Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Gbennett - to whom is your comment aimed? Who is Ken mich? You'll have to explain.
You sound just like that idiot bully Ken mich
Some members may have spotted that I have had to obtain a new account – when I attempted (several times) to login LSE claimed there was no account with my email address???? Yet when I attempted (several times) to register again using that exact same email it told me I couldn't use that email as it was already is use by another account. Grrrr.
Anyway, what have I missed? Not a lot – in the face of the weight of evidence and posts regarding the abysmal performance of the BOD members Ashton is still busy trying to convince us / himself that he's backing a winner. Thanks for your dedication Ashton, you must have spent several hundreds of hours on this investment.
If I may ask a few direct questions to Ashton (as I can't see where you've addressed these important points)–
1. what do you think of the news of a uturn in strategy and the complete contradiction and dereliction of Jay's 'commitment to environmental sustainability'?
2. Does the new hydrocarbon strategy meet with your approval?
3. How do you think the new strategy will sit with EnergyBreakthrough? Do you think they will be in favour?
4. How do you envisage JAY obtaining any O&G licences?
5. Do you view the related party associations to White Flame as being a good or a bad thing for JAY holders?
Thanks for your assistance.
Enuff - LWHL commented: " Perhaps they have simply not had ANY interest, at any price, for these assets?"
I was simply responding to LWHL's comment of "not had ANY interest". On the contrary, there was interest from at least one potential buyer at the time I attended the General Meeting in February 2024. There is a danger we might be going around in circles here.
No Ashton. I was merely observing the other posters' point.
The important thing is that, as you have acknowledged with that link, talk is cheap here and positive outcomes for non-employee shareholders currently stands at zero.
And furthermore, I take it that the last RNS gives you no cause for concern. OK then.
I agree with your last post Ashton. So why position the little morsel you were thrown in the meeting as having any relevance to the question of whether we are getting anywhere with sales? It’s definitely a molehill.
LWHL - You say: "I did not consider that point, enuff."
Since you have made the above comment regarding the information I obtained at the General Meeting, your comment deserves a reply.
It is not unusual for company directors to disclose information outside RNS releases in open forums (e.g. media interviews that can be accessed by the general public). There is nothing wrong with such disclosures as long as the information disclosed is NOT regarded as price-sensitive. For example, JAY has already informed the market via RNS releases that some of its assets are for sale. Information that follow-up sales discussions with potential buyers are taking place can't be regarded as price-sensitive because that is a natural progression after informing the market of asset sales. What would be price-sensitive is that if and when the sales talks result in an agreement that information must be disclosed via an RNS in the first instance.
In fact, in this YouTube video interview dated 30 January 2023, Rod McIllree talks about ongoing sales conversations with potential buyers (at 18:45 mins) - https://youtu.be/i_9UOExW7Wc?t=1
Are we trying to make a mountain out of a molehill here?
I did not consider that point, enuff. Anyway, definitely will leave you all to it now. GLA.
I have seen the most recent RNS. Which lacks any explanation for the change of direction over the number of assets that are apparently now up for sale (I guess this could change again at the drop of a hat).
How credible the potential buyer is that they mentioned to you, well, time will tell.
I have heard that one before in other outfits many, many times and of course here in the past too. Especially in relation to Dundas. Years have since past and quite frankly, it remains a complete shambles, IMO.
There is simply a lack of track record at delivering....well, anything, for ordinary shareholders here.
More importantly, did that last RNS strike you as remotely credible, Ashton?
Anyway, I see I am going round in circles here. Good luck to you and everyone else too. No more from me until the next RNS here.
Ashton, does it not concern you or even ring a few alarm bells that the director you spoke to is prepared to divulge to a member of the public at a general meeting, more than had been disclosed in an RNS. Do you think that is acceptable? If so, what do you think they might disclose to others, closer to the fold?
LWHL - I should have added this to my last note. Please take a look at the last paragraph of the note I posted on 6 Feb 2024 at 13:53 after attending the General Meeting the day before.
LWHL - You say: "Perhaps they have simply not had ANY interest, at any price, for these assets?"
Not so. There has been an interest from at least one party. I attended the General Meeting in February 2024 and came to find out from a member of the Board of Directors that a potential buyer from South Asia was engaged in talks with JAY about the sale of assets.
You say JAY has been talking "for a long time". I would not describe 4 months as a "long time" considering any potential buyer has to carry out thorough due diligence and also negotiate mutually agreeable terms. This can be a prolonged affair. Just because we are in a hurry does not mean the process can be hurried.
LWHL - You say: "They presumably have been trying (for a long time now) to sell ALL the non-Disko assets."
Not ALL the non-Disko assets are for sale. Did you see the RNS on 19 April 2024?
They presumably have been trying (for a long time now) to sell all the non-Disko assets.
Perhaps they have simply not had any interest, at any price, for these assets?
A fire sale requires at least some interest, after all.
Please can someone with a deeper understanding of these things explain what is to stop the board of Jay approving a fire sale of assets to (say) Whitecliff over the coming months?
There are no major shareholders to vote against it except for Rod. Are there AIM rules?
Any relevance ?