AVZ Discussion 2022

[GD4]

In other word, if any of Resolution 2 - 17 is successful, it will be to the detriment/losing of the 5 nominees (res 18-22) that the BoD wants. Now, I understand why the BoD needs us to vote NO for Res 2-17. Will go back to change the voting.

Hi Antimatter,

I don't think that's correct. There are 5 "vacant" directorships not 7. John (19) and Greame (18) are up for re-elction so there positions are voted on seperately and not apart of the vacant 5.

Deboss's strategy makes sense vote the Hadley's in before getting to the Fat Tail nomiees and then we have a 4-3 BOD if the Fat Tail nominees get in even prior to the vote on John and Greame.

GLTAH

DYOR

 

[Winenut]

Hi Antimatter,

I don't think that's correct. There are 5 "vacant" directorships not 7. John (19) and Greame (18) are up for re-elction so there positions are voted on seperately and not apart of the vacant 5.

Deboss's strategy makes sense vote the Hadley's in before getting to the Fat Tail nomiees then we have a 4-3 BOD if the Fat Tail nominees get in even prior to the vote on John and Greame.

GLTAH

DYOR

No it doesn't

Read the latest announcement from the company

It has to be AGAINST 2-17 and FOR 18-22....nothing else

I'm leaving resolution 1 out of it and concentrating on the election of directors which is THE CRITICAL ISSUE

 

[Winenut]

Hi Antimatter,

I don't think that's correct. There are 5 "vacant" directorships not 7. John (19) and Greame (18) are up for re-elction so there positions are voted on seperately and not apart of the vacant 5.

Deboss's strategy makes sense vote the Hadley's in before getting to the Fat Tail nomiees and then we have a 4-3 BOD if the Fat Tail nominees get in even prior to the vote on John and Greame.

GLTAH

DYOR

If you vote as per @Deboss you have the potential to vote in the Hadleys and almost any of the SH nominees before and after Ludbrook and Huljich before it even gets to Serge and the other recently appointed directors

Fuck Me

Have a look at his voting

 

[M.Bison]

If you vote as per @Deboss you have the potential to vote in the Hadleys and nearly all of the SH nominees before and after Ludbrook and Huljich before it even gets to Serge and the other recently appointed directors

Fuck Me

Have a look at his voting

View attachment 48427

If we get a couple of Hadleys over Serge & Costa because of this then fuck me we are dumb.

 

[Winenut]

If we get a couple of Hadleys over Serge & Costa because of this then fuck me we are dumb.

It would be a DISASTER

Everyone should vote as prescribed by the board

 

[GD4]

If you vote as per @Deboss you have the potential to vote in the Hadleys and amost any of the SH nominees before and after Ludbrook and Huljich before it even gets to Serge and the other recently appointed directors

Fuck Me

Have a look at his voting

View attachment 48427

With respect I think you missing the point, If by any chance the 3 Fat Tail nominees get enough votes to vote themselves in, they may also have enough votes to vote down Dr Casta, Serge and Salome. Voting as per Deboss's recommendation would safe guard against this.

 

[solo]

With respect I think you missing the point, If by any chance the 3 Fat Tail nominees get enough votes to vote themselves in, they may also have enough votes to vote down Dr Casta, Serge and Salome. Voting as per Deboss's recommendation would safe guard against this.

How Deboss recommendations can safe guard this???? If Fat Tail have enough votes then they will easily outnumber "For" votes for Hadleys and others. I've been saying this since day 1. Stop this bullshit and vote as per BOD recommendations.

 

[Azzler]

This is an AVZ Community Announcement

There was a misunderstanding in the way the voting works at the AGM, and as a result shareholders have been promoting the wrong advice on how to vote.
As is outlined in the latest AGM Supplemental Announcement, we need to change our votes if nessecary, for the best outcome for AVZ and it's shareholders.

We must VOTE AGAINST resolutions 2-17
And VOTE FOR resolutions 18-22

If you've already voted, please take the time to change your vote at www.automicgroup.com.au


* The misunderstanding was that there are 5 board positions vacant, and that the recent board appointed members would also be blocked.
The whole exercise would have not worked if we never had enough votes in the first place anyway.
So please vote as the board recommends.

 

[Azzler]

With respect I think you missing the point, If by any chance the 3 Fat Tail nominees get enough votes to vote themselves in, they may also have enough votes to vote down Dr Casta, Serge and Salome. Voting as per Deboss's recommendation would safe guard against this.

The blocking strategy would not have worked anyway if we didn't have the numbers to vote them in, VS those voting no to them.

And if we DO have the numbers, then MMGA wouldn't be getting in anyway, so as I see it this strategy wouldn't have made any difference.

 

[Winenut]

With respect I think you missing the point, If by any chance the 3 Fat Tail nominees get enough votes to vote themselves in, they may also have enough votes to vote down Dr Casta, Serge and Salome. Voting as per Deboss's recommendation would safe guard against this.

With respect I get the strategy on the Hadley votes but Deboss goes further and prescribes voting for every SH nominee below Ludbrook and Huljich

"IF" any of them garner enough votes you could end up with the Hadleys + 3 other non endorsed SH Nominees on the board all to the exclusion of Dr Casta , Serge and Salome (assuming the MMGA maggots don't have sufficient power to get themselves up or vote anyone down)

Just keep it simple and VOTE AS THE BOARD DIRECTS

 

[Winenut]

How Deboss recommendations can safe guard this???? If Fat Tail have enough votes then they will easily outnumber "For" votes for Hadleys and others. I've been saying this since day 1. Stop this bullshit and vote as per BOD recommendations.

100% Solo

100%

 

[cruiser51]

It would be a DISASTER

Everyone should vote as prescribed by the board

Just been in contact with Atomic.
They have now uploaded the 31/10/2023 AVZ MINERALS LIMITED 2023 AGM Proxy Form on their website, which was missing.
It is THE personal form with your HIN number, name and postal address on it, which you need to take with you, if you wish to attend the AGM, one for each holding if you wish to vote during the AGM.

I am not going to tell people how to vote, other than the BoD advised a certain vote for a reason.
If you think you know better than the BoD, good luck.
If not sure contact AVZ or Atomic, don't get your wisdom from social media.

 

[Scoota30]

Just been in contact with Atomic.
They have now uploaded the 31/10/2023 AVZ MINERALS LIMITED 2023 AGM Proxy Form on their website, which was missing.
It is THE personal form with your HIN number, name and postal address on it, which you need to take with you, if you wish to attend the AGM, one for each holding if you wish to vote during the AGM.

I am not going to tell people how to vote, other than the BoD advised a certain vote for a reason.
If you think you know better than the BoD, good luck.
If not sure contact AVZ or Atomic, don't get your wisdom from social media.

I got the below email back from them automic morning

"I can confirm you have completed online voting, if you wish to change their vote via single holding access or via registered portfolio.

If you wish to attend upcoming AGM, once you arrive at the meeting location, please go to the registration desk and provide your Full HIN, registered Name and address, you no longer required to bring a hard copy of your proxy form to attend the meeting."

 

[Xerof]

How Deboss recommendations can safe guard this???? If Fat Tail have enough votes then they will easily outnumber "For" votes for Hadleys and others. I've been saying this since day 1. Stop this bullshit and vote as per BOD recommendations.

Yup, if MMGA have the numbers, then they win and their votes will be against everyone else and we lose, so the board ends up with 3 clowns, Nigel and Rhett.

There will be thousands of disconnected voters who, if they bother to vote, will simply do as they were advised to by the BoD. Under those circumstances, none of the non-endorsed candidates have a shitshow anyway, (despite us loving them all).

It's more important to actually ensure we harness enough voters to vote (as endorsed by the BoD), than to get cute with strategies. The BoD will then be precisely as it is now, no more, no less

 

[Bonsoir]

But you guys surely know about endorsed and non endorsed weighting...come on, even the glorious rooster knows that

View attachment 48431

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]

With respect I get the strategy on the Hadley votes but Deboss goes further and prescribes voting for every SH nominee below Ludbrook and Huljich

"IF" any of them garner enough votes you could end up with the Hadleys + 3 other non endorsed SH Nominees on the board all to the exclusion of Dr Casta , Serge and Salome (assuming the MMGA maggots don't have sufficient power to get themselves up or vote anyone down)

Just keep it simple and VOTE AS THE BOARD DIRECTS

Don't tell me what to do.*



*Votes changed as you told me to do.

 

[SilentOne]

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.

Contact us - AICD

If you would like to speak to someone about who we are and what we do, please contact us.

www.aicd.com.au

SilentOne

 

[Earlyspeed]

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.

 

[Azzler]

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

The supplement seemed to suggest differently.

 

[Bonsoir]

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

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 ?