AVZ Discussion 2022

[Xerof]

Thanks for that mate.
But it needs to be explained how they would do these things.

It is possible for 5 nominees plus the 2 up for reelection to be appointed provided they have >50%

That would result in a Board of 9, the maximum allowed by the current constitution

Next years AGM will be very uneventful for anyone trying to take seats, as only 1 will be up for contesting, and that’s a reelection, so no extra vacancies. An EGM would be the only way to challenge and Leonard failed miserably with this as their first initiative

Just my line of reasoning, could be miles off

The Hadleys have decent skin in the game - as good a reason as any to focus on them as the blockers

I’m not endorsing this approach by the way. There will be many thousands of non engaged voters who will follow the endorsed path, so getting 5 up will be difficult

 

[Azzler]

MMGA finally realised they should probably not allow comments to their tweets.
Morons!

 

[SilentOne]

I appreciate the question Azz and totally understand it

Keeping our board united and focused on the best outcome for AVZ shareholders and the good people of the DRC is what it's all about

In plain speaking the Hadleys can definitely contribute in a positive way and importantly assist in keeping the board free of fracturing and self interested parties the likes of MMGA etc

Winenut - your explanation is as convincing as voting for the "Yes" Campaign - "its the right thing to do"

Sorry mate but I dont know who they are and I am following the direction of the BOD.

Regards,

SilentOne

 

[Winenut]

Just vote what the company recommends. Not that hard.
Me and mine have over 10m shares and thats how we voting.
Not one person has been able to explain how voting the Hadleys in will keep MMGA out? If the 3 stooges have enough votes to vote themselves in then they have enough votes to block.
And I hate the secret squirrel shit. The Hadleys would be of great benefit? How about they make a video and introduce themselves. How about they come on here and introduce themselves. But no, all we hear is I heard from so and so that they good guys and will help us. I dont know these fuckers from a bar of soap! Could be the nicest guys in the world, could also be on the MMGA payroll. Who knows.
I think all non indorsed individuals should of pulled their nominations when it became clear that they are actually causing the company some stress.
All imo

Strong voting block there Doc and good on you and your crew

If the MMGA stooges/puppets have enough votes I think you're right ...it's really difficult

Just like you I am super wary of "who are these AVZ SH nominees and what are they all about?"

That's why over the last few weeks I went to all the other shareholders and independent sources and resources that I know and trust to understand what is best going forward?

From that I determined the Hadley's were in fact important in protecting the interests of genuine AVZ shareholders and achieving the broader AVZ aims and goals for a lithium mine in Manono and supporting the broader DRC population

Quite simply the Hadleys do this by being aligned to and supportive of the current board and ensuring influences like MMGA simply don't get a foot in the door

Realistically I don't think it's practical at this point in time for all the other "non-endorsed" nominees to pull their nomination.......just a logistic reality for all concerned

Notwithstanding that fact I think all of those shareholders are incredibly genuine and have been motivated to nominate themselves in the best interests of all AVZ shareholders and the broader Manono and DRC community

Really proud there are so many passionate and active AVZ shareholders that's for sure

IMO voting for the Hadleys can actually strengthen the board right now and into the future, provide a united and powerful team and ensure the best outcome for all shareholders and genuine stakeholders whilst also ensuring MMGA and corrupt foreign interests are diminished in their influence both here and abroad

 

[Winenut]

It is possible for 5 nominees plus the 2 up for reelection to be appointed provided they have >50%

That would result in a Board of 9, the maximum allowed by the current constitution

Next years AGM will be very uneventful for anyone trying to take seats, as only 1 will be up for contesting, and that’s a reelection, so no extra vacancies. An EGM would be the only way to challenge and Leonard failed miserably with this as their first initiative

Just my line of reasoning, could be miles off

The Hadleys have decent skin in the game - as good a reason as any to focus on them as the blockers

I’m not endorsing this approach by the way. There will be many thousands of non engaged voters who will follow the endorsed path, so getting 5 up will be difficult

Totally agreed Mr Photocopier

Everything you say makes perfect sense

 

[Winenut]

Winenut - your explanation is as convincing as voting for the "Yes" Campaign - "its the right thing to do"

Sorry mate but I dont know who they are and I am following the direction of the BOD.

Regards,

SilentOne

Sorry about that!!

I hope my follow up provides a bit more

Cheers

 

[Winenut]

It is possible for 5 nominees plus the 2 up for reelection to be appointed provided they have >50%

That would result in a Board of 9, the maximum allowed by the current constitution

Next years AGM will be very uneventful for anyone trying to take seats, as only 1 will be up for contesting, and that’s a reelection, so no extra vacancies. An EGM would be the only way to challenge and Leonard failed miserably with this as their first initiative

Just my line of reasoning, could be miles off

The Hadleys have decent skin in the game - as good a reason as any to focus on them as the blockers

I’m not endorsing this approach by the way. There will be many thousands of non engaged voters who will follow the endorsed path, so getting 5 up will be difficult

All good points I would have reasoned Mr Photocopier

Especially the numbers game

But like you I could be miles off

Best vote right now seems to be a strong, united, consolidated board and absolutely no MMGA reps

Simple as that

 

[Winenut]

Winenut - your explanation is as convincing as voting for the "Yes" Campaign - "its the right thing to do"

Sorry mate but I dont know who they are and I am following the direction of the BOD.

Regards,

SilentOne

Full respect there SilentOne

Totally understand

 

[Samus]

 

[Winenut]

Wouldn't mind a bit more clarity on that for sure

Thank you for posting

Not American official....pretty simple

Might no longer be AVZ consultant because contract has finished?

Definitely happy to follow up on that

Cheers

 

[Hodlandwin69]

Fuck me, add that to the questions to be asked at the AGM.
"Did anything eventuate out of using this dude as a Consultant?"

 

[Dom1974]

MMGA finally realised they should probably not allow comments to their tweets.
Morons!

Can still retweet, tag and continue to dump shit on them . Everyone should just go town on those pricks ad nauseum.

 

[Dom1974]

I too am supporting the Hadleys given skin in the game, recommendation from other large shareholders and to provide that extra layer of security against the MMGA muppets.

One can always email the company and ask direct what these shareholders can bring to the table other than blocking stake.

 

[Carlos Danger]

Just vote what the company recommends. Not that hard.
Me and mine have over 10m shares and thats how we voting.
Not one person has been able to explain how voting the Hadleys in will keep MMGA out? If the 3 stooges have enough votes to vote themselves in then they have enough votes to block.
And I hate the secret squirrel shit. The Hadleys would be of great benefit? How about they make a video and introduce themselves. How about they come on here and introduce themselves. But no, all we hear is I heard from so and so that they good guys and will help us. I dont know these fuckers from a bar of soap! Could be the nicest guys in the world, could also be on the MMGA payroll. Who knows.
I think all non indorsed individuals should of pulled their nominations when it became clear that they are actually causing the company some stress.
All imo

Yeah mate, I've been asking around, giving people every chance to explain why but all I get is mumble, winks and no clarity at all.
Still open to hearing good reason if anyone has it.
But otherwise there is no way anyone should be voting in some non endorsed people they don't know.

The way I see it voting for the Hadley's won't stop MMGA getting on the board. Nominees are considered in order. So if Hadley's and MMGA both somehow get up they will fill the 5 vacant board seats and the rules say the rest of the nominees will be considered defeated.

If the no vacancy rule doesn't apply because we are not being asked to vote on it then there is a max of 9 and voting for the Hadley's will leave the 5 endorsed board nominees to potentially fight over the 2 possible seats remaining if they win their votes due to our max of 9 in the constitution. It will be the 2 highest votes out of the 5 that get the seats if that occurs.

But I'm still not 100% sure if this will apply or if we have max of 7 or 9

For the bod seats there are 2 existing / 5 vacant / 2 possible

Without the Hadley's if max 9 then we can still get 6 current bod / 3 MMGA

or if max 7 then 4 current bod / 3 MMGA

With Hadley's best we can do if max 9 is 4 current bod / 2 Hadley's / 3 MMGA

or if max 7 then 2 current bod / 2 Hadley's / 3 MMGA

Happy to be corrected. And again I don't think it really matters because either MMGA have the numbers for a 3 - 2 win or they're not getting a single seat imo

It is possible for 5 nominees plus the 2 up for reelection to be appointed provided they have >50%

That would result in a Board of 9, the maximum allowed by the current constitution

Next years AGM will be very uneventful for anyone trying to take seats, as only 1 will be up for contesting, and that’s a reelection, so no extra vacancies. An EGM would be the only way to challenge and Leonard failed miserably with this as their first initiative

Just my line of reasoning, could be miles off

The Hadleys have decent skin in the game - as good a reason as any to focus on them as the blockers

I’m not endorsing this approach by the way. There will be many thousands of non engaged voters who will follow the endorsed path, so getting 5 up will be difficult

Strong voting block there Doc and good on you and your crew

If the MMGA stooges/puppets have enough votes I think you're right ...it's really difficult

Just like you I am super wary of "who are these AVZ SH nominees and what are they all about?"

That's why over the last few weeks I went to all the other shareholders and independent sources and resources that I know and trust to understand what is best going forward?

From that I determined the Hadley's were in fact important in protecting the interests of genuine AVZ shareholders and achieving the broader AVZ aims and goals for a lithium mine in Manono and supporting the broader DRC population

Quite simply the Hadleys do this by being aligned to and supportive of the current board and ensuring influences like MMGA simply don't get a foot in the door

Realistically I don't think it's practical at this point in time for all the other "non-endorsed" nominees to pull their nomination.......just a logistic reality for all concerned

Notwithstanding that fact I think all of those shareholders are incredibly genuine and have been motivated to nominate themselves in the best interests of all AVZ shareholders and the broader Manono and DRC community

Really proud there are so many passionate and active AVZ shareholders that's for sure

IMO voting for the Hadleys can actually strengthen the board right now and into the future, provide a united and powerful team and ensure the best outcome for all shareholders and genuine stakeholders whilst also ensuring MMGA and corrupt foreign interests are diminished in their influence both here and abroad

The Hadley's are only a defence against MMGA if the bod endorsed candidates are considered BEFORE the shareholder candidates and the no vacancy rule doesn't apply so we have a max of 9

So 18 - 22 THEN 2 - 17 with the 2 possible extra seats available

That way the 5 bod endorsed candidates fill the vacant seats first and then the Hadley's become a defence against MMGA taking the possible last 2 seats due to the no vacancy rule not being voted on. But even then they would both need a higher % than all the MMGA candidates.

This was the entire point of the additional candidates

Otherwise if the rules as stated in the AGM notice and supplementary booklet are correct and candidates are considered IN ORDER so 2 - 22 to fill the vacancies then the Hadley's will potentially be taking seats away from the bod endorsed candidates if MMGA win with a max of 7 or 9 or if MMGA don't win and the no vacancy rule does apply and we have a max of 7

It would be pretty awkward if we do have a max of 7 and MMGA lose but the Hadley's win and are considered before the bod endorsed candidates and we end up with 5 current bod and 2 Hadley's instead of 7 current bod for no reason

Obviously if the Hadley's and MMGA both win but the 5 bod endorsed candidates all lose then the Hadley's would stop MMGA getting control as long as they vote with the 2 remaining current bod but that is by far the least likely outcome and the possibility of them taking seats away from the bod endorsed candidates is far more likely than that scenario

We really need final clarity on the candidates order consideration and whether the no vacancy rule applies to know for sure if the Hadley's are useful but the instructions provided so far are pretty clear. Although seeing as management thought there were 2 vacant seats rather than 5 I'm not sure if anyone really fucking knows how this works.

I propose we have a vote on amending the AVZ constitution at next year's AGM to spell out exactly how the board seats are decided

 

[Carlos Danger]

Fuck me, add that to the questions to be asked at the AGM.
"Did anything eventuate out of using this dude as a Consultant?"

Gotta respect the hustle

 

[Doc]

Strong voting block there Doc and good on you and your crew

If the MMGA stooges/puppets have enough votes I think you're right ...it's really difficult

Just like you I am super wary of "who are these AVZ SH nominees and what are they all about?"

That's why over the last few weeks I went to all the other shareholders and independent sources and resources that I know and trust to understand what is best going forward?

From that I determined the Hadley's were in fact important in protecting the interests of genuine AVZ shareholders and achieving the broader AVZ aims and goals for a lithium mine in Manono and supporting the broader DRC population

Quite simply the Hadleys do this by being aligned to and supportive of the current board and ensuring influences like MMGA simply don't get a foot in the door

Realistically I don't think it's practical at this point in time for all the other "non-endorsed" nominees to pull their nomination.......just a logistic reality for all concerned

Notwithstanding that fact I think all of those shareholders are incredibly genuine and have been motivated to nominate themselves in the best interests of all AVZ shareholders and the broader Manono and DRC community

Really proud there are so many passionate and active AVZ shareholders that's for sure

IMO voting for the Hadleys can actually strengthen the board right now and into the future, provide a united and powerful team and ensure the best outcome for all shareholders and genuine stakeholders whilst also ensuring MMGA and corrupt foreign interests are diminished in their influence both here and abroad

Did you actually speak to the Hadleys or just everyone else?

 

[Azzler]

The way I see it voting for the Hadley's won't stop MMGA getting on the board. Nominees are considered in order. So if Hadley's and MMGA both somehow get up they will fill the 5 vacant board seats and the rules say the rest of the nominees will be considered defeated.

If the no vacancy rule doesn't apply because we are not being asked to vote on it then there is a max of 9 and voting for the Hadley's will leave the 5 endorsed board nominees to potentially fight over the 2 possible seats remaining if they win their votes due to our max of 9 in the constitution. It will be the 2 highest votes out of the 5 that get the seats if that occurs.

But I'm still not 100% sure if this will apply or if we have max of 7 or 9

For the bod seats there are 2 existing / 5 vacant / 2 possible

Without the Hadley's if max 9 then we can still get 6 current bod / 3 MMGA

or if max 7 then 4 current bod / 3 MMGA

With Hadley's best we can do if max 9 is 4 current bod / 2 Hadley's / 3 MMGA

or if max 7 then 2 current bod / 2 Hadley's / 3 MMGA

Happy to be corrected. And again I don't think it really matters because either MMGA have the numbers for a 3 - 2 win or they're not getting a single seat imo

You're right in that none of it matters and it's all down to who has the numbers to win votes.

If MMGA have the numbers, then no other noms will get in ,so voting for the Hadleys or anyone else is meaningless.
If WE have the numbers, then no MMGA people will get in.
Worse though is what if people vote in the hadleys, and as well at least 1 or more other non endorsed noms get in.
Then the board can't elect the 3 recently appointed board members because they get last preference.
So you could block the board chosen candidates.

And respectfully @Winenut , I hear what you're claiming, but no one is able to provide details about how they will do as you claim re. protecting us.
I see a logical fallicy.

If there was a vulnerability present by not having the maximum number of directors (9), then the BoD would plug that vulnerability with board memeber they would research and interview themselves.
They could search high and low and get creative to invent skill gaps that needed filling if it was a case of needing to justify the new board members.

To think that shareholders have to force vote in 2 people that no one but a handful of people know, to protect AVZ because the BoD are incapable of plugging this vulnerability themselves is utterly absurd IMO.

I'd strongly recommend everyone NOT to vote for any non endorsed candidates.

 

[Doc]

The Hadley's are only a defence against MMGA if the bod endorsed candidates are considered BEFORE the shareholder candidates and the no vacancy rule doesn't apply so we have a max of 9

So 18 - 22 THEN 2 - 17 with the 2 possible extra seats available

That way the 5 bod endorsed candidates fill the vacant seats first and then the Hadley's become a defence against MMGA taking the possible last 2 seats due to the no vacancy rule not being voted on. But even then they would both need a higher % than all the MMGA candidates.

This was the entire point of the additional candidates

Otherwise if the rules as stated in the AGM notice and supplementary booklet are correct and candidates are considered IN ORDER so 2 - 22 to fill the vacancies then the Hadley's will potentially be taking seats away from the bod endorsed candidates if MMGA win with a max of 7 or 9 or if MMGA don't win and the no vacancy rule does apply and we have a max of 7

It would be pretty awkward if we do have a max of 7 and MMGA lose but the Hadley's win and are considered before the bod endorsed candidates and we end up with 5 current bod and 2 Hadley's instead of 7 current bod for no reason

Obviously if the Hadley's and MMGA both win but the 5 bod endorsed candidates all lose then the Hadley's would stop MMGA getting control as long as they vote with the 2 remaining current bod but that is by far the least likely outcome and the possibility of them taking seats away from the bod endorsed candidates is far more likely than that scenario

We really need final clarity on the candidates order consideration and whether the no vacancy rule applies to know for sure if the Hadley's are useful but the instructions provided so far are pretty clear. Although seeing as management thought there were 2 vacant seats rather than 5 I'm not sure if anyone really fucking knows how this works.

I propose we have a vote on amending the AVZ constitution at next year's AGM to spell out exactly how the board seats are decided

View attachment 48810
View attachment 48811

This is the crux of my concern. What if by voting the Hadleys in we leave some of the endorsed out? I’d be pretty annoyed to be honest

 

[Sparrowhawk12]

Some great posting re why to vote for the BOD-endorsed 5 &/or the Hadleys 2 - important but not CRITICAL, IMO.

It is critical we encourage all SH to vote for the "BOD 5" (+ Hadley 2 if you want) and against the MMGA 3, to ensure we defeat MMGA. If MMGA get 50+% of votes for them & against the rest, AND if No Vacancy rule applies, then MMGA can rule the BOD 3-2 and ruin AVZ.

With 2 weeks to go to vote, can I please encourage you to contact all SH in every way (SM, Ph, in person) & get them to vote ASAP by 20/11 along the lines of For BoD 18-22 and Against MMGA 9 10 17 ... with minor variations if you wish. Please get on the hustings.

I've started posting on X / twitter per below & will get to HC & FB over the weekend. Feel free to copy & improve.

X/Twitter (280 char) :
For Best ROI get all $AVZ SH to Vote FOR 1, 18-22 by 20/11 AGM & Against rest.
AVZ ICSID case forces DRC-AVZ win-win deal ASAP. If MMGA 9,10,17 get on BoD, will drop ICSID, sell Manono cheap to China who bribes DRC & MMGA @AusEmbZim @dfat @Treasury_AU @asx Avzminerals.com.au

 

[TDITD]

The main thing is voting MMGA out.

The Ann clearly states 5 vacant positions are being voted on (four times alone in the picture Carlos posted above). Which needs further investigation because we can have a maximum of 9 so why are AVZ stating only 7 are to be voted on. We need clarity on this.

I'm certainly not up for an attempt for the chinese to get a mole on the BOD after potentially losing their MMGA play. If we end up going to ICSID we really dont need another mole.