Member Info for JB10

Did the resolutions pass? did anyone attend?

the current options are so out of the water, how can they dare issue themselves thousands / millions for MM at 20p?

The Company proposes to issue the following Replacement Options to the Directors:
• Charles Hall: approximately 641,000 Existing Employee Options (based on the fair value of the Existing Options held
by Charles Hall as calculated as at latest practicable date prior to publication of this Circular) and up to a maximum of
800,000 Existing Employee Options
• Michael McNeilly: approximately 3,844,000 Existing Employee Options (based on the fair value of the Existing Options
held by Michael McNeilly as calculated as at latest practicable date prior to publication of this Circular) and up to a
maximum of 4,250,000 Existing Employee Options
• Mark Potter: approximately 493,000 Past Employee Options (based on the fair value of the Existing Options held by
Mark Potter as calculated as at latest practicable date prior to publication of this Circular) and up to a maximum of
600,000 Past Employee Options
• David Wargo: approximately 257,000 Existing Employee Options (based on the fair value of the Existing Options held
by David Wargo as calculated as at latest practicable date prior to publication of this Circular) and up to a maximum of
300,000 Existing Employee Options

Options outstanding to Directors at 31 December 2021 are as follows:
Current Directors at the year end:
Exercise price
(p)
At 1 January
Number
Granted/(Cancelled or Expired)
Number
At 31 December
Number
Charles Hall 35 300,000 - 300,000
45 450,000 - 450,000
60 500,000 - 500,000
27.5 200,000 - 200,000
Michael McNeilly 20 - - -
30 750,000 - 750,000
35 1,000,000 - 1,000,000
45 1,500,000 - 1,500,000
60 1,000,000 - 1,000,000
27.5 1,000,000 - 1,000,000
Mark Potter 30 - - -
35 1,000,000 - 1,000,000
45 1,500,000 - 1,500,000
60 400,000 - 400,000
27.5 600,000 - 600,000
Neville Bergin 35 200,000 - 200,000
45 300,000 - 300,000
27.5 200,000 - 200,000
David Wargo 27.5 200,000 - 200,000
10,350,000 - 10,350,000
The total share based payment expense recognised in the income statement for the year ended 31 December 2021 in respect of options
granted was £86,000 (2020: £482,000).

are these the re-valued options so the BOD can make money even though they didn't hit the previously agreed stike prices??
seems fair

As someone said earlier, ASX is the only option to do a new deal. I give the Board one more year, then we'll see where the NAV is at.
That said, until then, I don't want any bonus or luxurious benefit in kind paid to the BOD

PS agree that the 'clever' derivatives are perhaps too advanced for a small company like MTR

On AIM, the share price is less than a third of what is what almost 2 years ago (31p on 27 May 2021); whereas on ASX we are down from 57c AUD to 33c AUD. Why is AIM so much more volatile ? do we need the AIM listing?

Well owning a mining stock is likely to be boring... GUFFAW

let's hope something interesting is brewing....

by the end of February this year; so hopefully we'll have a fairer (and higher) NAV per share

which is 18.7p as at 31 Dec 22 (on ASX website)

hi Coltman
MTR will not charge you for holding their share.
This must be a number plucked from a key investor document summary (or equivalent) due to regulatory rules on disclosing costs

I think the trading via HL was blocked for a while for some administrative reason - so now liquidity will be better, and hopefully less wild swings in price.

many of us LTH have been here for several years; for the last four or five, on each New Year's Day we have been saying "let's hope that this year finally makes it for MTR". The company has lots of potential - but is has never really taken off as planned.
I'm hoping the changes linked to the recent FCA approval allow the BoD to really take advantage of a copper rally

Cobre holding back up to 20.5% (and CBR at 0.22 AUD)

it is crazy to see the different volatility on these two markets. Is it just down to the fact that the ASX has less volume, or is there a different style of trading going on here?

Given the recent FCA approved AIFM status, I would imagine that there will be some housekeeping to ensure MTR has the best team possible before moving into the big leagues...

Hopefully it means they are shifting up a gear. We'll see what other related developments there might be! Let's hope that they communicate a little bit more frequently on their plans.

hi 777
they won't be an investment trust, but effectively they have a hybrid status of a listed vehicle that is now going to be regulated by the FCA and also makes investments
I think the additional regulatory scrutiny should give investors more comfort - AIM is not always a stamp of best practices, FCA approval certainly is.

By joining SFS, MTR will be joining the 'big boys' and have a broader ability to trade without the constraints of certain AIM regs; think it is a good thing

It is nonsensical that MTR's SP is heading downwards, with 17.2% of a now AUD 50M company (so an asset worth at least AUD 8M on MTR's balance sheet). Go figure!
I understand that there have been several investors trying to buy MTR's royalty; but given that it is going to be worth a huge amount (literally millions of USD) I am glad that the Board is holding on to it!