Member Info for MrH_m

Beautifully and eloquently put 👏🏻

Sorry to read your cancer news. I’m glad you are surrounded by your loved ones x

Nice work @ice (I don’t think you’re wasting the company time - they welcome the dialogue :-) ) 👍🏻

Really EGPT? £50k ??!! 👀 explains a lot

Certainly not ‘everyone’ 👍🏻

@fergal 😂😂😂

I’ve just checked this with a bona fide practising auditor - someone actually signing off accounts right now, not in a “former life.”

They have verified the information already provided to me by the company.

The position is on the face of it, straightforward: under IAS 1 para 97, if an expense is material, it has to be shown separately by nature and amount, either on the face of the statements or in the notes.

NTVO’s notes already do that. They split out staff costs, audit fees, depreciation and finance items with comparatives, which meets the IFRS disclosure requirement.

Crowe’s issue wasn’t presentation; it was evidence. They couldn’t obtain enough support to verify certain costs, which is why they couldn’t form an opinion. That’s an audit-evidence problem, not an IFRS disclosure failure.

Have a great weekend :-)

It's great to see :-)

No

GIVE IT UP MAN

Christ its like Groundhog Day!!

They don’t have to publish a line-by-line breakdown. AIM rules only require them to say how much was raised and the general purpose - i.e. working capital, exploration and project development. That’s exactly what they’ve done.

The detail sits in the audited accounts under admin and capitalised exploration, which have already been signed off. Unless AIM Regulation demands a forensic breakdown (which they haven’t), the company’s met its disclosure obligations.

Move on and put me back in my green box (again).

Your filter button is gonna get worn out Crazy Balls 😂😂

Definately reads like he is

More lies. Getting silly now! I may have to start reporting some of this!

That £5.5m “undocumented admin” line is complete nonsense.

Every penny is in the audited accounts:

2022 – $3.0m

2023 – $2.0m

2024 – $1.4m

All signed off by auditors. Nothing “undocumented” about it.

And worth remembering - 2022–23 were Echo Energy years before the Nativo transition, so using that to bash current management is just twisting history. People throwing around fake numbers and shouting “undocumented” either haven’t read the filings or are deliberately trying to mislead (or a mixture of both).

Exactly @Helx2 - if they were right about the drivel they come out with it would be a start:

The directors didn’t get a discount - they took shares at an 8% premium to the market price, not below it. That’s not “getting paid” cheap, it’s actually showing confidence.

The creditor shares were at market price (0.44p), so it’s just clearing liabilities without using cash. That strengthens the balance sheet, not weakens it.

As for timing, AIM rules mean they had to release it when agreed - it’s not some plot to dump the price. Yesterday’s RNS was operational, today’s was admin.

BUT they will never give up 😂

CC - they of course already know the answer to that. They just like spreading FUD

...agreed. Plus the different accounts they then use when they want back in

Would make sense yes @iceman

Some sensible comments at the top of this page. Take note all 👏🏻

Agreed @Hitou - if they’re risking their own money, that’s a strong signal of where this is going. Hopefully less noise from the green box brigade today. GLA

Well said mate

Yep. Like I said yesterday - it’s what I would do :-)