AGMs

5 questions lodged at 2026 Catapult Sports (CAT) virtual AGM


August 26, 2026

Below is the text of the 5 written questions submitted at the 33 minute Catapult Sports (CAT) 10am AEST virtual AGM held via the MUFG platform on August 26, 2026. See notice of meeting detailing 7 voting items. Market cap $1.11b on AGM day. See how voted via Twitter, plus these 5 questions asked at 2025 AGM. The proxies were disclosed early in these formal addresses triggering question 4. The executive chair Adir Shiffman once again failed to follow the agenda and there was one other online question with nothing on the telephone. Biggest protest 10.36% against Michelle Guthrie re-election.

Q1. Whilst virtual AGMs suit me in terms of attending 300-plus meetings a year, best practice is to run a hybrid meeting with a physical component as well, so that shareholders can personally engage with the company's leadership in an environment where it is more difficult for the directors to avoid detailed debate. Will the chair undertake to hold a best practice hybrid AGM next year? Whatever you do, please don't revert to a physical only meeting as so many companies unfortunately still do?

Answer: The executive chair Adir Shiffman seems to think that having a hybrid AGM would mean flying people in from all over the world at great expense. People can still contribute online, just have a crew at the Richmond HQ for the physical component. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q2. Well done for recently negotiating an extension and expansion of our loan facility from US listed Western Alliance Bank which has now agreed to lend us up to $US50m through until 2031. How much is currently drawn and did we run a full competitive tender ahead of the August 10 announcement as it seems strange that a Melbourne-based ASX listed company isn't being banked by a major Australian bank. What is the history of our relationship with Western Alliance and why aren't we banking with Australian banks?

Answer: The executive chair Adir Shiffman was giving nothing away but made it clear they got a good deal. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q3. Well done for including secondary VWAP pricing on last year's SPP which came into play, meaning the retail investors who stumped up $13.3m paid $6.39 per share, a 4.34% discount to the $6.68 placement price. Sadly, the stock is now down to $3.63 so the investors who stumped up $143.3m in that capital raising are collectively down $65m. With the benefit of hindsight, does the chair believe the share price would be higher today if we hadn't bought that German soccer analytics company?

Answer: This was the only question which the Catapult question wrangler edited down. Just couldn't bring himself to say investors were $65m under water on last year's $143m capital raise. As for the German acquisition, executive chair Adir Shiffman reckons it's a ripper that will only get better and the share price decline has been all about the global SAASpocalypse. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q4. Thank you for disclosing the proxy votes early to the ASX and well done for receiving strong overall voting support. The largest protest vote today was 10.36% against the re-election of Michelle Guthrie, the only independent director up for election today. Was this triggered by a proxy adviser recommendation? If not, what is the issue? Also, could Michelle please comment on whether she believes it is time for Catapult to move to a conventional governance model with an independent non-executive chair?

Answer: The executive chair Adir Shiffman reckons the 10.36% vote against re-election of Michelle Guthrie is no protest at all. Corporate voting is not a secret ballot and he should be across this. At least he gave Michelle Guthrie a chance to respond and she reckons Adir is great at his job and there is no need to move to a conventional governance model with an independent non-executive chair. Watch video of exchange via Twitter, plus this earlier stump speech that Michelle Guthrie gave for her re-election.

Q5. I asked you last year to stop putting up placement capacity resolutions & you've done it again with resolution 4 even though the 15% capacity would automatically have been refreshed in November. If we do another capital raising, why not adopt the best practice pro-rata model which don't require these sorts of shareholder approval resolutions? Will you undertake not to put up placement refresh resolutions again as all they do is signal an intention to do more selective placements which don't treat all shareholders equally?

Answer: The executive chair Adir Shiffman pushed back on this request, stressing that they always give retail access to their capital raisings, which is certainly true with the last two raisings. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.