AVZ Discussion 2022

[obe wan]

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.
View attachment 48435

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

Here, a quick google, refers to some rules in play ; I'm sures there's better results if one has 10 minutes

 

[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.

 

[obe wan]

@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.

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 wan]

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?

No not really, sure it's a clusterfuck, but because there's 5 positions available and if they drop out leaving only the MMGA goons at the table and competing for empty non contested positions on the board.…well then we’ll have a couple of MMGA goons in the board

 

[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.

 

[Azzler]

No not really, sure it's a clusterfuck, but because there's 5 positions available and if they drop out leaving only the MMGA goons at the table and competing for empty non contested positions on the board.…well then we’ll have a couple of MMGA goons in the board

Yes but in the end it comes down to who has the most votes, regardless of the position of noms.
If they got the votes to win, they'll just vote NO to everyone else, and get in.
If we got the votes, we'll vote no to MMGA and they can't get in.

This other noms stuff is now meaningless. Infact it can hurt us by blocking board endorsed noms.

 

[obe wan]

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,

"

Take it as how you read it Azzler . Go to the appendix on page 127 on the proxy on the ever thoroughly explained AVZ announcement about how it works under the skin .

Over and out

 

[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?

 

[obe wan]

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"

Yes and that’s exactly how 2-17 was arranged FMD