AVZ Discussion 2022

[Strongman]

That voting against the other nominations ( apart from the 3 MMGS toddlers ) has to be another of our admin fuck ups.

There's still 2 positions up for grabs from that pool of ( red ) ‘vote against ‘ so why on earth would you be voting against the other contenders ; detractors would just load in the no votes to add to ‘recommended no votes ’ shareholders followed, but then load in the yes vote for the 3 morons and they’d get in...who put this thing together

As Retrobyte pointed out to me the other day per the constitution there could be 9 directors. AVZ is pushing for 7 ie the 2 existing and the 5 up for re-election ie Graeme, John, Casta, Serge and Salome.
On the voting form there are 22 votes. One for renumeration, sixteen other and five reelection . Definately want to vote yes for the five. Definately want to vote no to the 3 MMGA clowns then the other 13 nominations and the renumeration is up to us to decide. Board want us to vote no for the "other 13 " and yes for renumeration but its our choice. Seems there are a few here who know some of the "other 13 and may vote yes for them

 

[Nbaz]

You should get an email from AVZ with a "click here" link, try hitting that one and it takes you to the automic login page and once you've logged in it takes you straight to the voting

Very good. Thank you sir. Very easy to do.

 

[LOCKY82]

You should get an email from AVZ with a "click here" link, try hitting that one and it takes you to the automic login page and once you've logged in it takes you straight to the voting

Thanks mate

 

[eqtrade]

Make sure tick the box under AGAINST for all Fat Tail nominees.
Leaving the box unticked doesn't mean you don't vote them in.
Closer to AGM maybe we should check your voting is still the same there.
LOL, may be I am too careful.

 

[antimatter]

And how on earth could they be confident of that...thats like saying don't worry ; we’ll win the local RSL lotto next week

They may have don't their home work with large shareholders and get an indication of the NO % (say 40%) of total votes against the 3 traitors, and confident that at least the remaining 10.01% can be obtained from retailers through their voting recommendation.

 

[Carlos Danger]

That seat won't be available until next year's AGM in that case - unless an appointment is made during the year.

We can actually end up between 2-9 at this year's AGM

AVZ constitution says minimum 3 but I guess the 2 remaining will just appoint another 1 if everyone loses

So I was right about there being a possible 9. If 9 spots are available then are the current 2 existing seats (Graeme and John) also not fillable by the rabble or MMGA? And no matter what the other list candidates all have a shot at those extra 2 seats even if all the others win?

 

[Spikerama]

Done. Like a dinner.

*speaking of which.....

 

[tonster66]

Did the voting form arrive via mail or email? I've logged onto the Automic website and there's no information under AVZ.

its there under the meetings tab

 

[Winenut]

Again I say the board must be confident in their numbers to not propose a "YES" vote to the "non" MMGA nominees

If it goes wrong and The Board have made a "numbers" mistake they'll end up with minimum 2 goons from MMGA (either Pirate Pete, Carrotdick or Dudbrook) on the AVZ board (depending on how the detractors are instructing their unholy cohort to vote)

Get your vote right good AVZ shareholders

I encourage everyone to vote as the board has advised for the best chance of denying the corrupt and foreign backed crooks at MMGA getting a seat at the table on the assumption the board are confident of the numbers falling their way

It's never been more important than right now IMO

Get it right

VOTE GREEN

 

[tonster66]

Basically what they're saying is that they have one HIN with all client holdings held in aggregate on that HIN.
You could contact them directly to ask whether they will allow voting on behalf of your holdings and to direct them in a certain way, but a lot of these service providers won't entertain it because it's too cumbersome for them to manage operationally, and they could just say sorry we don't allow voting on AGM resolutions (or they may charge a fee to do it).

Edit: But it's definitely worth asking them to make sure

Tell them you will change the superfund

 

[tonster66]

under the meetings tab on the left hand side

 

[Winenut]

Let’s put it this way -

(1) Everyone including Chinese votes against the reds as recommended by the board,

(2) detractors / Chinese do as per (1) with the exception of MMGA group; detractors pile in the yes votes for those guys . They also vote down those up for reelection of course

(3) you need over 50% of your votes to be nominated … all the red ones are dead in the water as everyone has voted against them … except of course for the 3 MMGA numbnuts .. Chinese have banged in the yes votes for those guys and most likely enough to get them over the line I.e. the yes votes for MMGA are greater than their no votes and we have 2 grubs climbing on board to occupie the two spots that are available go take the maximum number to 9

(4) if the ones for reelection don’t get through due to mass voting of No by detractors … well then that leaves the door open for the third at least

Pretty plain if you ask me

Spot on

If the Detrators can vote the MMGA Goons onto the board they can vote the candidates up for "re-election" off the board

Nige and the boys better have their numbers right

 

[GD4]

So this is the question....

Do we vote for the first bunch of Noms to protect our board?
So MMGA don't even get a chance?

AVZ have not endorsed voting for them, that is likely because they simply can't responsibly endorse people for BoD that don't bring anything to the table.
It looks like the random Noms are nominated to try to block MMGA.
They will likely resign if voted in.

So should we? I dunno.

This is absolutely my thinking and the way I will be voting.

I agree AVZ can't endorse people but would they be happy if a person gets in with a large number of shares and shareholders interest at heart rather than one of the 3 Fat Tail, I would think that they would potentially be happy with that outcome.

 

[Carlos Danger]

(4) if the ones for reelection don’t get through due to mass voting of No by detractors … well then that leaves the door open for the third at least

Yeah that was how I saw it but @GD4 says no. Doesn't really matter imma vote green but wanted to know what the possible outcomes are. Even with a 2-2 stalemate it would fuck the current BoD's ability to control the company and just having 1 there would still be shit so either way we need to avoid it.

 

[tonster66]

Voted as requested by the board.

 

[Xerof]

Voted as requested by the board.

Same. A couple of billion retail votes and we piss in

 

[Retrobyte]

(4) if the ones for reelection don’t get through due to mass voting of No by detractors … well then that leaves the door open for the third at least

Nope, that slot doesn't become available in that scenario. There are only 2 slots available for nominees who are not current directors standing for re-election.

 

[Retrobyte]

Same. A couple of billion retail votes and we piss in

Last year a total of 1.4bn votes were cast out of 3.5bn shares. We need to do better than that this time to ensure the stooges don't get enough votes.

 

[Strongman]

Let’s put it this way -

(1) Everyone including Chinese votes against the reds as recommended by the board,

(2) detractors / Chinese do as per (1) with the exception of MMGA group; detractors pile in the yes votes for those guys . They also vote down those up for reelection of course

(3) you need over 50% of your votes to be nominated … all the red ones are dead in the water as everyone has voted against them … except of course for the 3 MMGA numbnuts .. Chinese have banged in the yes votes for those guys and most likely enough to get them over the line I.e. the yes votes for MMGA are greater than their no votes and we have 2 grubs climbing on board to occupie the two spots that are available go take the maximum number to 9

(4) if the ones for reelection don’t get through due to mass voting of No by detractors … well then that leaves the door open for the third at least

Pretty plain if you ask me

Theres basically 3 groups here. Firstly the other13 will be voted no by MMGA and chinese mates and given our BOD is reccomending a no vote then highlyunlikely anyone from this group comes close
Secondly ther are our 5 up for re-election. MMGA and Chinese mates will definitely vote no and we will vote yes. Its simply a matter of who has the most votes
Thirdly the 3 MMGA goons will receive yes vote from themselves and their Chinese mates and we will vote no. Once again just a matter of numbers.
If MMGA has the numbers then we are faarked. They end up with 3 on the board versus our 2 so it is game over.
Absolutely critical to vote no to these pricks . At the moment everything that Cominiere Zijin Judiciary etc has done is illegal and the only way for them to wipe the slate clean is to roll our board and get control of AVZ. Suddenly our last resort ICC and ICISD is out the door and we kiss goodbye to any recourse. If we maintain majority control of AVZ then even if all the corrupt kunts over there do actually get control of 13359 and the power station we still have a fighting chance. Fuck em...if we gunna go down lets go down swingin

 

[GD4]

I read the constitution section on director nominations but am still unsure

I think my confusion stemmed from the 3 new director nominees. It seems each of those 3 seats will only remain if the individual new nominee is elected. So we could be left with somewhere between 4 and 7 on the bod. And only 2 of the original 4 is up for grabs between the 2 seeking reelection and the absolute clown car of other candidates with the current holders getting first dibs followed by the other list in order. Is that right @GD4 ?

If so then why the fuck would MMGA bother nominating 3 candidates when only 2 can get on the bod?

I believe that there were 3 vacant positions available at the time that Fat Tail nominated there directors. Since then AVZ nominated Her Excellency Salome Thaddaus Sijaona which is AVZ's right to do so as she appears to be an outstanding candidate.

For this reason the most they can vote in is 2 and only 2 is my understanding. As posted earlier I think the BOD "have to be seen" as not supporting anyone that they have not nominated but I don't think the board would be disappointed if a director holding shares with the shareholders best interests at heart was elected and a Fat Tail nominee misses out.

For that reason I will be voting for all nominees that have been nominated by shareholders except for Fat Tail and urge everyone to consider this so fat tail don't get in. After all this is the result most of us want.

Just my thoughts DYOR.