Member Info for Zan_TM

Legal - If he gets the finance over the line he will become everyones hero. Make no mistake us shareholders are fickle creatures lol.

JC - The excuses part, again, its more mindset than anything else. My own experience was if you always had a reason, always had a cause and effect and brushed things off as acceptable because of it, you just wouldn't get done what was needed. Its incredibly difficult running a successful business, spinning many plates, wearing many hats, but there just isn't any place for the softly, softly, be uber forgiving on bad outcomes mindset imo. If I messed up, I had to own it, then correct it and learn from.

I totally feel Robbies pain in many ways, but end of the day, they choose to operare via a tradeable, listed company and with that comes some level of accountability to your shareholders. I personally stayed private, and have with all businesses, because it allowed me to focus on making the business work over appeasing shareholders. Robbie to that extent seems to run GCAT in the same manner, which works and is fine for a non-listed company, but I just don't think its acceptable for a listed company. You simply can't not do accounts two years on the trot, no matter what the reasons as the moment you went listed, you made that commitment to your shareholders, to your investors, that you would run the company in good stead.

For me, I could blag, pull off, work around, take a hit on many things a listed company simply can't. Different rule books with different standards. Many benifits to being listed, namely access to capital and your wages getting paid even though your company doesn't make any money (private and no profit, no wages, living life on a shoe string till you make it), but there is a price to those bonuses. That's why I feel he is maybe more accountabile than you might feel he is as maybe we view his responsibilties and roles slightly differently.

I do understand that JC and as someone who set up and run a million pound, 30 employee business (success), plus had many which failed to over the years (failures), yes, its a team thing and luck is very important to, but I still think the accountability stops at the top.

As a leader regardless of blame, its your job to get things done, against whatever challenges you face, even if luck goes against you, which it will.

That doesn't mean there wont be underlying reasons behind things, or cause and effect cases, but as the leader, thats your job to deal with it.

Honestly, my own experience was staff attitudes and behaviours caused no end of challenges, and you could argue any failings weren't because I wasn't working hard, because I was, usually 7 days a week dawn till dusk, but because they had blagged a sick day after a night out, or not bothered doing paperwork etc, lost a contract due to not treating the customer right, but end of the day, I know that is how things go and as such its my job to solve, its my job to find new ways to motivate, train, even disipline, to ensure contracts are overseen better.

Its my job to keep everyone employed and make sure everyone can get paid at the end of each month. Thats my duty.

So while I do agree its not straight forward, I just don't believe excuses are allowed or where does it stop? It doesn't make Robbie a bad person, but you have to have someone at the top and they have to be accountable. Its why the big bucks go that way as it compensates the pressure etc.

I know the question wasn't to me JC, but I'd say yes.

Failure or success is always, as it should be imo, accounted for by the CEO.

As it stands, GCAT is still breathing and so I think it would be jumping the gun to say its a total failure. That, somewhat sadly, can only ever be stated once the ship has sailed and the companies been wrapped up.

Very carrot and the stick, but thats the situation. Robbie can still become a roaring success here as its not over yet.

As an extra note, as shareholders we view the SP as the measure of success, naturally of course as thats are balance sheet, but as the CEO its not the only thing that matters.

Folio,

Its just my belief, that's all. I don't think it is childish to suggest that someone posting full stops as a topic, to hide others views is manipulation. I feel that is factual.

The dictator comment was a joke in jest really as trying to control free speach and other users viewing options feel very bb dictator like.

That's my take on those actions. Its not argueing and on a personal level I have no desire to make you feel unhappy but it doesn't mean I agree.

Somerset, yes really. I've learn't more from those who have different views to me than from those that have the same. Legal which you referenced, might have a more empty glass than me but is prob one of the most switched on knowledge wise investors Ive seen across the boards.

Echo chambers full of yes men are to me more dangerous as they can blind you from the truth.

Some prefer confirmation bais as it feels nicer and I get that. As always, each to their own.

On the subject of rage. I'm a very relaxed individual, I'm also one GCATs more positive posters, but I'm not ignorant to failures either.

If you were aiming your comment towards Bebeto, love them or hate them, they are always calm and chilled in their responses.

I have very different views to them but credit to them they are always polite and reasonsed in their debate, which shows intelligence to me, and thus, as adults, we can just converse without having to try to hide popular topics by posting full stop ones to fill the board, because we aren't dictators lol.

You were asked directly, why do you post just a full stop.

You haven't answered that.

If its to push down topics, then yes that is manipulating the board. That's not me being unkind, it would just be a truth.

I did say it might be because you don't know how to create topics correctly too.

If you are doing it to manipulate top topics, push down others, than I fail to see how you can throw stones at anyone else as your actions are no better.

And if you honestly think no company has gone under which had HNW individuals involved that I would suggest you do more research. I picked Lehman to give an example of how no one is to big to fail. I could easily have picked one of the thousand others. Sirus Minerals had HNW individuals involved. Did that stay afloat simply because of them? Nope.

I would say that appears a succsent and fitting summary JC.

Regardless of what I think, I want option 1 lol.

HNW individuals is a very poor arguement to use imo.

Many a stock which has gone under was previously funded and had HNW individuals money in.

The whole idea that they just won't let something go under has no history or facts behind it.

Yes they have wealth, but that doesn't mean they will just keep pumping good money after bad. Everyone has a line in the sand for whens enough and dispite the fact some of us might view things as rosey or having great potential, it doesn't make it true or a view everyone else will have.

Its like the old line "to big to fail". Tell that to Lehman Brothers, tell that to the literally thousands of big timers which have hit the walls over the decades.

Offsetting losses is the same. Its not some magic money tree. Its still a loss and while it can reduce a tax burden, I'm pretty sure most would have just not have lost in the first place.

GCAT could become a great success or it could fail, but either way will have zero to do with the above two myths. It will be because the company can make a good enough business case that if you fund it, it will provide you with a larger return.

Tell me about it. I view it as an attempt to manipulate the board by pushing topics they don't like down the page.

But it could just be that they don't understand how to create topics correctly.

I'm guessing you and Murat are good friends which is why you know his plans and inner feelings on his stock trades?

So I'm correct in saying that your highlighting that the proposed FT group member to go back onto the TGR board doesn't want TGR doing well right now as it doesn't suit his own interest?

That doesn't sound like a great sales pitch for why we should want them involved again.

"Please vote for me as while I want the SP to tank and you all to lose more value, I'm just here to help.....honest".

Magnum,

Not that I would reccomend it as I feel it can have more negative effects, but if you get enough holders together and a plan you can call for a EGM to vote to replace Naheed in her role.

Not a route I favour but stating for clarity.

All joking aside though. I think its these details which are getting left out of the debate.

Its becoming less fact driven or reality driven and more a populatity contest.

As a holder I'm not happy at all with performance, but i've not seen anything better proposed.

Talk of going to the FCA is just proof to me those posters only intension is revenge, not what's good for the company as the FCA won't seperate the CEO and the company, they would just bundle it up as one package and delist it or suspend it rather (not that they ever do anything mind).

The company is on its knees and now is probably the worst time to rock it as it risks destroying what is left.

If people think funding is hard now, it won't be easier to get having shown funders shareholders will randomly kick off and boot everyone/replace them, causing distrubtion and money as and when they like.

Funders usually want stability, not chaos. A fact often overlooked in this emotive topic.

Just saw that HarChris lol.

Great minds or fools never differ right lol.

Boris,

I think the board ptoblem is a cash flow problem.

I've seen many say appoint this or that now, but are forgetting the reality of the situation.

TGR is cash strapped. As seen in interims, the board barely got paid. They took most via shares instead due to low cash flow.

Now go find a world class CEO, CFO or anyone else for that matter who is happy to come onboard for what was it? About 10k a year? (Alistar's salary in cash). That right there limits and changes everything.

The new group haven't said how they will solve that problem and the old group are looking, but looking can last years.

Not ideal.

I would also because we are a bit of a destressed seller and any buyer will know that, thus again, it doesn't lend itself to favour our court.

Swampy, because I don't believe its a sellers market right now.

Yes the price of Gold is up, but against that most gold explorers and producers have been struggling SP wise. In addition money markets have been a lot harder to obtain and again, if you look at deals across the sector, its favoured the buyer in large of late.

That leads me to expect a lower price. It doesn't mean it will be lower, but its what I would expect right now.

A earn in JV could work whereby we retain say 20% in exchange for a smaller amount upfront (circa 400k ish) and milestones attached for new JV partner to fund drills etc.

That takes time though, and money to do the legal work, neither of which we appear to have in abundance.

I've always said I wanted more comms and as such, am happy with us getting a new RNS.

It made for interesting reading tbh. Clearly, money is as tight as its ever been and it feels like if this audit hangs on to much longer the company might struggle. That is of course concerning, but tbh not something we didn't really know deep down anyway.

The plant feels like it really struggles to operate well, consistantly, which again, we kinda new. Old equipment and needs updating.

I'm not fully sold on some of the figures for the heap leach etc as they were worth the money and time put into them, but if they can sort everything else, a decent addition, just maybe with hindsight (a wonderful thing), some funds could have been used wiser, in terms of order.

Same goes for Tanza. If it does get sold, almost a given it will go for less, given the hard finance markets right now, and as such makes you question why we ever picked up in the first place, but I agree with bebeto here that its not going to add anything to the balance sheet for many years and viewing the bigger picture, maybe selling and sorting todays issues out and allowing the company to progress from there is smarter.

Certaintly better than going under.

Lastly, high grade (well higher than prssent) stuff has gone from the figures for sure. Again, we knew that would be the case.

Sadly Croc, as is seen, there is a select group using these boards in an attempt to control the vote.

I'm not sure it will work as prob puts as many off as it gains, but each to their own.

HarChris,

The new group isn't the main blame factor, although their (suggested, not proven), attempts to talk down the company for some time prob hasn't helped the SP much, nor does the fact those who were previously employed didn't do much when employed to step the rot so to speak.

Regardless, I can see there is a lot of emotion connected towards this vote, which is likely blinding somes views. I've seen calls for revenge, which might feel nice for 2 mins but wont help the company or SP. Likewise I've seen both sides calling for getting the FCA involved, which def wont help the company or SP as getting yourselves delisted or fined isn't that useful lol.

That's the problem with votes though isn't it.

Its not really a great vote either is it.

Your options

1: Vote for a underpermoning CEO and board to stay

2: Vote for a group which is likely to destroy whats left via inexperience and other reasons

As it stands, the new group hasn't shown anything worth voting for, thus I can't vote for them. And so, while not happy I'm only left with option 1, for now....

For me the best outcome would prob be some sort of agreement between new and old so that it never goes to vote (as a vote is a seriously bad look), which solves some of the governence issues (which is really what this vote is about as the FT group can't solve the other ones as Graph prices and VAT returns are within their means).

An agreement for a new chair and maybe one new ned, but not from list suggested might work well.

Most of the list suggested already had a chance and failed.

It is now Shrodingers Duck it would appear.