Member Info for Feeks

Thank you. Happy to share my further thoughts on this in the next day or so. Best wishes

Jv123 - With that attitude the Board cannot win! There are some investors here looking on with a seriously jaundiced view of life and what positive benefit this deal is poised to deliver, and yes - it requires an acceptance of the fact there is underlying interest from a second row of strategic investors who are ready to step forward (and whose identity has not yet been revealed). We can speculate about who or what is in the background until the cows come home, but in time it will all be revealed.

I know that mine is not a popular opinion here, but I do not so much care about whether the consortium of investors will end up profiting out of this deal far more than I ever will. Why? Because I am not having to stump up $1bn or fund construction by way of massive dilution to my shares. I am also realistic about what it takes to fund a Tier 1 project in RoC. Sir Mick is the deal fixer with all the contacts, who is making it happen. That’s lucky for us, and he deserves a handsome reward if he gets this to a positive final investment decision by Q3 2027. I shudder at the thought of what would be happening without his timely intervention, or if the RAM deal is scrapped or delayed due to shareholder intervention. The SP could get very messy if their short-sightedness wins the day. They should be raising question of the Nomad in the first instance and not be jumping to conclusions as a knee-jerk reaction to the deal.

I'd say the 25,000 was a sell

Did they not?

".... the current sales pipeline supports the Board's outlook of a full year performance in line with its expectations."

A lot of silly small trades being reported today. Would someone please throw out a theory that the price is being "manipulated", or is this purely a relative concept?

I did ask a specific question at the time which no-one could answer, about why Glen was happy to just give away its interest in a mine which was supposedly worth multi billions just a short time later. So, Jiving has helpfully answered that puzzle. It was the reward for GIS. It simply explains how we managed to get here without which the prospects would be very bleak . To my mind it doesn't raise any concerns. Ask yourself what value ZIOC was giving ysay to get 100% of the asset?

EX

You have told us you are fearful they will fast forward TRANCHE 1 in order to activate TRANCHE 2, in which case it will be X months not years. Ceding control is what we need to do to bring this mine to prroduction! Again, you think it's all ljned up. I say great to that - it means the market may attribute value to a working mine, not just potential, rather sooner than has been credited.

We do disagree, yes. Fundamentally, there have been loud voices expressing concern that RAM is "stealing" the project at the deal price it has offered, but if so, then it wouldn't agree to the risk of a split stage/ delayed acquisiton process. This is vital insurance for RAM against the still incomplete project design/ economics which is why the share price is stuck where it is. That's all normal. RAM would buy outright if the naysayers are to be believed but this is not generally how it works

Jiving is spot on IMO. I don't have the same patience as he does setting the record straight. We must all decide but IMO there is too much suspicioun and distrust affecting perspectives of what is ultimately, a good deal.

Hi Ex.

I see what you see saying. But ....it's wrong because that's only tranche 1. Tranche 2 is $125m. That's what RAM has offered, subject to the FEED, and its what ZIOC Board has unconditionally accepted. And before you tell me I'm wrong, the fact there is optionality makes no difference. That's the investment deal, and it's agreed. RAM's unconditional offer of $25m (or $15m) grants

them this option.

As previously stated on this BB, I bought back in immediately after the good news RNS. I fundamentally disagree with all the negative spin. ZIOC was a pure punt before this news, but not so much now.

There's no inconsistency except in the minds of a few investors who seem unable to allow themselves to think they might have been foolish, or simply - that right now this deal is the best we can get after so many years of waiting. There are not many parties able and willing to fund a Tier 1 project, and the macroeconomics environment plays a big part on timing, regardless of the quality and size of the asset. Somebody has to stump up a very large sum to get this moving. RAM says it will do that (subject to the deal terms) and I, for one, am thankful. I sold before the RAM deal RNS precisely because I thought the downside risks were sizeable (and far too great for me to continue holding). In truth, I never really expected a big deal to arive that would blow the doors off, so I think the range of views expressed here say more about personal perspective. The deal will be highly rewarding to ZIOC, provided the mine gets built.

"Yet it's the one that the Company has been harping on about incessantly for the past 2 years....right up to 10th Feb 2026

EX, they were trying to sell the project for the best price for shareholders so NPV comaprisons were spot on. Make no mistake though, when AT refers to this as being a "complicated deal", he was probably just thinking to himself that its relative, seeing as he's got the thankless task of explaining it to a bunch of clueless buffoons to explain it to.

"Hands up any LTHs who bought Zioc shares thinking 30 years down the line? I guarantee no one. Aim shares tend not to be long term investments."

JV123 you just answered why we languish at 6p. Its why the Lassonde Curve is a thing. ZIOC today is NOT selling a risk free producing mine. A few PIs seem to believe this and they are 100% wrong.

"The reality is that they have most of it lined up already. They just want nearly all the asset, before they start announcing deals."

Great! I think so too.

Indeed, we've been told this! It's why I invested. And you and I do now agree that RAM will deliver.

Late reported trade. There were, in fact, TWO large £50.25k trades yesterday within a minute of each other. Both appear to be Buys

TRT share £0.6m

You said it, Ilovesushi

Too complicated for most - big opportunity for others/ new investors.

It is disappointing to see so much fall out here. I understand the depth of feeling but the major point for me is that no alternative plan has been put forward by those who would rather take a wrecking ball to the RAM deal.

Personally, I think Jiving makes a lot of good points and I wholly endorse his views – but if he is wrong then the Action Group seems to be going the wrong way about its own affairs when it should feel the need to bring people onto its own side instead.

We all want the best result for shareholders but there will be a vote in June to decide whether the majority consider the terms presented are reasonable. That seems to be the right course.

The AG say they want an explanation, as we all do – and that is coming - so the sensible thing now surely would be to wait for the Investor conference before forming a firm judgment. We just need some straight answers to some direct questions, and if we don’t get that, then people are free to decide what to do (and in my case it might be to sell up).

Until then, it is pointless speculating.

Reasonable question hux. You ought to raise it.

It's a discussion board, and I'm being helpful. You misinterpreted more than one post which meant losing the gist of what is a highly material point, which would have otherwise been lost.

So, I'll leave it there and not waste more time.

Extrader

You have missed the point of my post entirely. AT's relationship to ZIOC and RAM is well known and does not need pointing out. I’ve not made that point myself so why do you choose to persist with it.…?

But you have admitted that you don’t know, “the precise consultancy fees involved”.

So, why assume this is nickel and dime stuff….? AT’s remuneration deal is of great interest to me, but why not you?

To give an example:

What if AT’s reward for success is 0.5% NSR royalty, for instance. That’s a share of the deal value. Would the market need to know? Yes, I think so. It’s an indirect transfer of value. Equally, if the reward is normal market fees, then there is no concern. So, who is providing reliable oversight on this….?

Same point applies to major shareholders who might possibly be receiving a different deal to us – the point was raised below – this is information which would have to be disclosed as part of the deal terms.