one nils and if. I remember correctly during our halcyon days in 81 when we went 1-0 up it was generally game set and match.....such was the ability of the team to contain or nullify.

That by the way, is not ignoring the other issue of not being able to kill teams off by out scoring them.

My point is/ was when you haven't got the goalscoring rocking and rolling the very least is to protect a lead.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2016 by TRO

[Mantis]

9 minutes ago, briny_ear said:

And, to repeat my earlier point, he has no experience of how to make a football club successful, so impatience/sackings/foot-stamping may just not do the trick.

Every successful football club owner was inexperienced at some point. At the moment, he's making the right moves.

[Deisler123]

The fact that the team always has very inconsistent performance in two halves indicates:

either, 1) the manager and his assistants do not enough variations in tactics or they are simply not good enough to make tactical changes.

or, 2) the players do not yet understand the manager's tactical system and fit themselves in accordingly.

or, 3) the manager does not have bench depth

My own observation is 2) and 3). 

IMO it is only fair to give RDM a good finisher, other 2-3 ins, and at least 15 games, maybe till Xmas time.

If RDM gets the players he wants, but fail to get at least 6-7 wins in the next 15 games, the honeymoon time between Xia and RDM will very likely be over.

[OLDVILLAIN]

[TRO]

i accept defeat in a game....

But, I struggle to understand the dramatic turn around during a game , its this colossal fade away that is the mystery.

I don't understand the sublime to the ridiculous in such a short space of time.I don't know how we manage it.

Ps I don't think that result is reflective of all the hard work thats going in by the club....its a shame thats all they could muster.

Edited August 27, 2016 by TRO

[Guest av1]

24 minutes ago, Deisler123 said:

The fact that the team always has very inconsistent performance in two halves indicates:

either, 1) the manager and his assistants do not enough variations in tactics or they are simply not good enough to make tactical changes.

or, 2) the players do not yet understand the manager's tactical system and fit themselves in accordingly.

or, 3) the manager does not have bench depth

My own observation is 2) and 3). 

IMO it is only fair to give RDM a good finisher, other 2-3 ins, and at least 15 games, maybe till Xmas time.

If RDM gets the players he wants, but fail to get at least 6-7 wins in the next 15 games, the honeymoon time between Xia and RDM will very likely be over.

I absolutely agree. In time we may find that the problem is Number 1. But given the enormity of task, i think we have to wait and see how 2 and 3 pan out first.

This was never going to be a 5min job

 

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

...Thing is though, Ian's twitter feed has been, er, assertively, hostile in terms of mentions about only being a front man, about Chinese Gov't control, about quoting something Mao said, about motives and unsuitability and such like - and Dr X has been copied in on this succession of "views" (till they blocked each other).

My feeling is that it was a culmination of things "rumor" over a period of some time that led to the post quoted - the implications of um, ne'erdowellism.

And my post to you was more about your use of terms along the lines of using his "wealth" to "crush" Ian - I just feel that was slightly exaggerating. It's also the case that things that are verifiably true - the board appointments, the presence of CS in India and other stuff Ian has put on twitter is fine. It's the linking of those things - that freely available, verifiable, information - to the earlier "theories" about who is in control and such like that has caused the irritation.

 

Hmmm, he may need to develop a tougher skin about people asking questions about his background, connections and resources.  They are perfectly proper things to ask about.  I see Private Eye (below) has just carried a piece about the recent influx of Chinese investment in football clubs, state control or involvement in some of the companies involved, lack of transparency, governance questions, breaches of stock market rules and so on.  If clear, straight and verifiable answers are hard to come by, or if information is given which then changes when questions are asked, then it's understandable people will feel concerned.  The involvement of people like Samuelson adds to that concern, especially since he is reputed to be very experienced in company transactions which are not thought of as transparent.

As for the thing about using wealth to crush Ian, well yes, threats of libel action can in practice only be made by people with access to a lot of money, and they are often used against people who it is known wouldn't be able to afford the cost of defending an action.  That's why so many people think libel law is due for reform.

That doesn't mean I think Ian should be free to libel people - I don't.  But I do dislike seeing people threatened in that way.  I think he's probably motivated by concern rather than malice, and these are proper things to ask about - at least here; it may be that such questioning is less common in China.

Copyrighted material removed

[Vive_La_Villa]

Just had a quick look at the tweets posted to Dr Xia. I really hope for his own sake he stops posting so much. Unless we start winning games it's going to get very ugly.  

[Vive_La_Villa]

Is this the same ian that got banned from VT?

[dudevillaisnice]

To be honest he doesn't seem to care what other fans tweet him. 

[useless]

It's not going to get ugly. If it was it would have already have done so, because some pretty mean stuff has been said, and Xia's just ignored it.

[Godders]

Hopefully, the rise of social media will mean critical thinking as a subject  will find its way onto the schools curriculum.

I'm certain that fallacious reasoning will end up with an average joe in a lot of trouble sooner rather than later.

[Davkaus]

In fairness, Tony should have probably had a word with Ian's carer before flying in with the legal threats.

[Pilchard]

I would be very interested in Tony's thoughts on financial fair play in the Championship and whether we will be OK with it.

[snowychap]

5 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

In fairness, Tony should have probably had a word with Ian's carer before flying in with the legal threats.

I think that's a bit of a crap comment.