Member Info for JDAU

http://www.lse.co.uk/chat-rules.asp

4. While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate; rudeness, swearing, insulting posts, personal attacks, or posts which are invasive of another's privacy.

5.
h. post non-constructive, meaningless, one word (or short) non-sense posts.

As a side note, anything libellous or defamatory is also considered against LSE chat rules as per the “report” function.

Olderandwiser doing a pretty sterling job of demonstrating my issue with multiple posters here, thanks for that.

Of course you can jessell, I’m genuinely interested in people’s views on this.

... and maybe at the same time you’d do me the courtesy of answering this question?

Considering where we stand with alluvial production (improving gold recoveries quarter on quarter) and how far along the hard rock collab project we are (looking to start processing early 2019), at what point will you deem shareholder value to have been created?

LittleWing, why are you (and Jez) now attempting to attack my credibility (again) by suggesting i refused to answer your question because it was a difficult one?

I very specifically answered your question regarding who value was being created for... was that not the “difficult question” you and Jez are referring to?

Believe it or not (it doesn’t really matter to me) I haven’t actually been reporting your posts to get them deleted, although i’m aware that doesn’t suit the agenda you’re trying to push so you’ll most likely think i’m lying.
I’d suggest, as I have before, that if posts are being deleted, it’s due to them breaking LSE posting rules, it’s pretty simple, adhere to the rules (such as not insinuating another poster is somehow dubiously linked to the company) and it’s likely your posts will stay put.

I’m not sure why you’re now on your high horse?
If you’d care to ask your “difficult question” again, I obviously missed it.

Yeah... or just don’t break LSE’s posting rules...

LittleWing, the information is all there in the RNS’s, do the math if you want that figure...
Though I’m not sure it’s relevant to the current subject we’re discussing, we’re talking about shareholder value creation, specifically the hard rock due to start next year.

You realise (or perhaps not) that if it weren’t for contractors moving (+ processing and giving us a cut of the profits) the alluvials we’d have to pay someone else to do it in order to clear the way for our hard rock.

That has been explained several times, via company news releases and by me to you as you seem to keep completely missing the point of our alluvial operations.

You’d probably know that if (once again, surprise surprise) you knew how our operation is structured.

I repeat my previous statement: your understanding of our operations, how they interlink and how that will generate shareholder value is frankly embarrassing.

No Eddie, I post a cogent argument - as you can see, I’ve even provided evidence to back up my statements.

I firmly believe that plenty of the posters currently inhabiting the board and spreading negativity are in fact paid to do so. Why else would they(/you) completely ignore all of the evidence laid before them(/you) and instead opt to slate the company by spreading mistruths?

It’s easy to make a whimsical statement, not so easy to provide a rational argument, I’ve not seen any one of the negatively biased posters able to provide a decent argument / evidence for their statements when challenged.
One poster even tried to lead a “filter him” charge against me when I questioned his valuation, surprise surprise, it was a very minuscule valuation and based on, you guessed it, absolutely nothing other than “well that’s what I think is should be” - completely ignoring any sort of industry standard tools such as a forward looking valuation based on Ebitda.

This sort of behaviour leads me to think that such posters are in fact clueless and only here to, dare I say it, troll.

LittleWing, what are you rambling on about?!

Our agreement with Omnia is that “Any hard rock occurrences that meet the agreed target hurdle rate of return of 25% will be mined and the benefits shared on a 50:50 basis.”
(Ref: http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=sghhkqgd&ArticleHeadline=Manica_Hard_Rock_Collaboration_Agreement )

So let me answer your question: “..operationally successful for who exactly?” With a very simple and pretty obvious answer: XTR.

Your lack of understanding of how the collaboration agreements put in place by Mr Bird will impact XTR’s revenue/cash flow over the coming years is frankly embarrassing.

Nothing about me using the word “we” is unintentional Eddie, it’s not a slip up, I own a part of this company.

Stop trying to insinuate I’m somehow involved with the company in a more intimate way, it’s incorrect, borderline slanderous and frankly a pathetic attempt at ad hominem because you’d rather try to attack my credibility than the credibility of my argument.

We’re not “looking to start something”, we’re several months into an operational plan resulting in us beginning hard rock processing in Q1. We’re still progressing with the alluvials - one company (Sino) was successful and continues to operate demonstrating improved recoveries and subsequently increasing production levels, one was not successful (Moz) and the other (Omnia) has decided it’d rather have a hard rock JV with us (which considering the significant potential for a higher return - I.e creation of shareholder value) I’m hardly seeing the downside.

You’re clearly demonstrating a lack of understanding of what’s progressing here if you can’t see what’s going on around you.

You’re being deliberately obtuse.

Shareholder value is created by operational success.

We are currently demonstrating operational success, shareholder value will follow once the market attributes value to us and our plans, you’re all (wrongly) suggesting that as that value (I.e market valuation) hasn’t been delivered yet that operationally CB isn’t delivering, which clearly isn’t the case.

Is it “jam tomorrow” that our hard rock operation has significantly progressed to the point where we’re looking to start processing Q1 2019? Or that we have a reliable alluvial operator delivering tangible income on board and will be adding more contractors as time passes?

I think you using “jam tomorrow” for things that others might refer to as “the actions by which significant shareholder value will be created” has gotten you a little confused, you seem to be viewing even the most positive actions as negative due to some warped sense of wanting it all to fail.

Eddie, as someone who’s hung around LSE long enough to spot them a mile off, your account reeks of a burner :
http://www.lse.co.uk/member-info.asp?nick=eddie666

Sorry but your 1 post on XTR (also (coincidentally) sticking the boot in) prior to yesterday, doesn’t even slightly convince me you’re a disgruntled shareholder, it reinforces my view that there is a group trying to manipulate sentiment by using multi accounts / dormant accounts.

Do I really have to take the time to write a post... again... to show why you lot are clueless and prove that CB has done a good job here..

It should be painfully obvious by now considering the amount of times we’ve been through this.

- better alluvial terms negotiated : http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=0ohztuh2&ArticleHeadline=Alluvial_Collaboration_Agreement_terms_amended
- tangible gold production :
http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=5iior9rd&ArticleHeadline=Manica_Concession_Alluvial_Gold_Quarterly_Update
http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=52tpsucv&ArticleHeadline=Manica_Concession_Alluvial_Gold_Quarterly_Update
http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=cvxaj1qr&ArticleHeadline=Manica_Concession_Alluvial_Gold_Quarterly_Update
- hard rock collaboration agreement with Omnia : http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=sghhkqgd&ArticleHeadline=Manica_Hard_Rock_Collaboration_Agreement
- progression through a staged plan on said agreement : http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=ruik3to6&ArticleHeadline=Hard_Rock_Collaboration_Agreement_Update
- as a result of this progression we’re now expecting hard rock production Q1 2019
- etc etc.

How can anyone expect to be taken seriously when they post like a) nothing is going on or b) like we’re being kept in the dark?!? The above information completely conflicts with the “group consensus” and in my view, that’s because none of you are interested in the facts (hence why I can’t remember the last time I had an intelligent debate here) you’re just interested in pushing a negative agenda to anyone stupid enough not to research the company and take what is written here as gospel.

What Colin has done is there in black and white ( http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=0ohztuh2&ArticleHeadline=Alluvial_Collaboration_Agreement_terms_amended )
Those RNS’s carry more weight than any of the rubbish you lot post here, even if you “all agree with each other”.

10 people in a group back slapping and repeating to each other that 2+2 = 5 doesn’t make it any more convincing, it just demonstrates how many of you are clueless and clearly lacking in any kind of research or factual basis for your opinions.

So because I speak out against the group of posters who are clearly trying to control the bb and push a negative agenda i’m either part of XTR or CB himself?

You lot are clearly a group of organised bashers, that is (in my opinion) painfully obvious.

I make a point demonstrating how the back slapping negatively themed group posts are wrong by providing evidence that provides said posts incorrect, I get attacked, accused of being an inside trader, part of XTR or CB himself, it happens almost every time - this is ridiculous.

I find it a little too convenient that all of you “experts on XTR” (it’s painful to even write that considering how often I have to correct the “facts” peddled by you lot) are attempting to spread as much doubt here as possible at around about the same time we’re expecting:

A 3 year cash flow plan
Non FB Hard rock starting Q1 2019
Q4 results
Plans on Fairbride to be announced
Further alluvial contractors to be announced
Etc

Forgive me, but it looks an awful lot like the posters currently controlling the bb are attempting to manipulate the market by suggesting no-one knows what’s going on/communication is poor etc. In spite of the info you’re all claiming to be missing being contained in the recent RNS’s regarding; the timelines of current and future operations, plans for equipment etc.

So why is it now, this close to news is there such a stink being kicked up?
You all seem awfully desperate to spread panic about this share before any good news comes out...
...awfully suspect to me.

Once again, for the record, this group does not speak on behalf of “all shareholders” so please stop acting like “we’re all in this together” trying to get rid of CB. We’re not. I personally think you lot are short sighted, unresearched and either misinformed or just plain ignorant of the information contained in company news releases - my view is mainly due to most of you continually demonstrating a very poor grasp of information surrounding the asset / current operations and subsequently not being able to see how CB’s plan will restore value.

You then yell, continually to anyone who’ll listen about how bad this company is.

Anyone who listens to this rubbish needs their head checking..

http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&share=xtract

I wouldn’t say that’s “remaining silent”.

Hard rock operations are still progressing to the timescales we’ve been informed about.
Alluvial processing continues day in, day out.

Gixxer, I’m 100% behind Bird because I think he’s done a good job in bringing us back from the brink and he’s got the alluvials, non FB hard rock, and potentially our jewel asset FB off the ground - with production from alluvials happening right now and production from HR due to start early next year.

That is undeniable operational progression.

Having a dedicated CEO at this time would cost us what, circa £100k+ a year meaning more cash drain and I honestly don’t believe it would bring tangible financial benefit due to our current model of operations.

Let me make my thoughts clear: we are currently (essentially) getting other companies to run the operations, we are funding a small proportion of operations, we are taking a cut for owning the license.

Bird has done/is doing a good job of structuring these deals.

Please explain to me how having a ceo instead of Colin would in any way alter that structure/affect financial performance other than paying someone six figures to sit in an office and watch Colin Bird’s deals bring in the money for XTR?

Colin has put/is purring deals in place whereby other companies do the graft and we profit, it’s really not that hard to comprehend so why is there so much annoyance at his performance?!

I’ll respect your right to have your own opinion but i’d like to know why you think another “more focussed” ceo (as you put it) would do a better job considering how we operate?

Looking forward to your thoughts..

Firstly, let me address something:
“I wonder what planet you are on, you surely have to be linked to the company in some way.”
- ad hominem is not a viable argument, the only link I have to the company is that I own a part of it, please stop insinuating whatever nonsense you’re trying to push in an attempt to discredit me as you suggesting that I’m an inside trader is borderling slanderous.

“Bird said he would have new alluvial contractors ready to start in August - nothing !” - you’re right, we’re still waiting for more contractors to come on board, but anyone with an ounce of business sense might have realised that perhaps we were in the middle of renegotiations with our partner nexus and subsequently might have wanted to iron out the overarching alluvial JV deal before bringing more players on board.

“Bird said he expected a MINIMUM income to XTR of over $300k a month - in reality nothing like that” - that’s clearly because Omnia and Moz both ceased alluvial operations, Omnia in all likelihood will partner with us on the HR instead and we’re likely to get someone in their place to work the alluvials, as far as Moz goes, we know the situation there.

“Bird said he was talking to entities concerning Fairbride and would be able to announce news in late 2017” - news has been announced on several fronts regarding hard rock progression over the past couple of years so I’m not sure what point you’re making.

“The 'loan' to Moz Gold was dubious - having stated he would not risk shareholder cash.”
- it wasn’t dubious, it’s was a speculative business move which could have seen a great benefit had Moz been successful in their operations, they weren’t and subsequently we’ve now got charge on their plant which more than covers the original investment, I fail to see the issue with this as it was basicallly a win-win.

“At the AGM he said he would not pursue the Moz Gold $1m+ debt but now he says he will - what's changed?”
- it’ll come out in the wash

“Bird said he would improve communications - nothing has changed”
- all I can say is that I whole heartedly disagree, Bird is currently pulling together a costings model for a 3 year plan which will no doubt be announced over the coming months, with that plus the information we’ve been provided with on several other fronts I see no issue with communications.

“Bird said he would restore value, the share price is at all time lows, wiping out many investors.”
- Bird hasn’t finished restoring value, show me the RNS which states “ok I’m done now and that’s your lot” and i’d agree with you, but I don’t, we’re at the bottom end of the production curve, have a bit of patience to see if the plan works out - or don’t, it’s very much your prerogative as a shareholder.

I’m sick to the back teeth of you lot whinging here because of impatience or other motives, there is no issue with how Bird has SAVED this company after the Jan debacle and quite frankly I think he’s done a good job of getting us

As to how and why you lot are still banging this drum in spite of all that CB is doing...

You all are acting as though no-one knows what’s going on due to poor management when in fact, it’s pretty easy to understand if you are in fact able to read what the management write, you all just seem determined not to. Are you truly that incapable of understanding operational timelines that due to your impatience (or IMO ulterior motives) that you just throw mud at Colin because it’s not happening quickly enough?

It is absolute nonsense what you’re all writing about being kept in the dark - once again I find myself writing this:
funny how some of us are completely settled in knowing what’s going on here in terms of timings and an understanding of operations whilst others are screaming bloody murder about not being informed, isn’t it?

Here’s a hint, maybe it’s not CB that’s the problem, look a little closer to home.

CB has been absolutely transparent with timescales here, you all should know (if you actually read the news releases) that we’re expecting:

Q4 results in January - as per when we currently get results post the operational quarter
News on non FB hard rock planning and costings around year end
News on FB as to wether or not it is included in any deal made
Pit and process planning underway to commence hard rock mining in the 1st Quarter of 2019
(Ref : http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=cvxaj1qr&ArticleHeadline=Manica_Concession_Alluvial_Gold_Quarterly_Update )
Etc.
And also (just for those of you claiming CB is sat back doing nothing) that we’ve recently had our alluvial contract renegotiated to benefit XTR long term: http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=0ohztuh2&ArticleHeadline=Alluvial_Collaboration_Agreement_terms_amended
And will soon be expecting more contractors to come on board for alluvial processing.

I need to ask a serious question here, do those of you who are clearly unhappy here:
A) actually understand how our operation is structured in terms of XTR having limited risk, (I.e limited capital input) whilst others do the heavy lifting (I.e are the ones paying for and running the operation)
B) understand that even if you replaced CB, exactly the same progression would be being made as a lot of it is down to how fast our partners move? (Due to point A, above)
C) have the ability to see the timelines CB has given us and realise that progression is being made?

Now you’re all talking about going out of your way to drum up negative press for XTR?!

Give me strength...

You seem to lack the understanding that it is in fact the admins (not any individual poster) deleting your posts for violating LSE posting rules.