Member Info for Bfdinvestor

Badomen, that is true, although Bernard has also referenced the possibility of payments back to Kod and Hainan from monies received.

I'd guess it depends on the price of spod over the next couple of years and how much cornerstone finance Hainan wish to provide for stage 2

Is it difficult to understand that there are, and always have been, 30 days in November bloggs

Don't know why you would have thought that given in the last three years they have come out on the 17th, 21st and 20th.

So, irrespective of your wishes, they aren't late

Sparky interims usually come out the week or so before Christmas so they aren't late

George Hainan didn't finance the mine, KMUk did.

Hainan made an equity investment into KMUK.

So when money comes back into KMUK, it isnt repayable to Hainan as standard finance would be

Badomen my reading of the OTA is that once the process is established then payments will happen a lot more quickly. The 5% then just becomes the balancing exercise for small discrepancies.

At the end of the day, none of us have seen the detail of the OTA, but the three parties have signed up to it and will understand the finite detail

All that is really important is that the agreement is in place, the process is working and payment will follow.

Once Kod move to quarterly updates, as Bernard has stated they will do, we will get a fat better understanding

As he has just proven lol

Anyway I'm done with the subject because he will just come up with more and more stupidity

Apparently his confusion is also the BoD's fault, despite them never once claiming that they have used GS Fintech as a payment facilitator

Billy the issue is simple

Chaebol is coming up with more and more outlandish rubbish because he can't admit to being wrong.

Apparently the Semnet contract revenue shows in GS Fintech figures for the year ending March 2023.

Which is some feat as we hadnt even bought Semnet by then!

Chaebol a simple question

When did GST complete the purchase of Semnet. Was it before or after March 2023?

You really need to give this up, it is just embarrassing

You are wrong

End of

Chaebol I KNOW that Semnet and GS fintech are separate legal entities

That is all anybody needs to know to see that you are posting complete nonsense because it seems your ego is to fragile to admit that you are wrong.

That's my last response because your seem happy to come out with more and more stupid responses and bore everybody else senseless

Chaebol we know the contract was a large part hardware, so once again you are making up stuff to support a theory which can't be right

Just admit you are wrong and people may think better of you

chaebol

for the last time

semnet (not segment) and gs fintech are separate legal entities. we do not own the whole of semnet. so there is no way that semnet revenue can be legally channeled through gs fintech.

one of the reasons that people hold you in a certain regard is because you keep posting the same absolute ****** irrespective of how many other posters correct you

if there was a jv progressing on han****, do you think ufo would be going back and checking if the resource estimate was too conservative?

$500k incoming from JV transaction

Firstly it's Australian dollars, so not worth nearly as much. Secondly, as soon as it comes in, it is going straight out to Shemasian

Chaebol if you don't understand the difference between volume and commission reporting, which is what I think actually changed, you have no business being here

I've already explained it to you multiple times Chaebol

But if you want to keep digging, fill your boots!

Yes Billy it would be illegal to do as Chaebol suggested

I guess that is just Chaebol for you

Because 42m was probably volume and not commission

Chaebol let's keep this really simple for you

1. Semnet and GS Fintech are separate legal entities. So revenue due to Semnet could not be paid into GS Fintech.

2. GST only own 66% of Semnet, so there is no way they can ever claim 100% of Semnet revenue