FAS (ASX) Not for Lease

Originally posted by jzed ↑

Hays.........he said it, take it up with him, if you dont agree with it. You can tell him that

"Quote value in the ground is not permissible. There are quite legitimate reasons for that. First and probably most importantly is that it ignores costs of production and finance. If costs are higher than revenues then no good will follow. Secondly, value in ground alone ignores if mining, processing, transport, market, permitting, etc are achievable or in fact impossible".

Its might be something he and us shareholders weren't aware of.

Why are you telling me this about FMG?, KR statements where in 2013, do you follow the IO prices?

Please dont call me names, I have provided a wealth of information on FAS in the last few days that has not been posted previously,..........play the ball not the man.

The assets of FAS are meant to have a title registration to Iworld, as an initial payment has been received, where is it?

Sheldon Coates is owed still owed 1.5m

A substantial amount is being held by the limited receivers for staff (who are they)?

The lease on FAS office has been terminated.

There are 6 R&D returns in total, which are being review, the amounts are no where near the 1m that

has been received for the previous two.

Heshill association with FAS and their wind up procedures relate to convertible notes issue

Kelvin Park application for forfeiture over convertible notes issues.

You state:

As for my research, I expect that I know more about FAS than any Johnny-come-lately, like you, quite

offensive, you can never have what I, and others have, and that is pride in ownership, your words are

like overcooked pasta with no salt.

Expand

You miss the obvious points because you see my post as a personal attack on you, which is quite wrong. You do not ask me to explain my position or reasoning. This is the reason I don’t write much here.

Anyone who has anything to do with the listing rules knows that quoting in-situ mineralisation value is a ‘no go’.

I told you about FMG because it puts the claim of $10 billion into perspective and expected the readers to think and make deductions as a consequence.

I did not like a misplaced and incorrect comment of yours and gently retaliated, so what do you do Mr Jzed? You feign offence and liken me to overcooked pasta… without salt no less.

Without salt!