Who Says No Expectations | Page 6 | Vital Football

Who Says No Expectations

I guess that's one of the keys to if he'd be suitable to sit on the board for the fans.

What happens when these tough conversations happen again, does he toe the company line or does he communicate to the fans?

It 100% isn't fantasy that he should have aired his concerns in a view that something could have been done. I'd say, as a Latics man through and through, he should have spoke out when he saw things going wrong and was in over his head. If you dont believe he ever got to that stage what does it mean for him being in a position where it may happen again?

For the umpteenth time Wlatic (mainly to Notts, I concede), what benefit would have come from him telling the fans of his concerns?

"In over his head"? Where on earth have you pulled that from?

Happening again? An owner simply deciding to pull the plug? I'm at a loss, honestly. If you can point out what he should have done - and please, don't just say "tell the fans", or the EFL - then we can have a proper discussion.
 
Sorry sunshine if I have offended your sensibility.

I asked a simple question, what "dubious history" are you alluding to?

I am not aware that JJ has ever faced any questions from the club as to his conduct and as far as I, and you, know has carried out his duties in accordance with the Directors wishes. He has no reason to be speaking to the fans about anything that goes on in the inner sanctums of the club and could in fact face a legal charge for disclosing sensitive business information.

As you say, we don't know what was said and done but you seem to have found him guilty of misdemeanours without any proof, I on the other hand see a man dedicated to the club who has acted in good faith.

Please submit your proof of his "dubious history" or retract your comments.
.
Ok pal 😉..I talk of dubious history not character. The recent history of the man is open to suspicion, because (and this is my only evidence) he was CEO at the club, I believe, and therefore had a central role in the management of the club at a time when its very future was at stake. He was there when Whelan sold the club, and was still there through the various HK takeovers. He was at the centre when the club was put into administration. Was he wearing a blindfold and ear plugs during this period or, possibly, did he witness more events than he admits to? Just suspicion, that's all. Nothing to apologise for, my friend......now back to my wine to erase the memory of tonight's game😕
 
For the umpteenth time Wlatic (mainly to Notts, I concede), what benefit would have come from him telling the fans of his concerns?

"In over his head"? Where on earth have you pulled that from?

Happening again? An owner simply deciding to pull the plug? I'm at a loss, honestly. If you can point out what he should have done - and please, don't just say "tell the fans", or the EFL - then we can have a proper discussion.

I think you've asked people to confirm their feelings and not done this yourself.

Do you feel the sale of the football club was out of the blue?
Do you feel the sale of the football club contract had any warning signs within it?
Do you believe there were any other warning signs (such as board members were being forced out in trying to secure the loan against the club)?

In regards to the benefit of telling the fans/going public about what was going on, based on what happened what would have been the benefit of not whistle blowing? If you consider the whistle blower we had while in administration (about the stadium being sold etc.) as truthful, we can see what affect such an action can have and that was from an anonymous source vs someone inside the club.

From my understanding you feel the way you do, you think one day everything was going great and the next day, BOOM!, administration.

In regards to "In over his head" this is really the only way for me to justify some of the views on here to myself. He's a latics mon, loves the club and just wasnt capable of doing anything to avoid the situation (not just the administration, but the club living month to month).

Mischief makers bulshiters spouting complete rubbish. Sick of them both. Push off
Happy for you to provide what you believe is "rubbish" and it can be clarified.
 
I think you've asked people to confirm their feelings and not done this yourself.

"Confirm their feelings"? I don't think I have asked that of anyone. All I asked was for Notts to justify his assertions re JJ, and for you and Notts to explain or outline what exactly JJ should have done. .......... other than tell the fans.

Do you feel the sale of the football club was out of the blue?
Do you feel the sale of the football club contract had any warning signs within it?
Do you believe there were any other warning signs (such as board members were being forced out in trying to secure the loan against the club)?

- Yes....... insomuch as when Choi transferred his shares to Au Yeung just days previously, no-one could see it coming in a million years.
- Not really sure what you mean, but until the point where Au Yeung outlined his intention to wind us up, and tried to load the board to make sure he got the votes, no.
- As I say above, I think this was (probably) the first warning sign .,........ but I can't for the life of me think what JJ could have done to stop it.

In regards to the benefit of telling the fans/going public about what was going on, based on what happened what would have been the benefit of not whistle blowing? If you consider the whistle blower we had while in administration (about the stadium being sold etc.) as truthful, we can see what affect such an action can have and that was from an anonymous source vs someone inside the club.

So ........ you've not answered the question . To answer yours, the benefit may have been to get a set of angry fans on board ......... but I can't see how that might have helped prevent us entering admin.

From my understanding you feel the way you do, you think one day everything was going great and the next day, BOOM!, administration.

Without putting a timescale to it, yes, Whether it was a day, or 3 days, or even a week, yes, I think it was out of the blue. Don't you? The Admins themselves said that there was no reason for the club to be in admin, other than the owner requesting it.

In regards to "In over his head" this is really the only way for me to justify some of the views on here to myself. He's a latics mon, loves the club and just wasnt capable of doing anything to avoid the situation (not just the administration, but the club living month to month).

Again Wlatic, please feel free to suggest ANYTHING he might have done to avoid the situation - specifically admin. The issue of the club living from month to month is I would imagine something that is quite normal for about 98% of Championship clubs, and 100% of those in Leagues 1 & 2.
 
"Confirm their feelings"? I don't think I have asked that of anyone. All I asked was for Notts to justify his assertions re JJ, and for you and Notts to explain or outline what exactly JJ should have done. .......... other than tell the fans.



- Yes....... insomuch as when Choi transferred his shares to Au Yeung just days previously, no-one could see it coming in a million years.
- Not really sure what you mean, but until the point where Au Yeung outlined his intention to wind us up, and tried to load the board to make sure he got the votes, no.
- As I say above, I think this was (probably) the first warning sign .,........ but I can't for the life of me think what JJ could have done to stop it.



So ........ you've not answered the question . To answer yours, the benefit may have been to get a set of angry fans on board ......... but I can't see how that might have helped prevent us entering admin.



Without putting a timescale to it, yes, Whether it was a day, or 3 days, or even a week, yes, I think it was out of the blue. Don't you? The Admins themselves said that there was no reason for the club to be in admin, other than the owner requesting it.



Again Wlatic, please feel free to suggest ANYTHING he might have done to avoid the situation - specifically admin. The issue of the club living from month to month is I would imagine something that is quite normal for about 98% of Championship clubs, and 100% of those in Leagues 1 & 2.

This is where the disconnect is, you feel things went wrong when the club was sold to Au Yeung. I think it was here: http://www.ientcorp.com/attachment/pdf/1581683928Camqf.pdf

There was a member of the forum sounding warnings about this not longer afterwards.

To TRY and avoid the situation he could have spoken publicly about the change of ownership(s), which were first announced to the hong kong stock exchange and then rumoured in a few different places. Speaking out about the concerns he had and the direction the club was heading. If he didn't have any concerns that's fair enough. We do not know what the impact of him speaking out publicly would have been, we do know what happened when he did not speak out.

I dont know what was / wasnt in his knowledge before or after any of these events, so im only going to comment on what was public knowledge and not spoken about by the management of the football team.

What we do know is after the announcement to the Hong Kong stock exchange there were events in the public, which directly affected the club. Should it have been one change of ownership he'd have much more sympathy, the fact is the club changed hands multiple times in a short period of time. For that reason I'd rather the club go in a different direction, but I know there is a good chance he (Jackson) may end up as the community ownership appointed board member. Hopefully with the openness and transparency we'll avoid a similar situation happening in the future. If we have membership of the community ownership then our voices (You, Notts and I) would have the same validity.

If you are going to come back and say "Well we dont know the impact that <x> could have had, let me know ANYTHING that could have changed" its a logic loop im not willing to go into.

If you wont accept how a strong message (and how outcomes could have been different) from the CE speaking out about publicly available information and how that could cause issues for the club / causing worries / telling us its all fine / just in general making a comment on it, your point of view would never change anyway.
 
Last edited:
This is where the disconnect is, you feel things went wrong when the club was sold to Au Yeung. I think it was here: http://www.ientcorp.com/attachment/pdf/1581683928Camqf.pdf

There was a member of the forum sounding warnings about this not longer afterwards.

To TRY and avoid the situation he could have spoken publicly about the change of ownership(s), which were first announced to the hong kong stock exchange and then rumoured in a few different places. Speaking out about the concerns he had and the direction the club was heading. If he didn't have any concerns that's fair enough. We do not know what the impact of him speaking out publicly would have been, we do know what happened when he did not speak out.
.

I think that's called "moving the goalposts" Wlatic. You're right that there were worrying things highlighted by and included in that sale, but still nothing that suggested what was to be our future fate.

As for JJ going public with such worries at that time, so you're suggesting that an employee of the club go to the HKSE and raise concerns ?! ........... that the conditions of the sale were too penal? .......... really?! And what might we/he have expected to be their response? .................."tough"?!


I dont know what was / wasnt in his knowledge before or after any of these events, so im only going to comment on what was public knowledge and not spoken about by the management of the football team.
.

All that's fair enough .................... hence the response to Notts' comments, which didn't quite take the same line.


What we do know is after the announcement to the Hong Kong stock exchange there were events in the public, which directly affected the club. Should it have been one change of ownership he'd have much more sympathy, the fact is the club changed hands multiple times in a short period of time. For that reason I'd rather the club go in a different direction, but I know there is a good chance he (Jackson) may end up as the community ownership appointed board member. Hopefully with the openness and transparency we'll avoid a similar situation happening in the future. If we have membership of the community ownership then our voices (You, Notts and I) would have the same validity.
.

Not really sure what all that lot concludes ...................... but :
a) let's substitute "multiple" for "twice", and
b) Notts doesn't want JJ as the supporters rep, so how does thsat give us all the same validity?

If you are going to come back and say "Well we dont know the impact that <x> could have had, let me know ANYTHING that could have changed" its a logic loop im not willing to go into.

If you wont accept how a strong message (and how outcomes could have been different) from the CE speaking out about publicly available information and how that could cause issues for the club / causing worries / telling us its all fine / just in general making a comment on it, your point of view would never change anyway.

OK, so other than raise concerns to the HKSE at the time of the (legal) sale from IEC to NLP, you're concluding that there's not really a lot he could have done ....... other than maybe to tell supporters that he smelled a rat, but it wasn't a rat that he, or anyone else, could do anything about.

Wlatic, I'm sure that JJ beats himself up every day for not picking up on the shitshow earlier, for not doing something differently, and for not preventing us ending up in our current situation.

My pushback to Notts was all to do with his suggestions of JJ "having a dubious history, having something to hide, being too risky, not putting up a fight, not being worthy of protecting the club, being incompetent, and being negligent"

Surely you can see that anyone who knows JJ's background and history would be rightly infuriated on his behalf at such statements.
 
Notts and Wlatic, I personally have no problem with you not wanting JJ as the SC representative on the board, that is your prerogative.

What causes me concern is the way your arguments are using unsubstantiated accusations to blacken the character of a man who is Latics to the core.

No one has said that JJ is perfect, indeed we all know there have been possible failings in the past as MiW has alluded to, but none of those failings have been deliberate, intentional or done by design. To suggest a "dubious history" is to suggest he is morally suspect or disreputable, which to my knowledge he is not and as I have said to Notts in my previous post this accusation should be retracted unless he has evidence to substantiate this.

As far as how much knowledge he was privy to about the dealings being done the only person who knows that is himself.

I would however say that he probably could not have disclosed details of the takeover prior to it being announced on the HKSE as that could be considered sensitive information and possibly lead to a charge relating to insider trading being levelled against him. I would also imagine that he would have had no knowledge of Au Yeungs intentions other than the fact that he was trying to have the loan adopted by the clubs board, which he opposed, and I suspect that he was as much in the dark about the administration as the rest of the club.

Au Yeung lied to the board, telling them that the money required to pay the wages etc was being made available, he also lied to the EFL when he took the club over. I suspect JJ, like most people, took Au Yeung at his word and believed he was being truthful.

If you see that as a fault then so be it, however I see it as a man who was doing his job and was conned by an arch conman.

As someone who has spent his life working in business I can tell you that there has to be a great deal of trust involved and unfortunately that trust is broken on a few occasions and you don't see it coming. The biggest lie in business is " the cheque is in the post". One that we all fall for at least once in our business lifetimes.
 
Notts and Wlatic, I personally have no problem with you not wanting JJ as the SC representative on the board, that is your prerogative.

What causes me concern is the way your arguments are using unsubstantiated accusations to blacken the character of a man who is Latics to the core.

No one has said that JJ is perfect, indeed we all know there have been possible failings in the past as MiW has alluded to, but none of those failings have been deliberate, intentional or done by design. To suggest a "dubious history" is to suggest he is morally suspect or disreputable, which to my knowledge he is not and as I have said to Notts in my previous post this accusation should be retracted unless he has evidence to substantiate this.

As far as how much knowledge he was privy to about the dealings being done the only person who knows that is himself.

I would however say that he probably could not have disclosed details of the takeover prior to it being announced on the HKSE as that could be considered sensitive information and possibly lead to a charge relating to insider trading being levelled against him. I would also imagine that he would have had no knowledge of Au Yeungs intentions other than the fact that he was trying to have the loan adopted by the clubs board, which he opposed, and I suspect that he was as much in the dark about the administration as the rest of the club.

Au Yeung lied to the board, telling them that the money required to pay the wages etc was being made available, he also lied to the EFL when he took the club over. I suspect JJ, like most people, took Au Yeung at his word and believed he was being truthful.

If you see that as a fault then so be it, however I see it as a man who was doing his job and was conned by an arch conman.

As someone who has spent his life working in business I can tell you that there has to be a great deal of trust involved and unfortunately that trust is broken on a few occasions and you don't see it coming. The biggest lie in business is " the cheque is in the post". One that we all fall for at least once in our business lifetimes.
Completely understand the corporate life. I work specifically in either getting business' running better or getting prepared for takeovers. There are times when it's the right thing to do by speaking out, and it can cost you jobs and legal issues.

As you've said Jackson had a job, stuck to it and we ended up where we did.

"No one has said JJ is perfect" simply isn't correct.

In regards to the use of dubios, although it's not a word I'd attach I can understand it. You don't want history repeating itself, fool me once kinda stuff.
 
Does anyone genuinely believe Jackson would have not taken action to save the club if he had a viable solution? Does anyone think Jackson knew this was coming weeks before and let it happen? I don't think so.

I bet looking back Jackson can see there was warning signs and maybe things he could have done differently, he probably even had some suspicions along the way. But it's easy with hindsight to say he should've gone public but in reality serious accusations require strong evidence and he wouldn't have ever had that as he was kept in the dark until the day before admin. He couldn't go to the media with suspicion alone - if he jumped to the wrong conclusion he'd lose his job, maybe make a takeover collapse and risk legal action - you wouldn't take that gamble.

While there were certainly questions to be asked of our takeover, no one could've seen what was imminent as it was nonsensical on every level.

If Jackson knew for a fact what we found out in July weeks earlier then I am certain he would've done something different but it's too easy with hindsight from the outside when the consequences wouldn't effect us to say he could or should've known and done something. He was kept in the dark and probably told a pack of lies from the owners - he was duped like the rest of us and certainly not complicit.
 
There is a whole conversation about him being beyond blame and completely faultless around a month or so ago.
If I recollect rightly, no-one said he was "perfect". You introduced that word.

As for being "beyond blame and completely faultless", again you seem to over egg what posters have said. In the specific circumstances of the transition to admin, people responded to the accusations lodged by Notts of JJ somehow being complicit in the affair ........ or at least, ambivalent to preventing it.
 
I guess that's one of the keys to if he'd be suitable to sit on the board for the fans.

What happens when these tough conversations happen again, does he toe the company line or does he communicate to the fans?

It 100% isn't fantasy that he should have aired his concerns in a view that something could have been done. I'd say, as a Latics man through and through, he should have spoke out when he saw things going wrong and was in over his head. If you dont believe he ever got to that stage what does it mean for him being in a position where it may happen again?

You obviously have little or no idea how a board actually functions or the contractual/legal implications of such a senior person "speaking out" could have.
On the other hand, it has already been stated as fact that the UK based directors knew nothing about the admin until a day or couple of days before it actually happened, so exactly when should he have stopped a takeover that had already happened?

Funds being paid into the club at an agreed rate from the owners is fine, in the current circumstances especially, and normal practice. JJ as person in control of club finances was working to a plan agreed by the owner and the rest of the board and was well within FFP rules, so what were the issues to speak out about?

These funds had been coming in at the agreed intervals for months, never late but sometimes last minute (normal business practice) so again what is wrong with that?

Seems that you and Notts are laying some of the blame at the door of a man who has only ever had the best interests of our club at heart and has now worked for 4 months without any payment to help the club through this.
You are entitled to your opinions, but you are totally out of order with this.
 
You obviously have little or no idea how a board actually functions or the contractual/legal implications of such a senior person "speaking out" could have.
On the other hand, it has already been stated as fact that the UK based directors knew nothing about the admin until a day or couple of days before it actually happened, so exactly when should he have stopped a takeover that had already happened?

Funds being paid into the club at an agreed rate from the owners is fine, in the current circumstances especially, and normal practice. JJ as person in control of club finances was working to a plan agreed by the owner and the rest of the board and was well within FFP rules, so what were the issues to speak out about?

These funds had been coming in at the agreed intervals for months, never late but sometimes last minute (normal business practice) so again what is wrong with that?

Seems that you and Notts are laying some of the blame at the door of a man who has only ever had the best interests of our club at heart and has now worked for 4 months without any payment to help the club through this.
You are entitled to your opinions, but you are totally out of order with this.

I respect your loyalty, Kenny, but everyone is entitled to their views, even if they're not in line with yours.