Jump to content

Tony Xia (no longer involved with AVFC)


Vancvillan

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, dukes said:

Interesting to note all these documents/resolutions lodged at companies house were signed on 25th May 2018...doesn't that mean they have nothing to do with us not getting promoted ? 

 

Meaning they are not a solution to the financial shortfall ?

The removal on the restrictions to issue shares was lodged on the 7th June

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dukes said:

In relation to Wyness, I assume the claim for constructive dismissal will be linked to these changes to his service contract ?

It all seems a little odd, as the sections referred to 215 - 217 all involve payments due upon loss of office.

215 Payments for loss of office

216 Amounts taken to be payments for loss of office

217 Payment by company: requirement of members’ approval 

Stupid question: Wouldn't he also have had to agree to these changes ? 

 

Yes he would and that will fill up a large part of the Constructive dismissal case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Someone has posted a document on Facebook which apparently indicates that the Club applied to remove Keith Wyness a few days before the playoff final.

It would also back up another reputable fan I spoke to who referenced that the relationship had been deteriorating for a while, and Tony was pissed because he wanted to pull the trigger on Bruce some time ago and Wyness stopped him, among other things obviously.

Basically watched it all crumble. lol

EDIT: Here

Image may contain: text

 

Have zero clue what this is related to.

 

They tried to change his role and responsibilities, If I were to guess I'd say that would be to stop him entering the club into admin as he knew the tax bill couldn't be paid. This was then the straw that broke the camel's back, if you read into it and between the lines. Only terminated officially today.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TheEgo said:

The removal on the restrictions to issue shares was lodged on the 7th June

Yes, but the date of Dr Tony's signature is 25th May so it was decided before the playoff final as were the changes to Wyness role/control.

 

 

resolution.JPG

Edited by dukes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dukes said:

Yes, but the date of Dr Tony's signature is 25th May so it was decided before the playoff final as were the changes to Wyness role/control.

Yes they were, my point being is they weren't lodged until AFTER the play off final, so he was waiting to see whether we went up before seeking to restrict shares. So it was clearly his plan B before it all got out in the press. 

**Edit "Unrestrict shares.......not restrict. Don't want this to be even more confusing ha!! 

 

Edited by TheEgo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TheEgo said:

Yes they were, my point being is they weren't lodged until AFTER the play off final, so he was waiting to see whether we went up before seeking to restrict shares. So it was clearly his plan B before it all got out in the press. 

ah yes, got it now

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TheEgo said:

Yes they were, my point being is they weren't lodged until AFTER the play off final, so he was waiting to see whether we went up before seeking to restrict shares. So it was clearly his plan B before it all got out in the press. 

**Edit "Unrestrict shares.......not restrict. Don't want this to be even more confusing ha!! 

 

Just to note that all of the now available forms were received by the registrar on the 31 May (look at the sticker on the top left).   Companies House usually operates with a 7-10 day turnaround time so I think people are looking for something that isn't there.

 

P.S. You also cannot restrict a directors rights to place a Company into Administration.  The Insolvency Act allows anyone with a registered security, or the board of directors, to file for Admin.  I am not aware that these rights can be fettered by any other act.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hippo said:

I think if we gets out that weed need £30m just too exist - people will take the sale of Grealish  less harsh.

I don't see how the 30m helps that much, which is why I'm sceptical about it. We will see through. I think the mail have pulled a figure out of their arse. I will get us through for two months or so.......my view is investment would be to keep us ticking over until we sell, hence me thinking investment may be via new buyer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reckon it must cost about £1m a week keeping the club running. Looking at the frantic search for a  loan of £5m we should  have about 3 weeks to find a buyer or an investor, sell a player or 10.......or the auditors will be called in.This loan would come with major consequences for not settling within a defined time limit 

Xia's a speculator and this investment has gone wrong. He needs to move fast to save the club major problems but he's not even in the country and I suspect we won't see him anywhere near Villa again. Who will save the club? Theres no one in charge who can..

Gonna be a bad summer for us all I'm afraid .UTV 

 

Edited by tinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, cudoz said:

Just to note that all of the now available forms were received by the registrar on the 31 May (look at the sticker on the top left).   Companies House usually operates with a 7-10 day turnaround time so I think people are looking for something that isn't there.

 

P.S. You also cannot restrict a directors rights to place a Company into Administration.  The Insolvency Act allows anyone with a registered security, or the board of directors, to file for Admin.  I am not aware that these rights can be fettered by any other act.

 

What exactly is it you think people are looking for that isn't there? it's a fact he has unrestricted shares, so that would suggest he wants to release new shares, that normally happens when converting debt to shares (like Lerner) for investment purposes and a sale? 

I think that's what the change of service for Wyness was thought, to remove authority, all call it security if it reads better. We don't KNOW for a fact, but it's a reasonable guess given what's happened, plus the talk of Organ and Ho also being part of any legal action (they would have effectively been the ones to physically stop things and get him out of VP)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TheEgo said:

What exactly is it you think people are looking for that isn't there? it's a fact he has unrestricted shares, so that would suggest he wants to release new shares, that normally happens when converting debt to shares (like Lerner) for investment purposes and a sale? 

I think that's what the change of service for Wyness was thought, to remove authority, all call it security if it reads better. We don't KNOW for a fact, but it's a reasonable guess given what's happened, plus the talk of Organ and Ho also being part of any legal action (they would have effectively been the ones to physically stop things and get him out of VP)

You made specific reference to these not being filed until after the playoff final & I have seen others making reference to a delay in these documents being filed.  The only delay appears to be that caused by royal mail and Companies House.  The timing of the playoff final and these documents appears to be irrelevant.

 

You cannot remove a specific director's authority to appoint Administrators as that power is covered by both the Insolvency and Companies Acts, not a director's contract.  It would also be gross negligence and a breach of the insolvency act to do so as, once insolvent, a boards duty of care shifts from the Company's shareholders to the Company's creditors.  Security in these instances would be a bank and/or secured creditor holding a charge over the Company which was registered at Companies House.  I'm am fairly certain that these documents have nothing to do with any attempt by Wyness to place us into Administration.

Edited by cudoz
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, cudoz said:

You made specific reference to these not being filed until after the playoff final & I have seen others making reference to a delay in these documents being filed.  The only delay appears to be that cause by royal mail and Companies House.  The timing of the playoff final and these documents appears to be irrelevant.

 

You cannot remove a specific director's authority to appoint Administrators as that power is covered by both the Insolvency and Companies Acts, not a director's contract.  It would also be gross negligence and a breach of the insolvency act to do so as, once insolvent, a boards duty of care shifts from the Company's shareholders to the Company's creditors.  Security in these instances would be a bank and/or secured creditor holding a charge over the Company which was registered at Companies House.  I'm am fairly certain that these documents have nothing to do with any attempt by Wyness to place us into Administration.

My point about not being filed until AFTER was that the release of shares seemed to be a Plan B of sorts to be acted upon if we lost. We did and it was acted upon. That's it from me on that part. 

The change re Wyness. Nobody knows what it it, but speculation seems to suggest a change in responsibilities/role etc to which he would have to agree.....hence the fallout. Now whether it's about the authority to be able to enter into admin or not. It is again speculation, however given your points, if they're correct then it appears this isn't the case and not possible (if someone is verbally suspended and then in writing, can they still as CEO take the club into Admin? I'd say not)

Whatever your view though, something happened with those filings that lead to the ultimate suspension, legal retort and final termination. We just don't know what that is. That is my view anyway!! thats haven spoken to several people that know more than me away from VT

Edited by TheEgo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, terrytini said:

Could be our finest hour. Renew.

Thanks Terry

Done it.

An Airplane always flies against the wind to take off......might be an omen for us in there somewhere.

Edited by TRO
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, TheEgo said:

My point about not being filed until AFTER was that the release of shares seemed to be a Plan B of sorts to be acted upon if we lost. We did and it was acted upon. That's it from me on that part. 

The change re Wyness. Nobody knows what it it, but speculation seems to suggest a change in responsibilities/role etc to which he would have to agree.....hence the fallout. Now whether it's about the authority to be able to enter into admin or not. It is again speculation, however given your points, if they're correct then it appears this isn't the case and not possible (if someone is verbally suspended and then in writing, can they still as CEO take the club into Admin? I'd say not)

Whatever your view though, something happened with those filings that lead to the ultimate suspension, legal retort and final termination. We just don't know what that is. That is my view anyway!! thats haven spoken to several people that know more than me away from VT

Re. Your first point.

The alteration to share rights was a resolution by shareholders sought under the Companies Act and was made before the final.  This resolution would have been filed whether we were promoted or not, as legally it couldn’t simply disappear should we be promoted, it would still need to be filed with the Registrar.

 

The important date is always the date of the resolution, not the date it was filed.  It seems we were being prudent and planning for both eventualities, we don’t have to issue new shares because of these documents but we now have the power to seek external investment.

 

We will never see the documents referred to so of course this is all speculation.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the first sign of adversity take the following steps.......

****ing Great big ones....and at a rapid rate.?

Edited by TRO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, cudoz said:

It seems we were being prudent and planning for both eventualities, we don’t have to issue new shares because of these documents but we now have the power to seek external investment.

Ta for all that, you're either clued up on this sort of thing or just very convincing. This all counters the idea that Tony waited to lose the final and had no plan B...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheEgo said:

I don't see how the 30m helps that much, which is why I'm sceptical about it. We will see through. I think the mail have pulled a figure out of their arse. I will get us through for two months or so.......my view is investment would be to keep us ticking over until we sell, hence me thinking investment may be via new buyer. 

How is £30m not that much help? It's better than kick up the bollocks surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TheEgo said:

They tried to change his role and responsibilities, If I were to guess I'd say that would be to stop him entering the club into admin as he knew the tax bill couldn't be paid. This was then the straw that broke the camel's back, if you read into it and between the lines. Only terminated officially today.

I don't think it's anything to do with changing his role.  Under the Companies Act 2006 (and those paragraphs in particular) you have to get a written resolution of the shareholders (even if there is only one) to pay a termination payment for loss of office.  What it looks like to me they've done is backdate the sacking and just get the resolution submitted so that they can pay whatever compensation they eventually end up having to pay.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â