Member Info for smickster

Delist from the Tsx June 2025

Purchase of 157m shares Marcg 2025

Exactly Medi, they are part of the same team.

Dv was there before he took the reins

What about future incentives promised to the board?

Rich, they are probably going to all benefit on the long run.

Nothing stopping jcc bringing bhp in on the regional in the future.

Nothing would suprise me at this point

Rt, is it more likely to fail on the amount of voters ?

Is there anyway to calculate similar scenarios?

It's not like Scott and Co have previous.

Cheap entry for jcc

No dfs

Future incentives for board member on top of free shares already issued.

Mathers, I'm clear on what I'm voting for and why.

I will vote against as this massively under values our prospect and as of yet our board have yet to give clear reasons why they accepted.

I think if you use terms like " voices drowned out" you should at least explain your position.

I shall leave the decent folk here to draw heir own conclusions.

Will you be voting for?

MF I don't deny it can go that way just think we should be careful how things are worded.

Will it have an overall effect on the outcome, probably not.

However I'd rather not leave that to chance and make sure others don't by any means possible.

Will you be voting?

The biggest threat to jcc is a sharholder revolt in the form of a NO vote by over 50% of the voters.

It does not guarantee a win but should be used wisely and understanding the potential downfall from such a vote.

Our voices will be drowned out, court rules on facts not share holder value or feelings"

This is trying to convince people that a vote is pointless.

You can't see that then there is no point discussing further.

People be aware..... far from over.

Not guessing it's based on the the top 20 shareholders owing a large amount of shares.

If the vote was based on holding alone fine.

Buts it's not so retail and small investors won't be drowned out( not necessarily win) .

Let them have their vote

My opinion is you are trying to persuade people not to vote.

You won't change my view on that

Due to the number of holders not the overall shares held.

10% holding an average of 250,000 would equate to 1200 shareholders.

If 60% of them vote no it's by no means over and certainly not drowned out as you put it.

At one stage it was suggested small investors held upto 40% and I'm guessing still well over 10%.

Most importantly the 10% left holding are the ones who are most likely to vote NO..... that's my opinion.

Your opinion based on what?

Do you have access to the share register?

Even if retail held 10% it would not be drowned out.

"our voices will be drowned out, court rules on facts not share holder value or feelings"

This is not a fact and trying to convince people others wise should be challenged.

People have the option to vote and should.

This is not true and retail still hold some power due to the 50%+1 of shareholders needing to vote in favour.

If 50% +50( estimate) retail vote no then the deal gets rejected.

Retail may be reduced but still a significant amount prepared to fight. Not sure why you would want to convince others to accept when the whole point of the vote is to make your voice heard. If it goes through so be it.

"There is a lot of pi’s who have sold up or reduced their exposure, so pi’s strength in opposition is greatly reduced, our voices will be drowned out, court rules on facts not share holder value or feelings

We are bystanders now that’s my opinion to this scenario, it would seem absolutely crazy no counter bid would come but we can only hope."

Looks about right Bevo

IP let's hope so, otherwise it's a big fat no from me on the vote.

MF south American drug lords have more morals than a lot of the posters on lse.