The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Beware. Going forward, i will be rinse and repeat.
Now Guy has written off any contracts from Covid, he will start to drop hints about involvement with Digital ID. That will give him another two years or more of vague statements about potential that will bring the rampers back along again.
They have been doing it since the Milestine days, as several of us have been telling people for years. Unfortunately two or three posters who know the truth and have done their research will always be shouted down by the rampers.
I assume cesp, who only yesterday was plugging today's RNS as a milestone, will not be posting today?
I think the desired objective is purely financial - either a partner coming in with the finance to develope the mine, or an outright sale.
It is clear now that COIDIC are totally out of the picture, so we are back to square one really as regards a development partner. However I still feel there is something going on in the background that AT cannot talk about.
Personally I still think we need to get Glencore out of the picture completely. That to my mind is the only way this project will move forward.
I'm not at all sure that whatever is going on in the background is going to be the blockbuster conclusion we are all hoping for.
As an Africa-based poster told us all a few months ago, COIDIC are in disarray and virtually out of the picture. For some reason China do not want Zanaga on top of Simandou, possibly because of Glencore's presence. BHP just sold their interest in a coal mine to Glencore - a share they could easily have swapped for Glencore's share of Zanaga if there was Oz interest in Zanaga. Also nothing is happening infrastructure-wise inside the country despite all the talk over the past few years.
So, to my mind, that rules out an imminent sale to China or Oz, and any near term progress on development.
Having said all that, there has to be a reason for AT's silence. Whether we will find out in tomorrow's update we will see!
Cesp. I wasn't talking about company propaganda.
I was asking why any government body or large organisation would use an untested app from a company like CTEA with no contracts or income over a government approved international accepted vaccine passport already used successfully by millions.
Please tell me because I am more than curious.
Nobody WANTS to have to use a covid passport app, and I very much doubt that small orgaisations like badminton clubs will be forced to use one anyway. But if they were, they will not contract/pay CTEA. They will just ask everyone to show their vaccine proof on the NHS app.
"vaccine passports are a solution even if many do not like it."
Cesp. Please explain what this has to do with CTEA in light of the NHS app, which is already an internationally and domestically approved vaccine passport.
"Well you think that the NHS app is the answer. Now thats a laugh."
Of course the NHS app is the answer. It works and is already in current use. It does not need blockchain. It allows you to print out your vaccine proof too. Nobody anywhere will insist on anyone only using an app - paper will still be (and is) accepted.
Just remember - nobody wants to have to use this app, but will use it if they have to. As a result it doesn't have to be the best app around. It just needs to work, and be government approved. Which the NHS app is.
A totally untested app like the CTEA app will never get approval without a full and significant trial - and its too late for that now.
Haven't any of the over optimistic dreamers on here heard of the NHS App?
Vaccination confirmation on the app within an hour from which a QR Code can be generated, or a pdf to print out. App already used by millions, and is fully tested. Ready for Euro 2021, which starts in a few days. Also authorised for all international travel. Blockchain not requested or needed.
Can someone explain why the untested CTEA app will be needed?
Woodstock. It doesn't need an RNS.
They were never in negotiations with the government, and they never issued any RNS to that effect.
All they said in an RNS was that they had contributed to a government discussion about Digital ID - which has nothing to do with Covid in any way. And they were not even invited to contribute - anyone could have.
Rampers on this board transposed that into being invited to contribute to government negotiations to produce a vaccine app!
"We need to know if the company is still in negotiations with the British government. Obviously a delicate subject."
Woodstock - they never were in negotiations with the British government - and never claimed that they were. That was just another example of the many exaggerated claims made on this board based on speculation rather than evidence.
" What matters is that NPH and BHA use their blockchain technology to securely record the data and submit it to the NHS"
...but they don't, and nobody uses the CTEA blockchain technology - because it is totally unnecesary for a vaccine passort.
"Our products can b used for a wide range of things and the world is heading towards everything being digital."
Agreed.
"We are in a good place to capitalise."
Why?
The NHS app works just fine as a vaccine pasport. I've had both my jabs, and the second jab showed up within an hour. There was never any need for blockchain, which everyone was touting as being the big advantage CTEA had.
Not one vaccine passport app, either domestic or for international travel, is using blockchain. There is just no need for it on something as simple as test results or vaccine status, especially when paper versions are also accepted everywhere. Not everybody (shock) has a smart phone.
The contributors on here who posted many times that CTEA were involved with the government in developing the app should be ashamed of themselves. There was never any evidence of that at all. And they weren't.
"Oh just being on government task force to create a digital passport - you know that little thing"
Natham - That again is totally incorrect. Read the 22/2/21 RNS - they were invited to participate in the development of a Digital Identity Policy.
A Digital Identity Policy has nothing to do with a Digital Vaccine Passport. And dozens of organisations were invited to contribute, as is normal when the government embarks on something the UK has not seen before, and which will take several years to implement and pass into law.
How about linking to something that backs up your constant claims that CTEA is involved with the NHS app.
"The UK government pays CTEA a large consultancy contract"
Natham. That is either blatent ramping or total wishful thinking.
You have no evidence that CTEA has been involved at any stage or in any form with the NHS app.
"After 10 years a little more effort is required."
Mullitover. What Stok no doubt meant is that more effort is required to communicate with shareholders. Which Zioc, Elphick, AT etc have failed miserably to do this past 6 months after a decent track record in investor relations in past years.
I think the pertinant question is why AT has not been responding to emails etc this past three months or more.
He has never done that before, so he must have instructions from above not to respond. He cannot say anything that would be price sensitive of course, but maybe anything he says at this time would be price sensitive. So he has been told to say nothing.
If there truly has been no progress this year, AT would have seen out the most recent lockdown here in the UK. Instead he has apparently been in Dubai and New York. There must be a reason for that in my view. Just as there must be a reason for his total silence with shareholders.
I do agree with Sooty though - it is frustrating and very poor investor relations. But then I don't think we are considered in any way important by Glencore or Elphick.
"There's a smaller procedural/admin issue that remains unaddressed AFAIAA : the 2020 element of ZIOC 'team's Retention Fee package. Retention Fee Package
...This consists of an additional amount (the "Retention Fee") to be determined on a one-off basis in both October 2019 and December 2020. .."
The 2020 amounts haven't been disclosed. When I asked AT about this a while back, he replied that they were 'too busy with other things' - which seemed just about believable at the time.
This may be a hobby-horse of mine - and I may be kidding myself (confirmation bias anyone ?) - but THAT argument doesn't hold any longer, if it ever did."
I think it is a really important point. I was encouraged in 2020 by this incentive scheme as it meant, or so I thought, that AT etc would have some skin in the game instead of just drawing a salary. I am always biased against an AIM company where the staff are on a salary - where is the incentive for them to sell? They would just lose their job. (KP2 is an example of this).
It is strange this scheme has never been updated as regards shareholder info, and I applaud Extrader for bringing it up with AT.
The whole scheme though seems shrouded in mystery. For example I have no idea who, apart from AT, is a part of it. In fact I have no idea who, apart from AT, actually works (draws a salary) for ZIOC or Jumelles!
This is very unusual as regards AT. So unusual in fact, there just has to be a reason.
Whereas I cannot recall hearing anything from anyone else connected to ZIOC, apart from AT and Elphick's standard chairman RNS comments, AT has always been very responsive to direct shareholder contact.
The silence this year has indeed been so deafening there just has to be something going on behind the scenes. Whether that will benefit us shareholders or not remains to be seen.
As regards the share incentive scheme, I know Extrader has asked several times when those figures will be released and updated, but we are still in the dark.
I think it is more of a technical change in that the composition of the board had to be changed "n order to meet UK corporate governance independence expectations".
He will still be involved with GEM as a consultant.
It would be interesting to know what his actual role is at ZIOC though. Just as it would be interesting to know what anyone does at ZIOC apart from AT!