Member Info for Mineralholder

With this information and having read the response RNS I think it’s fair to say the appointment of the proposed directors would not represent “wholly independent” directors as referenced in the RNS response today. Surely the company needs genuinely independent directors, not a cabal on its Board, which their mutual and historic connections suggests would exist.They appear to all be known to each other and seemingly have a history/connection to the company. In that light removing the entire current Board and granting this group of seemingly non-independents would be like a hostile takeover but without the bid and carry all the risk now that we have this perspective.

I can’t support that and I will be voting against the resolutions.

Some of that content is extremely concerning to say the least. I am reading through the response now but I have to say I think I know which way I will vote after reading that, goodness me, thanks for posting.

Same conclusion tbh Torreaguas. A reasonable compromise seems the best way to secure the interests of the company and all parties here and the market would probably be extremely welcoming of one.

Giving a read now. Working capital is really holding back the company but the trend in results is visible for what they can achieve once they have it.

Will see what else is in the announcement, hoping this must surely mark the floor now if there positive outcomes to be had from the current process.

In fairness being tight on working capital cash with the board only taking shares on the whole for extended periods rather than their salaries in cash appears to suggest that’s a major factor given a correlation with departures as well and slow progress on replacements. Finding the balance without giving away the moon or finding people and suitable candidates with the right expectations, not wanting the moon etc is probably hard.

Interesting reading chaps thanks all for the contributions on each side

Lots of state banks and institutions are getting more and more involved in the vanadium and critical mineral space to fuel the energy transitions move forward

Hi HarChris, from your 29 April post referenced by others as well: “Let's just say Hemant's 'focus on his other business interests' is very similar to Murat's 'personal reasons', I wouldn't share anything more on here but happy to on a different medium like Telegram...”

I’m not sure either but it sounded from the above like you knew more about the possible motivations and conflicts, can you say more? I think all this cloak and dagger is toxic and why there’s now been a necessity for independent shareholders to take the initiative to set up an independent group to obtain objective answers and work out just what is/has been going on. The likes of your post and knowledge quite heavily inferring that something potentially isn’t honest and right with the requisition and the proposed directors (plus in fairness following a review of their career backgrounds) only adds to the list of questions shareholders such as myself already have for both sides.

Very nice I’m adding too I think VRFB is a good bet on the energy transition

harikiri, yours is a good post, i tried doing the same by putting forward a lot of questions for us as shareholders to ask ourselves of the new group.

looking at their professional histories my concern about messrs koot and rollins align with your fears - they have mixed experience with some success but some god awful failures too where they have just milked companies dry, and i think the two previous neds simply see a nice potential payday awaiting themselves if they pull it off while ******* of their old colleague. someone has also told me there was some shenanigans regarding hemant’s resignation which i would like to hear more about. the fact he’s apparently been building rival graphite operations and buying from competitors seems worse than the current related parties actually buying from the company. was he doing this while he was a director? if that’s the case then it’s essentially kneecapping tgr and a move to then take it out on the cheap would be a logical motivation and again offer the new group a nice payday. something to consider for us shareholders so we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot and basically lose our investment completely, just where does this group’s interests actually reside? certainly a messy situation.

i haven’t decided yet but i’m not voting for this group just because i’m ****ed off at the share price. the market seems unsure too. i want to

understand what the actual consequences are likely going to be if things go one way or another.

Very interesting to see this investment - Vanadium a mineral for the future!

Definitely this requisition comes at quite a concerning time for us shareholders and from alarming quarters too. 2 of the proposed directors say they have been in contact with the company for a year+ and the other 2 are previous NEDs brought in to help I assume at the time, especially the finance one Erden, what happened there? Also will we risk a case whereby the two previous NEDs are simply yes men for the other 2 and do we as shareholders trust the sincerity and honesty of the other 2? It would be good to know if these directors already hold significant shares. But it does seems like a big gap in seniority and experience exists between them and the 2 previous NEDs?

My main concern now as a shareholder is that could this action ultimately sink the ship? What makes the proposed directors suitable for this action and to replace the entire board? I could understand if the two junior guys stood down from the board to be honest, even if they are good at what they do day to day and make way for people with a strong board experience who can provide cautious oversight, like with the original structure of the board, with a composition that allows for robust board level decision making.

Of the proposed directors, what experience and knowledge do they have of mining, the company and graphite? Most importantly how long would a transition such as what they envisage require set the company back by, 6 months, a year, longer? Can such a delay/transition be afforded?

If the company was sorting itself out then obviously this action as mentioned by some below already will have probably disrupted everything that was ongoing, yes to the detriment of the company, albeit in the short term perhaps. If operations ie the business are effected where does that leave us?

If the company is indeed in dire straits then perhaps this action is necessitated. Questions should be asked why the company has struggled so long with a working capital gap, and still do as far as we shareholders are aware? What gives the requisition group the confidence they won’t run into similar hurdles? What gives shareholders the confidence we won’t be diluted into oblivion by either group?

It does feel like *something* has to change - but is it chicken and egg? Fingers crossed for all holders. Managing the risk for how to vote on this is tricky to say the least.

Important to look at it objectively:

- Syrah burnt through $80-100m last year and appear years away from profitability hence it’s diluted it’s shares by factors over the years just to survive, and will likely continue to dilute, making previous highs likely unattainable for holders of it.

- TGR seems to only needs some sort of small capital as it’s stated before, to allow it to unlock its higher levels of production that should bring some decent cash its way rather than out the door each year overall by my calcs, do your own research btw.

Of the two companies, I know which position I’d rather be in as a business (TGR by far), important to note how and why each is different, here I’m more focussed on the underlying business performance prospects.

Gold rallying looking v interesting here

This board does go from one haunting to the next!

Evidently there’s a working capital gap as mentioned in the last one or two RNS: VAT refund likely a solution in near term /+ a working capital facility, give the recent RNS a read. If they get some money from any of these avenues clearly this is primed for a very strong move, just look what it did on tiny volume the other day +30%!

Interesting the Australian connection is highlighted they value graphite companies much differently over there perhaps the valuation disconnect will become more apparent through the new broker.

Plaza is bang on here, sensitivity around certain info in such specialist and competitive industries can’t be underestimated. Though I’m sure professionals reading this will enjoy reading Fairdealer’s post.

Very reassuring update. Tempted to buy in.

My read is that the visit to Madagascar in early Feb has got the wheels in motion for these which is why the timing indications are sounding more confident. If they do start to receive repayments of parts or all of the outstanding amount then things could change here very quickly to the upside based on the outlines in the recent RNS’s

Not one to comment too often but bizarre reaction to today’s Reach RNS - evidently the company is making an effort to demonstrate to a wide audience where it sits in the global graphite supply chain - this will probably be seen by new investors and even customers so likely a net positive. How many of us on here saw this map before the announcement?

The opportunity is very apparent - TG appears under-capitalised to exploit the advanced position it has got to within a growing market with huge potential, but as some others said, yesterday’s RNS laid out quite nicely some very close items that will go a long way to solving its operational issues I thought.

To address a couple of points from what I see:

The board has a makeup to drive things forward so I’d expect grievances at “stagnation” around certain matters will probably now end as things can be delivered further by an extended executive team.

Also good to see there is an active search for a CFO and new NEDs.

Importantly, the working capital facility as Saluc points out is being enabled by the Chairman’s personal guarantee. Now we don’t know how much the facility is worth but it’s a personal risk for the chairman - how many other execs would do this? If the amount is decent it could go a long way and shows the intent of the management to push forward while the markets are dire for tapping support. A credit to them for this imo.

Also the VAT news is very encouraging. We saw recent visits to Madagascar and looks like the momentum has been maintained in pursuing the VAT refunds - $2m back to the company changes its fortunes very quickly imo.

I agree Saluc, a major item raised of concern has now been addressed and now derisks this to a fair extent - the idea of TGR going private no longer holds water. Would have been good to be addressed sooner but this is a very positive development from my perspective.

Quite an interesting couple of RNS’s