Yes you’ve got an interesting set of questions.
It may well be the tenement rezoning covers suspension. Maybe this is why AVZ is rather circumspect about an X subject of initial trading halt is incomplete.
Then, all the political thuggery is maintained as suppositional.
Just a hypothesis. There’s got to be a way to survive and if this is it also with ASX and ASIC, then shareholders indeed need to support the company.
@MoneyBags1348
I think you’re being a bit paranoid and vexatious. It occurred to me that you’re not just a company shill but a PR guy for AVZ? You’re very intent on being the shepherd here?
What I’ve said about Cong needs filling in.
Briefly, in the first few weeks, it indeed looked like AVZ was hiding bad news and was losing control. The May media speculation statement fuelled uncertainties that were only much later clarified to me privately from excellent sources and I am convinced it’s the truth and this will come out in the roadshows.
But before then, the May 04 statement could not be reconciled with the Dathcom Statuts Coordonnes regards transfers to third parties: a simple “any” transfer is a breach that could not be reconciled with the agreement Statuts meant I had to spend time arguing with shareholders.
AVZ’s statement assumed no one would have access to the agreement. If it did I think we would have a much more sensible media speculation statement than the one tossed out by a paranoid lawyer. Sensible as in direct reference to clauses in the agreement would be startling and probably would change AFR-Tom’s reliance on Boatman. In fact we may not have heard from Boatman. So could AVZ have handled things better? I can’t see why the agreement can’t be published - what’s precious about it?
As I noted to one esteemed shareholder in early May who said to me the company was refuting Jincheng 15%, AVZ made no reference to the RCCM record in it’s refutation fuelling my suspicions. Hence why I was eager to get as much information from Cong - but quickly realised trying to make sense of machine translations the feckless illiteracy was a fraud.
Nothing was also said about charges against AVZ and Mr Johnson. The meaning of “intellectual fraud” the basis for suing AVZ and Johnson for denying there was a dispute was not covered by Boatman nor AVZ. It was clear skullduggery was untouchable.
At that time, information assymetry was high. And without that Dathomir information I could not have helped shareholders with the AFR response, as I could see clearly what Boatman, gleaning from the Cominiere side, was withholding. Some just want to take sides. I just want the truth as objective as possible. It could easily be AVZ was in serious shit. Then everyone would be wanting my material.
So my position is always mixed. It is always dialectical, provisional attempting Hegelian dialectics impartially.
The RCCM is equivalent to Australia’s ASIC registration, it’s what the Congolese rely on. To me this registration doesn’t equal “spurious”, “spurious” as stated at an Axino video interview in support of the May 04 statement- a statement that did not say anything on the RCCM record. On the RCCM record, for me, as an ordinary reasonable reader, It’s an administrative block no longer categoriseable as Suppositional (NF’s spurious comes under this) for regulatory exemptions for disclosure. But that’s where the tenement issue comes in handy¿? Not sure, don’t care so much to untangle.
What I care about is, how much managment is trusted without material evidence to support it. If they are occasionally sloppy with details it suggests other mistakes in my opinion. And caution is required.
Back to RCCM record
non-reconciliability as above. Combine that reasonable suspicion with a history that showed in 2019 two separate sources (one below
attached) claiming The managing director NF allegedly designed the Patterson capital raise to benefit shareholders, as pure gaslighting in my opinion. The other is a WhatsApp screenshot from 2019 showing a conversation allegedly between NF and a shareholder, the same ordinary shareholder who discovered the Moba route and shared it with Langford who then shared it with AVZ for inclusion in the scoping study. But didn’t get performance rights for his efforts.
Thus in two separate instances years apart, two shareholders one directly showing and one recalling but with loads of integrity and both persons unrelated to each other, seems reliable. And I’m sure there are more witnesses if ever required. (I’m not seeking.)
That Patterson raise saw the share price drop from 7cps to 3.8cps. 7cps was holding up well until this no floor price capital raise. That same year the first Dathomir contract was signed setting the price if my recollection is correct and it can be surmised the share price destruction also benefited acquisition of Dathcom %s. Cong et al also feeling cheated? This is why he is playing so hard I imagine besides trying to save face and for a key beneficiary Z Kabila.
And I surmised, hypothesis, that, this raise was a desperate plan after Airguide failed but also another offer was made before Airguide failed that few know about, from Eckhoff (Canada) at 9 cps and
he says he left as consultant October 2018,
“when they decided not to raise money at 9 cents in Canada”
So yes I am concerned about stewardship of this project and I do have a dossier of reasons for my concerns. And I want Nigel to improve in this area regards proofreading announcements checking nomenclatures stack up with legal names etc, that data points relied on are accurately represented . He hates being told things like this but it is us shareholders that often suffer when things are not checked. October 2018 scoping study, go check reference to PAM’s Scoping study. How the Fuck do they get a key data point on SC6 price wrong but I can find it’s wrong in a minute?! It’s because it means more to us how our company makes representations? I actually called Nigel that evening the announcement was raise, and kept the mistake quiet, and likely Langford’s (he said he got it from FT - FT didn’t have the data point). Hence the infraology studies as T1 and T2 appendices referred to in DFS not in DFS is a sore point, because this should not happen considering the history of fk ups and then performance rights dished out.
Further, Michael Hughes didn’t turn up to last AGM and there was no follow up for him to talk the talk of an engineer, what Nigel can’t do.
I had my suspicions aroused once again for the project. And how right I was : Hughes appears to have tendered notice in February (3 months) and resigned May 24.
Very suspicious Hughes resigns just when construction is to start and at a time AVZ was seeking interest for a roadshow early 2022.
What happened to the Australian roadshow? Instead Germany? Why?
Basically, from above, one has to be diligent in your own due diligence (that can involve seeking material from others for assessment) is what I’ve learned. Some people can get close to management but it can also blind.
