The not so good: Something that has seemed curious to me over...

The not so good:

Something that has seemed curious to me over some time ...is that whenever issues such as management: remuneration; selling of shares & not holding stock; family trading (unusual ASX disclosures); multiple EGM's for the purpose of renewing options; subsequent beneficial purchase arrangement including (bountiful options) etc, etc (NB I refer ONLY to info contained in ASX announcements)

...the usual response from HC posters close to management or loyal to management is often similar to:

a) He is a fantastic person and this would be a slap in the face.

b) No one else could do the job he is doing.

c) He has been doing the job of 5 people (made to sound like 10).

d) He works 24/7 ...and always answers the phone at 3AM.

What is so curious is that these responses are:

a) Irrelevant to the salient issue (i.e. appropriate remuneration).

b) Clearly bad management practice if true (succession / resilience planning).

c) Highly fanciful (and against evidence presented by some posters).

e) Simply illogical.

So what engenders these responses? It would appear to be a desire to deflect logical and open discussion or questioning of the specific issue in a transparent manner simply for the purpose of shutting down criticism.

The purpose of this post is not to debate all these claims and counter claims in detail, but to reflect on the effect of the issues and the lack of debate from the perspective of future investment in and growth of AVQ.

This whole scenario in some way reminds me of when I was a child and a school friend was trying to show me how easy it was to steal chewing gum from a department store. I still remember the security guard / employee asking him if he paid for the gum and he replied "what chewing gum?" ..."the gum in your hand" ..."OH ...this chewing gum".

What I consider to be the excesses of our management seem just like the chewing gum (to me) ...and yet if anyone asked these obvious questions (at the next EGM for example) ...will they be met with "what chewing gum?" (or what $750k ++).

So (as an example only) here we are where we have seen massive value/wealth destruction ...but apparently we can't debate the appropriateness of the 1Mil cost of remuneration for one member of management ...for risk of causing offense.

So I ask you to consider the above questions and answers [a) to d)] in the light of an organisation who may want to make an investment into AVQ of $50 mil for our mining infrastructure subsequent to mining permit ...or in a few years time when mining is well underway ...it may be $300 mil in our new technology mini-processing plant.

My point is ... EVERYONE can see any chewing gum that companies have in their hands ...so lets wake up and smell the coffee.

We need to be able to discuss and debate all issues openly / honestly and transparently. If we can't then I and future investors (big and small), will either stay out ...or get out when they can. Lets plan for the future. I raise these issues so we can improve our management practices.

The good:

My feeling is that like me ...many others are clearly over this whole saga however, I'm am telling myself not to mix emotion and trading / business.

There are many reasons why we should be successful as have been previously discussed in detail by others more knowledgeable than me ...including apparent landholder support; ability to hit the ground running; previous results etc etc ...but another reason is the fact that this whole situation arose as a result of the SIG not following their own procedures. This no doubt raises a debt of gratitude to AVQ for preferring to avoid any potential litigation, but rather getting on with mutually beneficial mining and co-operation (I assume this is our attitude).

I think our ML will eventually be granted.

All the best with your decisions holders -I will continue holding in anticipation.

Cheers,

SJB