"Question on what DD did they do about Locke capital’s track record in abritation. (NF shuts this one down, he just said they fund it they don’t do it, so didn’t answer (this led to a clap from the crowd). Poor answer somewhat but NF said he believed they were a right fit for AVZ"
I'll call NF's response to this for what it was, in response ... that is, poor form, evasive, puppetry spin.
Not that I'm bias given I asked the question, but as you have pointed out.... that club happy clappers applauded because they were backslapping NF's tricky answer, seems MANY missed the actual significant substance of the question.
Tim will tell when the AGM meeting declared, improved continuance disclosure, drip fed devil in the detail starts to unfold around the Locke Capital funding deal..... Then we will see what applause is heard.
As many missed the question first asked where JC closed it down when the questioner asked if NF agreed the $20 mil funding wasn't actual funding at this stage. There is a BIG difference with an MOU and a funding agreement.
I will say, whilst on entry security staff "demanded" people switch off their mobiles, JC stated clearly..... shareholders had the option to place on silence.
Given I am in the danger zone of the current fires in Perth, with a mate close by already knowing he has lost his home, I for one chose to keep my phone on silent so I could receive important updates.
To be threatened to be "evicted' from the meeting because I was maintaining the option as JC stated to place my phone on silent (of which I showed proof it was) was appalling form.
What posts haven't highlighted was the highly scripted little substance answers from the board. If there wasn't a pre-prepared answer, it was a no
comment-esk response.
Also, the somewhat staged questions from the well-established Sunshine lollipop club was laughable.
As I have already declared, I voted in favour of supporting the board.....
For the "crowd" lead by Club happy Clappers to pile on to Michael Carrick when the Chair JC clearly stated he would give Michael Carrick a right of reply, shutting down that, shows extremely poor form in my view.
My vote was already cast, so nothing MC said would have changed the outcome, however, I still would have liked to have heard without disruption what he might have said in person. It was extremely clear, the board were on the backfoot yesterday, MC might have touched on a little chestnut that may have given some insight for shareholders to consider, aside from his quest to spill the board.
Pity we didn't get to say hi Roon-Aus in person and unlike you, I didn't get to "MEET" Cruiser... although there was one person just on his demeanor "stink eyeballing me" if I was to assume if that was Cruiser, I'd say. Yep.. Thats him.
As with many AGM's I've attended in the past, many who are vocal behind a keyboard here, are mild and meek IRL.
Yesterday was NOT a good day for "retail shareholders".
Getting timely disclosures from the board has always been questionable, I don't see this improving going forward.
Thanks for your summation
@Roon-Aus, until next year.
