Member Info for JerseyCrew

Thanks Folio - that's a useful reminder as to the potential in the background once the ship is steady and we can build the head of steam!

Hi Zan - I have to admit that I am not close enough to the Vim potential to be able to add any value on that score. I guess it would come down to whether or not it needed drilling - if it did I doubt they had that luxury of exploration spend.

I doubt that the RNS cost would be a factor - I think they are circa £250 but they would need signing off of course. As for PR - that is certainly a luxury I would suggest but one that I hope they can afford at some point going forward = that would be marvellous.

Your point around transparency is again an interesting one and of course as shareholders we tend to see the topic through a narrow optic and we want constantly want updated info. Of course if we try and put ourselves into Robbie's shoes he has a multitude of stakeholders - work force / suppliers / regulatory bodies (not just the FCA - local government / mining ministry / health and safety etc etc- these all need to be kept on side - can you imagine his working day without a large team around him - shareholders probably have little idea as to what it takes to run a company like this day to day. So in terms of total transparency at all time I suspect he has been walking a tightrope - its one thing us shareholders venting on a chat board but things get really serious if your suppliers pull the plug on providing terms for expendables.

I keep returning to a fact that is often overlooked - Robbie has a shed load of personal investment here - more so than most CEOs and frankly as GCAT is his baby I think his commitment runs deeper than a large financial number -I think it extends to reputation and pride - 2 equally good motivators for a businessman to do what it takes to make this a success.

Just my Tuesday evening musings.

ATB

Hi Zan - thanks for your post - great to have some meaningful thoughts on the matter.

I'm with you fully on the accounts issue and I think you have nailed it in that it was a financial (cost) issue. They have bolstered the team recently but when I say team, I suspect that we have had one or two people on this at best - again a cost / resource issue. Is it good - no - can it be explained - I think so - lack of cash which has been prioritised in keeping production underway and repairing infrastructure which has been worked hard to keep production going - albeit production at less than planned for volumes.

I think your comment on lack of openness is a really interesting one and can probably be seen from 2 sides - has Robbie been clear and transparent - I personally think that in the past we would almost accuse Robbie of being too transparent but too early along with it and many of the aspirations that he was expressing were in retrospect probably best kept to himself until contracts were signed. I think the recent radio silence is probably as a consequence of the new chair reigning back comms and saying that we will only announce when their are firm details to announce. That can be extended to the audit as well where the company are in the hands of an external company and frankly therefore are not in full control of the process. Now I understand that we can create scenarios to explain all of this but your point is well made that silence leads to lack of trust.

In terms of the HL Im not sure what the point is - wasn't it covered in the revised mining plan in October's RNS:

- The Phase 1 mining plan has 2,427,279t of ore mined over the 36 month period at an average grade of 1.06g/t. 529,756t at an average grade of 1.8g/t are processed through the Milling/CIL plant with 1,897,524t at an average grade of 0.86g/t processed by the Heap Leach plant. The plan assumes a 75% recovery by the Milling/CIL plant for 23,002oz recovered and a 50% recovery through the Heap Leach plant for a total of 26,153oz recovered. Combined Milling/CIL and Heap Leach production over the 36 months is 49,155oz.

I can only assume on response to your point on Vim will come back to cost - at the moment I suspect they are going for the most cost effective route to producing gold until they have sufficient funds to increase production.

Lets hope all the questions are answered in the coming weeks. All of the above might sound like ramping from me - its not - but I am hopeful!

ATB

As stated I have filtered Bebeto but it seems he is talking about the underground mining and you are correct Folio - this was shut down some time ago. Underground mining is the most expensive sort of mining - I think I am correct in saying that that they are open pit mining above the former underground mine - essentially working downwards through the hill rather than horizontally into it. There are lots of ways to skin this Caracal cat.

People need to relax and wait for the accounts and news. Its that simple. Lets debate and pontificate with the facts. Anyone posting false information in the meantime - you will get what you deserve on this board - exposure and corrections.

I don't see the bears posts but why the sudden noise I wonder when we are so close to getting the accounts and forward looking news?

Could it be that they know we are just about to come out of suspension and want to plant doubt and fear in the hope that everyone sells on the resubmission? I am struggling to think about another reason at the moment given we are currently suspended. Maybe they want to drive the SP down on opening to pick up shares as they actually see good potential here?

Just a thought.

Clearly there is money to be made and lost in short term trading here at the moment.

Lots of posts about whether the SP should be X, Y or Z at the moment.

At the moment without firm resource numbers it is impossible for any kind of accurate figure to be applied at the moment and even then without a firm costing plan / timeline and funding explanation any figure would be guesswork.

So at the moment we have an SP which is partly driven by sentiment for potential but more over driven by traders looking to make short term gains.

Lets just see the current movements in the SP for what they are.

The evolving news story will reveal all of course but it all takes time.

And relax

Haha - green filter equals bear poked

Ok - that's me being a little childish I admit.

Watch for the next post now!

If someone is accusing you are flapping - err no.

Oh dear we are going to sound like a tag team if we are not careful - I'll put it out there before someone else does!

Definition of flap in this context - to be agitated or panicky.

Having read you post carefully Hodgeyd, I am delighted to say that I find no evidence of you either being agitated (not even with the poster - well done!) or panicky.

Why is it when posters can not make their point in a logical, fact based way they resort to play ground insults? Some people find it difficult to grow up Into mature adults.

Thanks Hodgeyd - we can but try and help.

Having filtered Bebeto some time ago, I have a little more time at the moment to respond to itsyou as he or she isn't being overly rude but they are showing themselves to have a basic lack of knowledge in financial accounting and when they state numbers as facts when they are not, this requires addressing. If they continue to misrepresent company financial information then it will require addressing by the moderators I would suggest.

I fear that we have a person with limited financial understanding at a company level and whilst that would apply to many investors here, the dangerous posters are those that think they are familiar and knowledgable and then apply their limited understanding out of context and sometimes just incorrectly.

I really don't think itsyou is being intentionally incorrect - I just think its a lack of understanding as evidenced by his or her references to liabilities for example.

I do think though that he or she is being intentionally deflective in not answering very basic questions and in that, my continued patience in trying to respond and to correct false or misleading statements is being sorely tried at the moment.

ScarletVixen - this is an exploration company - funding is always required, both in the exploration phase and the infrastructure development phase. How much and how it is funded is the unknown at the moment but that is absolutely normal at this stage of natural resource extraction life cycle.

Zan - absolutely - of course its a double edged sword as POG can go down but given the previously stated plan worked with POG at 1700, we had good wide margins at that stage.

For balance we know (strongly suspect) that this plan was never actioned and we should get the full story over the coming weeks.

The underlying point you make about POG though is spot on and many commentators are forecasting more rises to come. The fundamentals behind those claims are hard to ignore when we have the global tensions and the US debt increasing at a rate of 1 trillion dollars every 100 days if the commentators are correct. That is not a sustainable situation and something has to give - I subscribe to the thought that the Fed has to start cutting rates and we might already be starting to see that flight to safety reflected in recent POG increases but moreover it seems that China's central bank is leading the charge with their purchases - all for a reason.

Interesting times - not great for the world but probably good for gold and gold miners have some catching up to do then - again commentators are saying their gains might outstrip POG increases 3 fold - lets see.

Oh dear - my attention to detail is slipping this morning - I don't think I could have been more specific (not less)

More coffee required - it might be another one of those days it seems

Defected? Haha - deflected

Itsyou.

You seem to struggle with not only financial accounting but some words in the English dictionary.

Definition of waffle: tospeak or write at length in a vague or trivial manner.

So once again you have defected - I wrote at length but I don't think that I could have been less specific or trivial. What specific elements of my post were vague or trivial?

I see that yet again you have ignored the 4 questions put to you - maybe you didn't read my post properly again.

Here they are yet again:

Outstanding questions for itsyou:

- please explain the relevance of your financial ratio of market capitalisation to total liability number in this scenario

- you say that you have explained basics of mining of mining to me - what have you explained to me?

- what advice are you giving here please?

- the new question - what are others trying to hide here.

So - are you going to continue to deflect or answer very basic and straight forward questions?

I have tried to give you advice at the end of my post which you seem to have ignored.

You quote massive liabilities of £15.5M as if this was all debt as you then talk about high interest rates in the next breath and then you state it as fact.

Itsyou - you need to be very honest with yourself at this point but what do you know about financial accounting? Do you think that the word liability in a balance sheet automatically means its a loan? Have you looked at the component parts of the balance sheet and do you know how these can impact on the day to day cashflow and P&L? I pointed you in the direction of hidden assets which is particularly relevant in the mining sector - have you done this yet?

Has the company got debt? Of course its got debt - that is not being hidden. Is the debt coming at a financial cost? Of course it is - all commercial debt comes at a financial cost.

When you get your numbers correct though please make your point so we can all understand. If you want help and want to enter into some sensible debate on possible scenarios perhaps ask some questions and then you might get some better traction here. That's the best part about these forums - when used properly all of us learn from them and I very much include myself in the pupil category.

Itsyou.

Let me remind you of the line out of your first post that I responded to - quote -

You must also include the current Liabilities, which was showing as £15.5m at the Interims.

Yes it was crystal clear - clearly factually incorrect. I pointed this out and even suggested you reread your post allowing you the opportunity - not once but twice. Your post needed a response because you were stating an incorrect current liability figure and yet you claim your response didn't need a reply. I differ in opinion. Stating basic financial errors needed a response in my view otherwise readers might take your post at face value. You were incorrect. Fact.

You say I missed a point about money owed - again incorrect - please see my second bullet point - quote:

- read and try to understand the forthcoming accounts

I am beginning to think that you don't really understand financial accounting and at the risk of sounding condescending, the expression I used about forthcoming accounts is a general term to cover the constituent parts of the balance sheet and P&L - it's an overarching expression that includes liabilities by definition.

As for trying to discredit you - I was trying to correct you. You got it wrong.

As for your comment about trying to hide all the facts - you have a tendency to use over arching expressions to mask a complete lack of substance - please highlight the facts that many here are seeking to hide. Lets add that to the list of following questions which once again you have completely ignored:

Outstanding questions for itsyou:

- please explain the relevance of your financial ratio of market capitalisation to total liability number in this scenario

- you say that you have explained basics of mining of mining to me - what have you explained to me?

- what advice are you giving here please?

- the new question - what are others trying to hide here.

So - are you going to continue to deflect or answer very basic and straight forward questions?

Finally let me end on a positive note - we agree on your final sentence - everyone should understand all the positives and negatives. That is what I was trying to highlight in my list of considerations - you will note that I didn't attribute a positive or negative connotation to any one topic with the possible exception of my comment to undervalued miners - that was an industry sector comment though and not a company specific comment.

My final comments in my previous post were:

Dead horse? Decide for yourselves. Personally I think we have our own Bob Champion and Aldaniti story potential right here.

So - a clear message from me of decide for yourselves. I followed with my personal view and even caveated that with the word potential.

My clear advice to you itsyou.

1. Read posts carefully - don't just scan read and draw an instant conclusion. I try and chose my words carefully to give a balanced view.

2. Attention to detail - make sure that you are posting factual

If Bebeto is trying to be rude to me then he is going to have to try really really hard - I filtered him some time ago. I might be using that button again shortly after todays fun and games. What I would really like is if the filter button worked both ways - that when you filtered someone then they couldn't see your posts either. Surely they should like that as well?

Itsyou - I can certainly see why you would think my post has an element of a condescending tone - but even in giving you a clue whilst be a tad condescending, you haven't answered my question about the ratio of Total Liabilities to Market Capitalisation and what your financial assessment of this ratio is. You raised the point - I am just seeking to understand. I still am.

You quoted the CA figure incorrectly.

You gave half of the components of the definition of MC

You claim to have been teaching me basic of mining - when challenged what these are. you go silent.

You deflect from questions where you realise that you have got it wrong or just don't sufficient to explain your points and put words in my mouth that simply are not there. You deflect and simply show a lack depth in your postings whilst masking by saying things are basic.

If you go back and read my post yesterday I have gave a whole list of things that people should be looking out for. Just how much more balance do you want? I told people to think carefully. Your threshold for what constitutes ramping in my view needs recalibration.

I understand that you are disappointed with any aspects of the company and the history, whether by its own making or whether the rug was pulled out. Guess what - no one is happy with the current position - I suspect that Robbie is not happy with the current situation.

So heres the nub of it - when the shares come out of suspension you and others have a choice - buy, sell or hold,. Simple. My posts have been trying to highlight some of the considerations that you should factor in, in making that decision.

Your post in response was that was bad advice.

OK - spell out in simple terms what is your advice is if you think taking a considered view is bad advice.

I suspect you will not answer a straight question as you haven't answered a straight question yet today but if you want to share your advice here then of course it would be interesting to hear.

As a final comment - am I optimistic and positive about the potential here? Yes - but that is my very own personal view of course and I am looking forward to reading and learning from the further updates. This is not advice -it is my view at the moment.

To be clear for any posters who can pick an argument with their shadow- the fact is the price. It’s my opinion that it’s good.

2184 as I type.

In my view that is a good thing for gold miners.

Not ramping. Fact.