AVZ Discussion 2022

[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.

 

[Carlos Danger]

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.

What an absolute clusterfuck this voting information has been

I have no idea if this is 100% right but from the supplementary booklet it would seem we will have a board of somewhere between 2 and 7 at the end of this

2 existing directors

Plus somewhere between 0 and 5 directors from all the candidates nominated to fill the potential 5 vacancies

AVZ have nominated 5 for reelection but they get last dibs. So anyone that wins above these 5 nominees from either the rabble or MMGA will take a potential seat away from the current BoD recommendations.

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.

I'm honestly speechless about them needing to amend this part. Wtf.

 

[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