indirect ‘open questions’ can be good, it’s what good journalists do to crack open the rhetoric or politicians
Be prepared for information assymetry
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?
