Member Info for Zan_TM

I think that last line is the poster saying they sold out, not TW.

Lol, no I don't think they will tell me Legal (That made me laugh so fairplay).

It is shocking all of it really when you think about it, but I do still think the best route for shareholder value from here is improvements and I do think that is better than getting the FCA involved (like they ever do anything, there as useless as our BOD most of the time).

Sods law this will be the first time they decide to act lol.

Legal, my reservations around TW is that he is soley focused on getting you to pay for his articles. That's his motivation, not this stock or the FCA.

I've seen his attacks before on other stocks result in nothing. To me, its all part of his act, but hey, even if this time he pulls it off, what good does it do other than take the company to Zero, which is his aim.

It's like Robbie as CEO. Getting him booted is all well and good but then you have tens of millions of shares getting sold as he has no need for them.

I'd much rather he learns and improves and we don't have another seller in our midsts.

Lol. Its going to be a lonely AGM next year with just me and you with your one foot MrShares.

Being what feels like the last holder of GCAT shares alive, can I kindly ask everyone else to stop trying to get the company struck off lol.

On behalf of my wallet, thanks.

On a different point. The June CLN had 90 days for first pay back rate correct? I'm curious as to what changed in those 90 days as surely GCAT expected to be able to pay back the CLN within 90 days OR did they never intend to and where happy to take the higher rates for after 90 days from day 1? If so, why agree to 90 days in the first place?

Was it Plant 2 shutting down as not commercially viable that changed the expected income?

Legal, that is why I said "most" which I feel is different from saying "all".

I fully appreciate there is some unanswered questions still, with one of the main ones being "cash burn rate" so financially we can gain a better picture of whats what, however, equally, that RNS did cover a lot of the iffy points. Maybe not in full depth but I don't think there is any denying that it put them out there.

I don't think in any world all risk will be removed, from a junior play until it hits a much bigger status, simply as the risk is what prices it so low.

I would also like to know the Q3/Q4 AISC figures as that 800 ish per quarter produced might have made us ABC amount OR lost us XYZ amount as overheads could have been higher than sale price, again though, I can only work with what we have been given, which is just the produced/sold figures at this point.

GCAT is high risk, no doubt about that, but it was high risk before all this recent mess too, no matter how much spin rampers put on it and I was happy to invest then even though it was high risk.

Now, that doesn't mean it will work out here, it just means I personally was okay with the risk, others equally might not be, which is fine too.

It was priced as exploration before Bebeto. I'm not sure that should be the sales pitch here.

The sales pitch is that now most of the bads news is out there and as bad as it was, its in the open market now and thus provides opportunities for improvements and upside.

If and yes its still a big IF, RM manages to re-negoitate a new deal with Phili then that has the potential to solve a lot of the monetry problems.

Just google him Legal.

He is well known for hounding stocks he is shorting but more often than not, he does use truths, so yes entirely possible.

Well that should help his short, which is likely the main reason he is pushing it over being a white knight for us all.

In terms of dilution yes Legal agreed. However, I feel a lot of disrest isn't just around that subject matter. It appears a lot of shareholders feel let down by the company in terms of not keeping them informed enough which is leading to the question or feeling or being mislead.

The 24k Oz prod target is a classic example. All through Q2 and Q3 RM in lots of interviews kept confirming everything was on course for 24k cap target by year end.

When the new funding came out, it highlighted the fact that clearly the company was aware (given those funding talks started back in May ish time), that without that funding the 24k target would be pushed back. Getting the funding covered over those iffy cracks as it became a case of, few month delays, but hey ho.

Once the larger OCIM funding fell through however, the question becomes more important. How and when did the company know they weren't going to get the upgrades running to allow for 24k target to be hit? As it feels clear even when RM was verbally telling us all on course, he must have known it wasn't.

When you then throw in the CLN's which still to this day RM hasn't explained why he kept secret, it does create concerns around trust.

Now, as bad as those concerns might be, if he pulls a rabbit out of a hat, all will be forgiven no doubt in the blink of an eye, as SP rises is all that really matters.

GCAT to me isn't a bad company and personally I don't think RM has tried to pull a fast one on anyone, more just inexperience shining through. That though can change.

Honestly DV Harrison, I don't have to question that at all as I'm a shareholder and seeking remove off main listing would only result in destroying the SP completely.

That doesn't mean I'm happy with how the company has handled itself, but equally I don't want the company to shot itself in its foot anymore than it already has.

What I want to see is improvements.

Q3 & Q4 reports haven't been RNS'd yet.

Board change RNS on the 13th stated they would be released in conjunction with the AGM today so unless GCAT is about to miss another self set target (which I don't think they would be that stupid to do given all the issues around them missing targets of late) I'd expect them to come out before end of play today.

RNS is out now. Very short and sweet. Just says all resolutions passed, which we pretty much knew would be the case anyway.

Hey Swamp.

Theorectically you are correct in that if POG was high enough there would be a point by which the profits pay for the upgrades instead of requiring funding.

I don't think today it would be possible to work out that point however. Maybe after Monday and Q3/Q4 reports we might be able too.

Basically the AISC figure used has been used for when at the targeted amount produced. Scale means that at a lower production rate your AISC will be higher.

At this point, we don't know what AISC we have for current production levels, simply because don't know what the current production levels are. Hence my point that after Monday, when those figures are released, you could have a good bash at creating an answer for you.

Good to see 40% of samples already taken in pretty much about a week.

Nice to hear a little about the Coltan too.

Good progress and hopefully drills later on prove thise newly found peg areas to have commercially viable amounts of Lith.

I think thats a good point on the integrity aspect.

Robbie has fairly in my view taken some stick, but credit where its due, same as the late Q3 report, Robbie did stand up and face the press so to speak.

Doesn't change outcomes but in that aspect, he didn't go hiding like some other CEOs might have.

Honestly Legal, I don't know the reason for disparity. I'd suggest some of those reasons you already listed as possible, however, no more logic than that without looking into it much further.

If time allows I will try to dig into focused on GCAT.

You can dive into it a little deeper by the different time zones to maybe get an idea and heads up of how the markets as a general view your company by looking at whichever exchange opened sooner after news, but its not a science as to many varibles including how different populations view different things through to volume per exchange and power of that exchange.

@Legal, apologies for all the responses but hopefully helps a little.

In answer to your question about Frankfurt and London. Its a Yes and a No as an overview, because it depends on the type of listing.

A dual listed company - this is when it lists on two different exchanges via different legal entities - can't be traded across exchanges. This is what a lot of companies are listed as. You can't buy on Frankfurt and sell in London.

Then you have

Cross listed companies - these are listed on different exchanges but via one entity and as such prices always mirror to the dot (minus currency, but no advantage there really as if your trading it for the exchange rate, might as well trade euro v sterling) - These can be traded across exchanges but other than maybe exchange preference price wise there will be no advantage.

Hope that clears it up.