AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
Is there anyone available to clearly explain how this voting game works, if you don’t know or not sure don’t comment,only want 100% correct knowledgeable informed answers.
I’m hoping all the correct answers are the same.
DiscoDanNZ
Regular
Hi Team,
I have completed a number of courses with the Australian Institute of Company Directors - maybe it might be a good idea for some to look at the courses that are on offer to improve your knowledge.
www.aicd.com.au
SilentOne
I have completed a number of courses with the Australian Institute of Company Directors - maybe it might be a good idea for some to look at the courses that are on offer to improve your knowledge.
Contact us - AICD
If you would like to speak to someone about who we are and what we do, please contact us.
SilentOne
obe wan
Regular
Need over 50% to get passed ; company endorsed issues / candidates takes precedence over non company endorsed issues / candidates .
List of non company endorsed candidates will get voted on in the sequence they are shown on the proxy .
When it was 2 positions available , If the first 2 for example got over 50% of votes in their favour , then the balance would be ditched .
Since now there’s 5 positions up for grabs and 3 of these are company endorsed . They will keep drawing ; say if 5 come out for the non endorsed pack ; that doesn’t mean they all get through to occupy a position ; the top 2 technically would pass through and then the 3 with the lesser votes would be compared to the votes of the company endorsed candidates.
The above is how i comfortably understand how it works
Earlyspeed
Member
A French translated version of yesterday's Zijin Announcement is kindly made available on the AVZ website 
. This announcement was clearly drafted to be read by the decision makers in Kinshasa.
. This announcement was clearly drafted to be read by the decision makers in Kinshasa. 
Azzler
Top 20
The supplement seemed to suggest differently.
So if the 3 non endorsed lesser votes happened to end up with more votes than some endorsed candidates that could cause an issue moving forward or have I misunderstood your explanation ?
obe wan
Regular
Really? maybe bring it to the table
Is there any source that you can point me to that says that?
I've skimmed through the Constitution and the Corps Act.
14.3 of the Constitution says the following, and i can't find anything in the Corps act about board endorsed nominated Directors.
It doesn't make any reference to board endorsed candidates taking precedence over non-board endorsed.
obe wan
Regular
Everyone should vote as they see it ; but Hadley’s and the 3 company endorsed is my line in the sand at least ; do I see any of the non-endorsed candidates collecting more votes than the 3 endorsed ones..no.
There's 2 positions that I think MMGA will be competing for and those are in the non endorsed category...hence why i’ll be voting at least for the Hadleys. If they get more votes than MMGA then MMGA are gone ; if they are voted down…well, then MMGA have a decent chance
Azzler
Top 20
Disclaimer: I'm really not sure about how it works.
But it very much appears to me in the supplement announcement that they're telling us to reconsidder our votes because we are endangering the 3 appointed, and endorsed board members getting back in.
That doesn't tell me that the endorsed will get a special treatment above the other non endorsed noms. It tells me if 5 non endorsed noms get in, then that's the end of it, and we've blocked the 3 recent appointments.
The announcment does appear to be just saying that, but I'll go read it again.
But it very much appears to me in the supplement announcement that they're telling us to reconsidder our votes because we are endangering the 3 appointed, and endorsed board members getting back in.
That doesn't tell me that the endorsed will get a special treatment above the other non endorsed noms. It tells me if 5 non endorsed noms get in, then that's the end of it, and we've blocked the 3 recent appointments.
The announcment does appear to be just saying that, but I'll go read it again.
Azzler
Top 20
From the announcement:
"after all Resolutions 2 – 22 have been voted, elected candidates will be appointed to fill the five Board
vacancies in the same order the Resolutions appear in the AGM Booklet (ie starting with Resolution 2
and ending with Resolution 22) until a sufficient number of elected candidates have been appointed
to fill the five Board vacancies, whereafter any remaining elected candidates shall be deemed defeated
in accordance with clause 14.3 of the Constitution."
"In light of there being five Board vacancies, the Board encourages Shareholders to carefully consider the
manner in which they cast their votes for the Board candidates. If you have already cast your vote based on
there being only two Board vacancies, you may wish to amend your vote, which you may do so in accordance
with the voting instructions below."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they're saying that it goes down the list from 2 to 22 one by one until all five vacancies are filled.
It does NOT mention anything about endorsed candidates getting priority.
Noting the endorsed candidates are last on the list, it means we could vote in 5 randoms, blocking the endorsed candidates.
I don't think I'm wrong but I'm open to be corrected.
Voting in just a couple of random noms won't help anything.
Again it's all down to if we have the supporting votes for whether the 3 MMGA puppets get in or not.
IF they have the votes, then they also have the votes to win a NO vote against everyone else and there's nothing we can do.
However, if WE have the votes, then we will successfully vote NO to the three MMGA clowns, and there will be no need to vote in anyone else.
In fact you could block the endorsed noms from getting in, for absolutely no benefit at all.
I see zero reason to vote for any of the random Noms, again correct me if I'm wrong, but I see only bad outcomes from doing so.
"after all Resolutions 2 – 22 have been voted, elected candidates will be appointed to fill the five Board
vacancies in the same order the Resolutions appear in the AGM Booklet (ie starting with Resolution 2
and ending with Resolution 22) until a sufficient number of elected candidates have been appointed
to fill the five Board vacancies, whereafter any remaining elected candidates shall be deemed defeated
in accordance with clause 14.3 of the Constitution."
"In light of there being five Board vacancies, the Board encourages Shareholders to carefully consider the
manner in which they cast their votes for the Board candidates. If you have already cast your vote based on
there being only two Board vacancies, you may wish to amend your vote, which you may do so in accordance
with the voting instructions below."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they're saying that it goes down the list from 2 to 22 one by one until all five vacancies are filled.
It does NOT mention anything about endorsed candidates getting priority.
Noting the endorsed candidates are last on the list, it means we could vote in 5 randoms, blocking the endorsed candidates.
I don't think I'm wrong but I'm open to be corrected.
Voting in just a couple of random noms won't help anything.
Again it's all down to if we have the supporting votes for whether the 3 MMGA puppets get in or not.
IF they have the votes, then they also have the votes to win a NO vote against everyone else and there's nothing we can do.
However, if WE have the votes, then we will successfully vote NO to the three MMGA clowns, and there will be no need to vote in anyone else.
In fact you could block the endorsed noms from getting in, for absolutely no benefit at all.
I see zero reason to vote for any of the random Noms, again correct me if I'm wrong, but I see only bad outcomes from doing so.
Carlos Danger
Top 20
What an absolute clusterfuck this voting information has been
I have no idea if this is 100% right but from the supplementary booklet it would seem we will have a board of somewhere between 2 and 7 at the end of this
2 existing directors
Plus somewhere between 0 and 5 directors from all the candidates nominated to fill the potential 5 vacancies
AVZ have nominated 5 for reelection but they get last dibs. So anyone that wins above these 5 nominees from either the rabble or MMGA will take a potential seat away from the current BoD recommendations.
That's how I see it. Someone who actually knows how this works please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems this can still lead to a 3 - 2 MMGA new BoD if true.
I'm honestly speechless about them needing to amend this part. Wtf.
obe wan
Regular
Here, a quick google, refers to some rules in play ; I'm sures there's better results if one has 10 minutes
antimatter
Regular
@Azzler and @Carlos Danger are absolute 100% correct. If any of the 2-17 candidates got elected, it will be at the expense of the 18-22 candidsates supported by the board. The supplement is crystal clear from my perspective.
So these fill in wannabe Directors from the pool of share holders were nominating themselves/each other on the premise that they were helping the company? Whereas in fact what they have inadvertently achieved is create a cluster fuck of a confusing conundrum? Shouldn't they all withdraw their nominations if their intent is to help the company? Is that possible?
Last edited:
Similar threads
