" I mean HARD QUESTIONS should be asked "
Speaking of hard questions.............I have just refined the list of questions for JAG / others to ask the BOD this Monday under the thread " QUESTIONS TO ASK NIGEL ''
I have taken into account the questions
@MoneyBags1348 offered up plus mine.
I think i have the bases covered, but i will let the TSE AVZ community be the judge
View attachment 20557
Have a peruse, last chance for any changes, re-arranges.
Time for some long awaited answers from the BOD if they have the nuts.....or it will be
View attachment 20560
Not much longer to wait.
imo
indirect ‘open questions’ can be good, it’s what good journalists do to crack open the rhetoric or politicians
Be prepared for information assymetry
I don't know, people seem to forget that these court cases came to light many months before Der geist started forcing the issue on twitter. When the issues did come to light shareholders were the first ones to dismiss it based on circle jerk mentality and very vague assurances from Nigel (off market) that it was 'rubbish'.
The issues were known but shareholders also failed in forcing the BOD's hand to do something when it was still fresh. Instead the BOD seem to have ignored it right up until the point of suspension despite hopes that it had been otherwise behind the scenes and that they might be on top of things.
Point of this post, fucked if I know. I think the BOD has been lacklustre in their duties but also we shareholders have shot ourselves in the foot by not being collectively harder on them over the years. Hopefully a situation that can be remedied in future aided by platforms like tse as opposed to the us vs trolls/shorters/downrampers/fuckwits (them) mentality of platforms like HC.
Anyway I know it's only part of a complex equation but I've been a bit disappointed in what the BOD seems to get away with personally, can't seem to take anything they say on face value which is a shame. Makes it difficult have much faith in one's investment beyond it being a much needed lithium deposit that must be mined one way or another for the world to meet it's aspirations.
Very genuine reflection .
When I was still holding, I wasn’t paying much attention to go to the last AGM. I wish I had. Instead I gathered responses from those who did participate and realised things
may not have run according to rules set out for online participants. And as
@ChrisU points out, Huljich was not humble imo.
What bothered me most was AVZ’s project director not turning up but more so no
follow up promised to make amends.
Michael Hughes was a good speaker for the prior AGM, so it was hugely disappointing and my suspicions grew something wasn’t right. Maybe one person was listening. Michael would have reams to talk about—give Nigel a break—and let the engineer talk, ffs. Especially since the project was really coming along and unbelievable share price action was happening.
There’s a fine balancing act for an executive: at once yes, the jungle law tactics are affecting progress of project?
But At same time, and we’ve discussed it here already, what’s best for shareholders is not to give oxygen to the jungle law thugs. I’m hoping for shareholders ASIC sees it that way because of this goes well and AVZ are serious about mining, I’m dipping back in.
Cong attempted to lodge with ASIC last year. Some may recall the Lomela1 hotcrapper post? Go back and check.
When I started getting info from Cong, I could tell there were issues with their documents straight away, I even offered to advise him on what the issues are. He accepted but I never got around to it. The paper trail was getting to interesting. Moreover the court judgment that AVZ didn’t attend.
AVZ wasn’t helping in its designed to be unclear announcements which created more doubt.
Just a note: always trust your ability to be a reasonable ordinary reader, If the announcement can’t be understood it’s likely not really your fault.
Companies will always refute at the start of a legal battle. That’s what Ken Brinsden did up against Ellison’s MRL. But it’s how well they refute and what details they provide shareholders that gives confidence. I think it was Franck Fwamba who posted legal points, from Ohada law and Dathcom agreement for what AVZ did not explicate. It can only suggest: the less detail the less potential for more trouble later. That’s what frustrates shareholders.
When AFR-Tom climbed on with his hit piece, it was clear to me, that I had to separate my views from the real troll camp. But also because when I contacted Tom to offer him a better perspective, he was such an arrogant twat, that I resolved to distance my questions from such idiocy.
It’s really good shareholders are working together to formulate hard questions. Questions I was maligned for 6 months ago.
Please don’t rely on just one person to ask questions,
@JAG - perhaps half a dozen people can have same question sheet and fire away, because then it’s spread all over, and harder to ‘sideline’? Nigel did footy you know?
@JAG have you managed to acquire Cong’s number or is the Phuket boy resisting?
