AVZ Discussion 2022

[Azzler]

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.

 

[wombat74]

For 18-22 . Against 2-17 . Whatever for 1 . That's the straight answer without the BS.

 

[Carlos Danger]

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.

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.

 

[solo]

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.

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.

@Azzler is right. It's all about who has >50% of total votes. No need to reinvent the bicycle. WE not only vote for OUR resolutions but we also vote AGAINST MMGA. "3 - 2 MMGA new BoD" is possible ONLY if have <50% of votes and we can't do anything about that.

 

[antimatter]

@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.

 

[Doc]

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?

 

[Azzler]

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?

Yes I'm thinking after this clarification they should all withdraw their applications.

 

[Azzler]

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?

I believe the movement for all these nominiations was based on a premise that turned out to be false.
It was a good idea in theory, and it shows what length passionate shareholders will go to protect their investment.
Just an unfortunate misunderstanding.
Lets get the message out and move on.

 

[Doc]

maybe you should ask one of the nominees how the 2 to 17 block was selected in that particular order; there’s a few of them around and also why are endorsed candidates all sitting at the back …you do know that the guys ( all company endorsed ) sitting at the back were on the scene before 2 to 17 ; the company just didn't position them there so as to give 2-17 the best shot of knocking company endorsed candidates 18 to 22 out


anyway, as you will and as you see it I suppose .

Ps - Just remember to vote no for the MMGA guys at least...im pretty sure the endorsed candidate will get through if after the mom endorsed block 2 to 17 is rinced out and those votes are compared to the candidates out of the 18-22 endorsed ; they will move through IF their vote counts are at a better comparative percentage than those in contention within the 2 to 17 block .

“maybe you should ask one of the nominees how the 2 to 17 block was selected in that particular order; there’s a few of them around”

Really? Not a single one has made themselves known.
Are you one of them?

 

[Hemicuda]

https://x.com/ausembzim/status/1719266859386609746?s=46&t=nuo0bnlOQ-1-wsrhtTUdDw

 

[BRICK]

https://x.com/ausembzim/status/1719266859386609746?s=46&t=nuo0bnlOQ-1-wsrhtTUdDw

Oh no she fucking didn’t.

Hold my beer

 

[Azzler]

maybe you should ask one of the nominees how the 2 to 17 block was selected in that particular order; there’s a few of them around and also why are endorsed candidates all sitting at the back …you do know that the guys ( all company endorsed ) sitting at the back were on the scene before 2 to 17 ; the company just didn't position them there so as to give 2-17 the best shot of knocking company endorsed candidates 18 to 22 out


anyway, as you will and as you see it I suppose .

Ps - Just remember to vote no for the MMGA guys at least...im pretty sure the endorsed candidate will get through if after the non endorsed block 2 to 17 is rinsed out and those votes of each candidate are compared to the candidates out of the 18-22 endorsed block ; they will move through IF their vote counts are at a better comparative percentage than those in contention within the 2 to 17 block .

Obe, the Announcement just released literally states this is not correct.

Quoted:
"
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,

"

 

[antimatter]

maybe you should ask one of the nominees how the 2 to 17 block was selected in that particular order;

Didn't you read the 18/oct announcement which stated "The election of the Directors’ nominations must be in accordance with the requirements under clause 14.3 of the Constitution. As the number of director nominations exceeds the available casual vacancies on the Board, the order of the resolutions for election has been determined by a ballot process in accordance with clause 14.3 of the Constitution, which was supervised by the Directors and an independent scrutineer. The order by which the various Shareholder-nominated directors will be considered for election at the AGM is as follows.... 1...16"

 

[Samus]

https://x.com/ausembzim/status/1719266859386609746?s=46&t=nuo0bnlOQ-1-wsrhtTUdDw

 

[Cumquat Cap]

Good sign she’s meeting with the MoM as well, hopefully Minoli can explain the good work Australian mining companies can do

 

[BRICK]

Good sign she’s meeting with the MoM as well, hopefully Minoli can explain the good work Australian mining companies can do

She reckons she discussed agriculture. I’ve just asked her straight out if she discussed AVZ.

 

[Carlos Danger]

maybe you should ask one of the nominees how the 2 to 17 block was selected in that particular order; there’s a few of them around and also why are endorsed candidates all sitting at the back …you do know that the guys ( all company endorsed ) sitting at the back were on the scene before 2 to 17 ; the company just didn't position them there so as to give 2-17 the best shot of knocking company endorsed candidates 18 to 22 out


anyway, as you will and as you see it I suppose .

Ps - Just remember to vote no for the MMGA guys at least...im pretty sure the endorsed candidate will get through if after the mom endorsed block 2 to 17 is rinced out and those votes are compared to the candidates out of the 18-22 endorsed ; they will move through IF their vote counts are at a better comparative percentage than those in contention within the 2 to 17 block .

Is that without applying the no vacancy rule?

I think what you are saying is that because we are not being asked to vote on the no vacancy rule the additional two spots on the board up to the max of nine in the AVZ constitution are available as long as one of the rabble or MMGA get a higher % vote than at least one of the endorsed nominees. But MMGA get polled first anyway so they will have either won or lost already before it gets to that point. The rules in the supplementary booklet say candidates will be appointed starting with resolution 2 and ending in resolution 22 until the five vacancies are filled and then the rest are deemed defeated. It says nothing about priority for the five endorsed nominees but how you are describing is how I originally saw it.

If it is decided 2 to 22 with no preference then the only way the no vacancy rule would come into play to help MMGA is if they win their votes and five of the rabble nominees above them also win but with a lower percentage which would still allow them to get the two seats at the end yeah?

 

[Carlos Danger]

Quarterly is out

 

[Mr Clean]

Quarterly is out
View attachment 48449

Getting a bit nervous with how much capital is left. The BOD are cutting it fine. Will certainly have to raise money next year if there is no resolution

 

[Samus]

It's easy just don't vote for the MMAGOTS.