Member Info for ChirpyCheep

In!

All you need to know is 88% of JAY shareholders voted for it.

The 12% I guess was a protest vote, not a judgement on the deal.

Just putting it out there, but you haven't mentioned it.

Wouldn't a merger of JAY's Disko and AA's Disko makes sense ?

JAY get a new partner and less or no capital to find. JAY gets a smaller slice of a bigger pie which also makes sense.

Less capital for AA to find to take control.

Ashton

Thank you

I did quote and apologies its probably incorrect

However, the principle is still intact

In the document you've sent Norilisk is huge as evidence by these figures. It contains:

15% of the global resource of sulphide nickel, 27% of the total global palladium resource, and 30% of the global resource of magmatic sulphide-hosted copper.

Disko is , apparently , marginally bigger !!

I replied to Enuff for the folowing reason:

I believe that people don't understand the scale of Disko.

Even if JAY increased their issued shares by a factor of say 10 and Disko came good JAY would still be transformed.

Disko is so large potentially that the BOD should still should pursue other projects.

That is however, contingent on then getting a 3rd party to fund Disko, which I think is the only route.

I very rarely reply to Enuff.

For crying out loud his very name outlines his agenda.

That's a fair point but they have no control over Disko. Moreover Disko is so large ( potentially ) that they don't need to just wait for that, better off continuing running the business.

Obviously, if you want to get back to the stellar prices of a few years yes it would be better to sit on the fence and wait for Disko to materialise, dilution is not whar you want in this context.

I suggest most would want a broader approach.

The 20% is in addition

ie the BOD can issue 20% of the share capital without a vote, say if they want another acquisition.

Not linked to White Flame.

Not a problem for me.Let the BOD manage.

Resoution 8 at last AGM.

BOD can issue 20% of share capital without recourse to shareholders. Ends Sept.

Pretty standard stuff I'd guess.

If you know something about Rach's personality you should post it.

Can't keep us hanging on!

I think you can ask the same about Zinky.

An erronous RNS was sent out on the 1st July at 10.41.

Nine minutes later he was posting, accusing the BOD of breaking rules-when to all and sundry it was obviously incorrect.

Nine minutes........ thats commitment.

Have a look at ADVFN.

Somebody makes the point that Disko contains 1.2 trillion tons of resource.It's once in a decade find; worldwide.

................... and White Flame has more contained value.

It's understandable that a lot of people are unhappy on here but their opinions do not alter the size of JAY's assets

I am perplexed as to why LWHL posts so often on here, but regardless of the source hasn't he in general terms posed fair questions re Dundas ?

The recent RNS re Dundas didn't shift the share price and despite TOC's protestations there is going t o be scepticism about any resource upgrade after a massive downgrade last year..So as you are the most knowlegeable poster on here can you enlighten us on what you think will happen re Dundas. They are obviously going to try to enhance the resource but will this be possible without a JV and is there any appetite in the market for such a project as Dundas ?

We all have an agenda, but perhaps I was a tad harsh saying you want JAY shareholders to lose money. I guess you are neutral on that. In one of TOC's rants he made the valid point that talk is cheap under anonymity and most of us are guilty, including myself, of that.

Suffice I say I am pretty neutral on your motives for the simple I don't understand them.

LWHL has got a bit of a point as you rigtly point out......... and TBF he comes across as somebody very capable.

However, when he says " what's the point" that seems to me a sign of frustration that he hasn't been able to convert anybody to his point of view..............and he sold out some months ago . To me those few words are confirmation of his agenda.

Is that better toc ?

I am one one if the largest shareholders . You have been here two minutes which makes me think that you don't have that many shares .Cannot you work out that I have enough confidence in JAY to ask difficult questions I am trying to get meaningful debate on this board rather than tedious ramping.I know Ashton is similarly bemused by people who substitute abuse for debate.How about skipping the abuse and try answering my questions .As I have just said you should have enough confidence in the company to welcome debate if you are invested.I am sorry but the singularity of your posts reduces their cogency

In your reply to Catwithamnesia you eulogise about the role of Kobold as a joint partner.

Now I'm not one to argue with you as you know I've always been a JAY bull and reguarly I posted on herr, but perhaps you can be so kind as to enlighten me- and probably others.

In your reply to Cat you made a convincing argument for what K have achieved.

However, there are some buts. They have passed up the option to take control of the project and the intimation from Management is that the best we can hope for is that K match us dollar for dollar in a driling campaign. Moreover, even RM said at the AGM that K's priority is Zambia.

Shortly JAY will own 51% of the project and if K will only match JAY they will need to undertake a Placement or source external capital. That external partner is likely to be another partner and you and others have suggested that could be AA.

Unfortunately, 51% leaves no margin for error and if say AA want to help fund drilling thay are likely to want a part of Disko rather than a part of JAY. In this instance how will JAY maintain control of the project. The project is so large that it is unfathomable that JAY will be able to maintain control of the project even in the short term. In this scenario wouldn't JAY rather have a partner who will not just match JAY but will actually prioritise it. You have said many times you expect the terms of the agreement to change, and probably pretty speedily, do you have any ideas of how it would look ? Thank you.

Sorry but you are barking up the wrong tree.

Your knowledge, I guess , is greater than at least 95% of investors on here.

However, despite that knowledge you have lost money on JAY. As Ashton likes to say that is a FACT.

Lets talk about , not knowledge where you're pretty high on the spectrum, the psychology of investing.

You have lost money on JAY , FACT. You will be pretty p1ssed off if JAY proves you wrong. It's human nature.

You want JAY to fail to reinforce your decisions. You wouldn't be human if you didn't.

Fair ?

Dundas was valued at $270m by Hannan & Partners just two years ago.

Your point is a good one but who's going to buy it, especially with the recent grading/driling debacle.

I'm sure they would love to sell it.