Member Info for Zan_TM

@Watcher. I was, although looking back it was scary how aweful I was and how little I knew. So many of my investments were brought on the back of things like "a mate just brought". I honestly don't know how I didn't lose everything lol.

Market crashes happen, so do market bull runs. Always have. Its part of the investment cycle to me. The world didn't end, no matter who caused what and some very profitable years followed too, as is the case after market crashes.

If I had sold up everything, moved to a field in the middle of nowhere and never reinvested anything after 2008, I would have missed a great bull run.

So swings and roundabouts to me. That doesn't mean I don't buy in and out of shares, of course I do. I've been investing long enough to know there are up and down periods and I prefer to be out before a down, but of course that's easier said than done and not always timed right.

If your arguement was "hey, I see further downside coming before next leg up", I would get it. But it doesn't appear to be that. It appears to be, whole thing will crash and never return, which I don't believe and no matter how many times someone writes "fact" or "awake" or "truth" within a statement, I'm still not likely to believe.

I've said before and will say again, your views I respect, but it never feels like you respect others sometimes Watcher. I really struggle to understand why you feel the need to force them onto a GCAT lse chat? At times, its just so random, and I mean that as respectfully as I can.

Your whats coming next thing, isnt a fact, its a belief, no one on this planet can claim fact for anything which hasn't yet occurred, and adding your belief as an ending statement does you a diservice imo mate.

No one wants to be like that drunk dude in the pub who just wont leave you alone even though you have repeatedly told them your not interested.

Smellaine,

It is true to say the world has always been nie and every generation has always had its promoters of the end being near, be that financial or environmental or diaster related. Needless to say every time they have been proven wrong, but one day they will of course be right.

Within each of those generations, everyone had facts to prove they were right, and so probability wise, not heeding the advice, at least historically, would have proven the best financial result.

In terms of delisting, I'm not sure I would agree that they aren't gaining from being listed.

Yes as it stands today the wider markets (not just TGR) have suffered massively since those end of 2021 highs, but often is the case that business owners and large/high wealth individuals take a longer term view.

It has been known since its inception that markets go up and down over periods and thus also accepted as a norm. Did the main backers of other large companies try to delist during a down period? Or did they just ride it out? I don't have the stats but I would feel pretty confident most rode it out.

If they were to find a way and means to delist, this would not only have knock on effects for any required equity raises or potential capital investments, it would also remove their potentially massive gain from any SP uplift that might occur within the next 10 years.

As shareholders maximum value for them wouldn't be to delist in a poor market but rather to continue with their plans and sell their shares when the market is inflated and a lot of their aims have been achieved. If they hit there 400k, 8% 2030 target (yes very ambitious I know), then their shares could potentially be worth billions, not just several million. Alternatively, they might just enjoy a very handsome dividend kicker and not plan to sell at all, keeping the asset as a great family wealth creator.

Naturally, when one entity holds a large % (personally or via third party but self owned companies) it is always slightly concerning as power balances may seem skewed to their favour, but truth is that's not really much different from most other companies. Even ones where the majority of shares are held in public hands, usually result in AGM resolutions getting passed by 95% plus present votes. The fact is as a public investor, we are only ever really piggy backing on someone elses journey, but it can still work out well for us.

Your question however is of course valid, in that could they? To delist I think, but don't quote me, they would need above 75% agm, egm resolution approval. As it stands they don't control that much of the company, but lets picture they did and passed a resolution to delist, you would still own your shares, just you would now own a stake of a private company, not public. Unless they made you an offer and brought you out, your still a shareholder. Now you might be forced (but not hostile) to sell, but that can only happen if a really high number, can't remember figure but your talking 90% ish, voted and passed a forced sale of the remain 10% holders. Thats a lot of work for the Poddars to do to get to 90% ownership.

There is other ways and means i.e., create company (might be already created) and make a bid on TGR, which would then need shareholder approval or increasing stakes so they go over certain % thresholds which require them to make an offer etc, but again, I can't see that being the best option right now for them.

As a secondary note, the plots on their website are all still listed under the previous owner (Tyacks) with some active and others expired or pending renewal (think 3 plots are pending renewal but don't quote me). I would hunch at the pending renewal plots to be the ones GCAT tweeted about last week which they are awaiting mining license approvals on, but you can't rule out the currently (Tyacks) active ones not getting updated either as most expire in 2025.

I should add, on the mining commision website there is a great little interactive map which shows plots and statuses etc.

@Watcher, In answer to your question about mining licenses/permits etc. Tanzania has the Ministry of Minerals (which covers all areas) along with the Mining Commission. The firsts website can be found via google but is basically madini. Go . Tz and the 2nd one is the same but with tune madini before all the dotted part.

On the 2nd one you can download per financial year a list of granted license etc.

There is also lots of other info on there.

As a wider note, not just GCAT related license are often held under subsiderarys with different names by companies (which is how they allow stakes to be taken by countries where they are based etc). This isnt always the case, but worth noting whenever you search that your looking for the correct name.

On other stocks I've seen many a concerned investor because they were searching for a 100% like for like name on the permit and couldn't find it, then panicked, when actually all was well.

Hopefully that helps.

Not a problem Watcher and a decent reply if I may add.

Your response confirms to me my original thought point of view of, different view points should be welcomed, not cancelled, as after a little discussion you have highlighted your posts come from a place of concern for others and nothing else. So a kind action, which maybe had just not been presented in the best way possible, but still well intended none the less.

End of the day, in todays world, it is easy to jump to attack instead of taking the harder route of listening or just passing on by. But echo chambers are never a good thing imo. If 100 people in a room all think the same, they become blinded to reality by a constant state of re-affirment.

I strongly feel you learn the most from others with a different viewpoint, not always because they are right, but because if you question, you start and increase your research more in that subject, even if its just to prove them wrong (or in turn find out your wrong).

A great example would be Legal on here. As qn investor, we march to different drums, but their posts challenge my thoughts and thus have proved really useful to me.

I'm now guilty of off topicing myself lol, but I'm sure anyone not interested can just scroll on by.

What do you think of the Tanz JV talk bebeto? I appreciate little detail is out there yet other than RM saying the talk is of a partner taking it over and us retaining some value i.e., via % percent share or royalties etc.

If you top of your headed it, what sort of % you think we might keep, given they will need 15/25 mil to get it going.

Tough call, on the one hand Watcher, it does feel like your trying to push an agenda on a group which feel its totally unrelated to the point and purpose of this board (maybe ironically doing what you dislike aka trying to force others to think like you), while on the hand, I do believe you believe all of the stuff you post and thus, as it would affect financial markets if it was/came true that is the connecting dot to here and GCAT I guess, in the sense that an investmemt here might get affected, for better or worse.

Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses right, although every action has a re-action and from previous posts I do recall you weren't happy with how the world/people you had met treated you because of your views, but its possible its because you were trying to force them unto a group who weren't interested is it not? If you give it, your going to have to take it comes to mind. If you stopped posting unrelated stuff, maybe you would get less stick?

I think generally, it would appear that posters on here would prefer to stick to stuff more directly related to GCAT, but just like those witnesses that knock on your door, you can't stop others from pushing what they want to push and instead of different parties knocking each other, would it not be more sensible to leave Watcher be and just ignore the off topic rant posts completely until they realise no one is interested in that part. That way Watcher gets to vent freely and get things of their chest and everyone else gets to carry on discussing real GCAT stuff?

@Legal,

Indeed I do agree in that a part of the low SP is due to the CEO's previous mistakes. I don't think we could claim all of the drop is purely that, as the wider market also comes into play with small caps imo. Unless transformational news dropped, most have suffered a retrace above 50% from 2021 ish price, with many at 75% plus, but I think that the word has less trust to it now, and thus, until the news actually lands there is always a pinch of salt to the "coming soon" talk.

But my wider point to yourself was more, at what point do you move on from the past and decide you can now trust his word? And is that even possible for you? If not, given the importance placed on trust by yourself, is GCAT ever going to be investible for you and if so, what would need to happen to make it so?

@LW. Aren't all investments into mining small caps into the CEO's ability in main? I can't think of one mining small cap where the assest would ensure the company stays afloat or suceeds if the CEO wasn't capable.

It's by and large how one small cap picks up another small caps assets on the cheap i.e., buys a plot with potential million plus Oz off another company for under a 100k. If it was only ever the asset which counted, those deals wouldn't happen. They happen due to one CEO not being able for one reason or another to make a success of their project.

Now I get that is your point, in that with GCAT its success or failure will be down to Robbie. But the manner of your post does read as though that is some sort of exception to the norm, like it's a negative, when in fact it is the norm and business as usual.

Naturally, if you don't believe a CEO can or will take your company to greatness, then why would you invest? I can't see any senerio where an investor would say, "this CEO should ruin the company and take it into admin so let me whack a load of my well earnt cash into it".

That leads on to my next question, if you don't believe and don't want to invest, what would some one want out of GCAT? CEO change first? List of actions done to restore faith in CEO?

I'm not fully convinced all investors want to see it, but do agree that for large investors and funders its key. PR and presenting the right corporate apperance is vital to larger institusions, even if the truth is usually mis-placed somewhat or greenwashed.

Personally I'd much rather GCAT had and did decent ESG work than didn't. It might not much fun or SP raising news, but it is a vital piece in the puzzle of any company these days.

A step in the right direction to me.

@LW,

I prob didn't write it clearly over you not understanding it.

My attempted point was in the past, evidence would suggest RM lied to us shareholders, which was a mistake imo. I've mentioned this before on here, however, I don't have to trust fully my CEO to be fine holding a stock. I buy stocks with one aim, to make money. A used car salesman can lie all day long but often due to the gift of the gab will make more money than an honest salesman.

I genuinely think most CEOs lie, just some pull it off better than others, however, I also understand that for some, they need to feel 100% trust in their CEO to be invested. Now I can't see how RM could ever win that back so maybe they are just like Scully from the X files, in that they want to believe, so hang on in, I dont know.

So in terms of the future, yes, I do think there is more to look forward to than not. Will RM lie again? If he needs to, then I think he would, but that doesn't mean the future can't be bright.

And that's my point . RM can learn that lieing has had a negative effect on the SP and thus try to be more upfront with shareholders about the good, bad and ugly, but also still hide the ugly at times and still make the company do well.

The April presentation showed they hadn't fully changed there spots. But for the CEO is it not a balancing act of trying to keep interest in the company going while trying to get there.

Aka Fake it till you make it.

And as long as they make it. Hand on heart I don't care.

Moving away from the name calling, I personally enjoy seeing the tweets. I def don't base my investment decisions on them, as they aren't ever really that fundemental to me, but all the same, I still like to see things. Who fixed the mill and how many hours they worked over a weekend doesn't change anything as such, but again, having been in radio silence companies, I prefer one which puts something out there.

My own rule of thumb is if it aint in an RNS its not mega news. Same applies for interviews. I pinch of salt them. Even RNS's can be iffy as all it takes is some added small wording and it becomes a "potential" RNS detail over a "confirmed" one.

Maybe against the grain here but the OCIM funding thing, I'm not overly sure how much RM did wrong? I'm fairly certain the original RNS stated it was conditional and having been in other companies where funding had conditions, there CEOs all dealt with the news like RM did. I don't feel mislead at all on that issue.

Where RM did mislead for me was not telling us about those June ish CLNs. That was really poor play imo. The fact we couldn't pay them back and will cost us a decent amount to pay back means for me, RM really should have reported that to the market.

Likewise, carrying on the 24k spin right up until near the end of Nov ish was poor play. To have hit that 2k per month target they would have had to have nearly finished all the required work, but they had been on hold for months, so doing interviews as RM did, still pushing the were on course line was a clear lie to us.

Thats in the past though and that cant be changed. The main question then going forwars is have they learnt from that? Have those mistakes been amended so that they aren't repeated and in that sense the company has improved and has a brighter future? For me, I'd say 75% learn't, so not to bad, but some room for improvement still.

The April presentation showing funding drawn down, 24k capacity hit, vim rutha MRE, Tanz MRE, Killi MRE upgrade but dec this year, was still a bit GCAT of old as to hit all that they needed funding in and they must have known it would take time.

Minus that though, the rest seems a lot better to me and those targets haven't really changed, just the timeline has.

Delays in mining happen. Almost every mining company Ive ever owned over the years had its delays and issues at points.

For me, the future still looks promising. More hurdles to come, but thats to be expected.

Folio, Ive seen you create new topics with just a dot before. Is there a hidden meaning behind it Im missing mate?

Suffer a fool gladly please

When it comes to what a trade shows as, it is just how LSE reports stuff. The system isn't trying to make you think anything and its nothing to do with Market Makers.

ALL trades are both a buy and a sell as you can't do either without the other.

If you have lvl 2 you will know what I mean when I say trades arent reported like LSE or most places show them. To simplify, picture it like they go into a big pot. Then they get matched to someone else who wants.

LSE uses a mid price between the buy and sell (bid, ask etc). If the trade falls towards one side more it reports it as that, but truth is, its just a best guess way of trying to show the momentum.

Buys and sells on LSE and elsewhere are just an algo, thats all.

So if your buy shows as a sell or your sell shows as a buy, its not some trick.

I might not have explained to well, but hopefully that made some sense. Im sure others can put it better.

Dale, this forum isn't here to cheer up employees. I don't own any stocks to cheer up employees either and I suspect they don't look to me or expect me to cheer them up either.

Its the companies job to manage its staff in all the ways a company should, be that salary wise and motivation wise.

Having worked at large shareholder owned companies myself in the past, I can honestly say what people posted on the LSE BB about those companies made zero difference to me. What made a difference having leadership that invested into me, bonuses, pay rises, collegues who I got along with.

This place is to discuss point of views, not GCATs HR team.

In many ways I have to agree with Bebeto in that there are some who simply can't ever hear a bad word about a company they own. I'm not looking at anyone in particular, that isn't just this share either, its a general theme on all boards and epidemic on Tele groups.

Equally though, there are some who can't ever hear a positive, so its very much a swings and roundabouts thing to me. Half full or half empty.

I've seen posters since over 1p run down anyone who spots a concern and still do, yet those doomsdayers were right. They might have been a de ramper or they simply saw the wood through the trees, who knows. Broken clocks and all that.

The point I am getting at is this place, like all places are opinion boards and having both sides is what makes them useful learning environments, echo chambers are the worst and most dangerous environment for holders imo. The constant battle between those who believe and those who don't provides moments of clarity etc and knowledge sharing, it allows you to look into both sides yourself and find out a little more.

Sadly imo we have moved into an era of cancel culture, where only the majoritys point of views are allowed. It gives a lovely warm feeling to know you think as everyone else around you does, but as seen by the SP drop, didn't help one bit.

So yes, there are some who are over positive (good on them) and some who are over negative (good on them too), but I for one am thankful for that.

I agree the SP tank has been aweful, but so has wider market conditions for many, both aim and main listed.

It's easy to not zoom out.

Many ftse mid caps and aim small caps have suffered since the bear market started. Just look at the likes of On The Beach. 500 plus down to 90ish.

That doesn't make things better here, but its worth remembering too.

@Beev,

I think he has only answered it in part, however that part is likely all they can answer up to.

He has answered what's going on and why. Which I've no doubt most already suspected to be the case (regs stopped original plan). It's good to have that confirmed.

I think the answer most wanted however was "what happens next", as in which of the 3 options are the company going to pick.

Problem is, they can't answer what they don't know yet. Their statement that they have spenr their time focusing on Mozam and Sunni, feels very plauisble and factual to me.

Yes the next steps for TSG and TGR's relationship are important but I don't see how they can answer that until they know themselves.

Its an important deal in terms of future financials as TSG does and can buy our product cheaper than market rate due to the cross over between ownerships. TGR don't want to become the feeder company for a different venture without getting back decent margins, but equally, I think it would be foolish to think merging/buying into TSG won't come at its own cost and I dont just mean the transcation cost. Equally, TGR doesn't want to become liable to any operating losses TSG might inccur during earlier stages of product development.

Fine lines.