AVZ Discussion 2022

[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

 

[obe wan]

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

 

[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

 

[obe wan]

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.

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

 

[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 ?

 

[obe wan]

The supplement seemed to suggest differently.

Really? maybe bring it to the table

 

[Xerof]

Thanks Obe, no, have not experienced that scenario before. I’ll take your word for it.

Doesn’t change my voting for directors though, I’d like the current 5 (2+3) re-elected. No need for any non-endorsed extras at this point

 

[Thaz]

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

Is there any source that you can point me to that says that?

I've skimmed through the Constitution and the Corps Act.

14.3 of the Constitution says the following, and i can't find anything in the Corps act about board endorsed nominated Directors.

It doesn't make any reference to board endorsed candidates taking precedence over non-board endorsed.

 

[obe wan]

Thanks Obe, no, have not experienced that scenario before. I’ll take your word for it.

Doesn’t change my voting for directors though, I’d like the current 5 (2+3) re-elected. No need for any non-endorsed extras at this point

Everyone should vote as they see it ; but Hadley’s and the 3 company endorsed is my line in the sand at least ; do I see any of the non-endorsed candidates collecting more votes than the 3 endorsed ones..no.

There's 2 positions that I think MMGA will be competing for and those are in the non endorsed category...hence why i’ll be voting at least for the Hadleys. If they get more votes than MMGA then MMGA are gone ; if they are voted down…well, then MMGA have a decent chance

 

[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.

 

[Azzler]

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.

 

[wombat74]

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