Mr_Tones83
Regular
The easiest way to vote is to choose full allocation and then for/against on each resolutionThanks
I could use the majority of my units to vote against Fat Tail?
The easiest way to vote is to choose full allocation and then for/against on each resolutionThanks
I could use the majority of my units to vote against Fat Tail?
Just had the phone call……great timing as I just sat down to catch up on the last 6 pages of missed TSE. Good to see AVZ on front footMe too. Ring around happening
Its all well and good people are advocating for this Hadley bloke but I don't know him nor the people advocating for him. I'm not in the 'inner circles'.
Why doesn't he pop on here and introduce himself and give his background?
A question mate, had you vote already before they call you?Just over 500k.
Excellent thanks mate, voting this eveningIf not, login to Automic and look for the 'meetings' icon on the left.. It'll have the AGM there and a vote button. Took me a bit to figure as was looking for forms/voting.
Great to see how united AVZ investors are.... absolutely shameful the corruption our BOD has dealt with and the strength they have to fight for the best interests of shareholders.Got all my AVZ investing friends round the table....4.2 million shares voted no for the pricks who try to steal our assets...
I recommend that every AVZ shareholder informs even the smallest holders to vote....every vote counts!
FUCK Zijin and all the corrupt puppets...Vote!
The call just reiterated the position of the BOD and recommended how to vote for the AGM. It was a company calling on behalf of AVZ. No new information and they weren't able to clarify any questions outside of the script.Any info gleaned from the call>?
Thanks
I could use the majority of my units to vote against Fat Tail?
Can I counter that with this perspective:Just got the call from the company AVZ commissioned to rally support from the SHs - good to see they're on the front foot.
Personally, I already voted exactly how Nigel advised. Also, after talking with another trusted shareholder and running through a couple of scenarios... IF (and its a big if) any of the other non-endorsed directors got in, that would give the 3 half wits from mmga a massive opportunity to pursue the "dysfunctional board" angle (given Nigel has recommended voting against all non-endorsed nominees)... not to mention the ammo we'd be giving that cum sock from the AFR...
Just a thought.
Cheers,
Powerage.
I also got the call from a representative of the Company.Just got the call from the company AVZ commissioned to rally support from the SHs - good to see they're on the front foot.
Personally, I already voted exactly how Nigel advised. Also, after talking with another trusted shareholder and running through a couple of scenarios... IF (and its a big if) any of the other non-endorsed directors got in, that would give the 3 half wits from mmga a massive opportunity to pursue the "dysfunctional board" angle (given Nigel has recommended voting against all non-endorsed nominees)... not to mention the ammo we'd be giving that cum sock from the AFR...
Just a thought.
Cheers,
Powerage.
I support voting YES for Resolutions 3, 5, 6, 7, 8.I got a missed call with a voice mail from the company recommending 1, 18-22.
If the company thinks the best outcome is as above why some posters are adding 3,5,6,7,8?
What is the guarantee that they don't turn against the current BOD and support MMGA?
I support voting YES for Resolutions 3, 5, 6, 7, 8.
These shareholders have significant holdings, meaning they have alignment with shareholder interests for the BoD to do what will provide the best outcome for all shareholders. .
If thats the case they could put forward their approx total holding level and sell themselves more fully so that shareholders are more fully informed.Don't assume that the nominees don't have more shares in other accounts, such as super funds or in the name of other family members. I know at least two of those Deboss has chosen to dismiss have a lot more shares in total across various accounts other than the single holding listed in the AGM papers
I'm going to a place where I can do some lateral thinking, i'll vote in one block, goes quicker.I support voting YES for Resolutions 3, 5, 6, 7, 8.
These shareholders have significant holdings, meaning they have alignment with shareholder interests for the BoD to do what will provide the best outcome for all shareholders. .
I believe they are well known to other significant shareholders who attest to their and character and best interest of AVZ and support the current BoD (i do not know any of these personally).
By voting in two of these shareholder nominated individuals that are higher on the list of resolutions above 9, 10 and 17...all vacant positions will be filled before voting is considered on the MMGA puppet clowns.
You could vote YES for 11, 13 and 15 too if you want, but no offence to these nominations but the game is over before it gets to them in all reality.
MMGA puppet clowns are definitely not aligned with shareholders interests and only seek to engage a strategy that suits their puppet masters at the costly expense of genuine AVZ shareholders and the value of your shareholding.
These puppets collectively under Fat Arse Holdings have only 5mil shares....so do not represent the outcomes that genuine shareholders are seeking the BoD to achieve. They couldnt even get 5% support to call an EGM FFS.
The Board cannot endorse any one shareholder nomination over another, so as to remain impartial.
By voting YES for those nominated above the MMGA Puppet Clowns...you are voting to fill the vacant seats before it gets to these clowns and STOP MMGA from doing what Huljich and Eckoff did to Amani....and if you arent aware of what the play book there is...do some reading on how they will fleece AVZ.
MMGA are Puppet Clowns directed and funded by adversaries that have caused AVZ to be in suspension until now.
Yes, a big shareholding helps to align them with the interests of the company to a certain degree, but that doesn't mean they will necessarily help the company achieve a mining license, progress finance and build a mine in the DRC.Don't assume that the nominees don't have more shares in other accounts, such as super funds or in the name of other family members. I know at least two of those Deboss has chosen to dismiss have a lot more shares in total across various accounts other than the single holding listed in the AGM papers
That is the risk...best to counteract it while you have the ability to do so!Yes, a big shareholding helps to align them with the interests of the company to a certain degree, but that doesn't mean they will necessarily help the company achieve a mining license, progress finance and build a mine in the DRC.
The reason they have not been endorsed by the company is that they won't necessarily help the board make critical decisions (in fact they could potentially get in the way).
Yes, they may be better than MMGA, but that doesn't mean they are required on the board. (And yes, I understand the risk of having the 2 positions open when it comes to MMGA, just my 2 cents)
They'll have to negotiate with meI wonder what netflix or Stan will pay for the story?