AVZ Discussion 2022

[Xerof]

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.

Can I counter that with this perspective:

people have been motivated to stand for election, shareholders can freely vote as they wish, and if that happens to be not what is endorsed, it still stands, and nothing anyone might say in criticism of that result is petty, sour grapes, and probably spoken in mandarin

 

[Thaz]

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.

I am almost certain that this is just a script that they are reading - so I'd suggest to people not to be too hard on them.

I think they are also going through the register to see how people are going to vote, to try and get an unofficial 'consensus' on what people will be doing.

 

[Chilla]

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. .

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.

 

[Retrobyte]

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. .

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

 

[Chilla]

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

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.

 

[cruiser51]

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.

I'm going to a place where I can do some lateral thinking, i'll vote in one block, goes quicker.

And after vote with humm of the exhaust fan in the background....

Will have my mobile attached to me with ear plugs in, just in case of any late calls.

No Hadley, no no no, NO Votes for tantalex!

 

[Mr_Tones83]

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

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)

 

[Chilla]

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)

That is the risk...best to counteract it while you have the ability to do so!

 

[Winenut]

I wonder what netflix or Stan will pay for the story?

They'll have to negotiate with me

 

[Winenut]

Just got an automated call speaking to me in Chinese

That's pretty out there considering the timing!

 

[Thaz]

Just got an automated call speaking to me in Chinese

That's pretty out there considering the timing!

 

[Bull Market]

A question mate, had you vote already before they call you?

I had just finished voting. All the chat in here reminded me to do it.

 

[TheV]

For those have already submitted your votes, you still can amend them and resubmit

 

[Hodlandwin69]

For those have already submitted your votes, you still can amend them and resubmit

Thank you for emerging Jin, I will amend then to vote for MMGA!

 

[Nellie17]

For those have already submitted your votes, you still can amend them and resubmit

I think I need another Mimosa!
Fuck me!!

 

[Chilla]

For those have already submitted your votes, you still can amend them and resubmit

FFS how would you direct me to vote? Which should i change to yes and which to no

 

[9cardomaha]

Fuck it feels like a bingo thread - 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

 

[Remark]

For those have already submitted your votes, you still can amend them and resubmit

I think this poster may be Jasmin Tea from the Crapper?

Maybe I'm just getting paranoid from reading too many posts from @MoneyBags1348

 

[Roon]

Im somewhat torn as I've lost faith in our management, and I've been wanting us to reach a negotiated outcome for some time, which is purportedly what the other faction is suggesting and what the last announcement suggests we've ruled out. However, I don't trust MMGA as far as I can throw them, and believe they intend ultimately to support both their own financial interests and those of our opponents. As such I'll be voting down MMGA and in support of the AVZ recommended candidates - though with some misgivings. I don't think introducing new conflict into our management at this time is likely to be favorable.

However I will also vote for Bruce. I think we need some more oversight of the board, and though I don't know him, I trust in the word of several here who do.

Bonne chance.

 

[TheV]

Geeze, I am just stating that you can amend your votes in light of whatever new information comes. You guys are getting too sensitive.