Member Info for NikeAir180

Re. 15:08: You referenced it yourself over the weekend Banbury, I had read the relevant RNS prior to that post on more than one occasion and also within recent days, the comment, to which you are both publicly being sceptical, is correct according to the chronology of multiple RNS.

Incorrect specinvestor99: This is referring not just to the most recent RNS and it is the situation, you can read the share chat posts and then consult the RRR website with the chronology of RNS' or you can just consult the RRR website and the chronology of RNS'.

I am not going to make the clarification easy for you, the information is quite easily available, won't take to long to do the research compared to say a cup of tea and a snack.

Bearing in mind recent discussion of gold and antimony and very nearby Southern Cross Gold with Rising Sun trend going towards RRR's Kilmore region owned by RRAL, for which the updated RNS refers - offer - RRAL.

Re. 13:32: On a more serious note Banbury, you are assuming... the increase in asset is very is "very modest", it remains to be seen whether 49.9% of RRAL is only of modest value.

Well, looking at the keypad, it was probably a predictive script overwright...

Typo... not "us" has.

Thanks Banbury you clarified for me without having to read it again to check, I was largely of this opinion - so it it is just one 20k conversion to shares which they subsequently corrected.

I glanced at an article, this morning, saying the Prime Minister could have got more out of 20k that was donated to his suits and updated presentation - now I am not knocking him in this share chat, he us always conscientiously well turned out and assume it is a banter type article, passing the time, with a bit of light humour.

I am optimistic that there will be a better return on the 20k CLN note conversion, mentioned a few times across a very similar time range.

The retained

Or better: should have been a seperate paragraph... "looks like it was a reply..."

comma could still have confused it if in the same line.

People will understand what I mean.

Re. quote and the related thread heading in 03:40 post.

... Referring to incorrect naysaying presented as fact re. deal with POW for 100% ownership of RRAL.

03:40... missed a comma... so just clarifying that - obviously "looks like it was a reply to News" was not part of the thread heading for the post that I quoted from 05th May 2024 10:48.

I will will acknowledge further posts on the same topic could be annoying but on some matters it is very important to be precise and if a mistake is noticed - to quickly correct it.

Cheers...

Re. 01:58, in case Banburyboy tries to deny his naysaying presented as fact re. the deal with POW for 100% ownership of RRAL / NBGC by RRR it is in his 05th May 2024 10:48 post on the thread: "LONDON'S JUNIOR MKT NEEDS TO SHARPEN UP ITS A I M."-Times of London, Sat 4.5.24 looks like it was a reply to News.

So on 05/05/24 at 10:48, the exact detailed point by Banbury was - and I quote:

- POW will fall through ( no bad thing) as we fail April 19th due diligence.

End of quote.

The above quotation was what I was remembering by the tone it was written in and that it was expressed as if it was fact.

Correction of typo from second paragraph 01:58, should be: ... if they thought...

This is a further answer to Banbury's over the top post at 17:30 22/08/24 where he stated at the end of his post on the thread RRR's Admin Costs that he regarded the the company as "a ponzi for Helpful and his mates".

A few points: POW and RRR know each other well there is no way POW would agree a joint venture and then subsequent sale of their stake in RRAL regarding ownership of NBGC with RRR if they though they were a ponzi scheme.

Banbury has regularly voiced a suspicious attitude regarding lithium in storage and has suggested the company is effectively lying with regard to that detail in the half year annual report on 28/03/24.

I think one of the reasons Banbury is so determined on his lithium naysaying is because he is interested in a spurious, negative outline along implied ponzi lines.

Regarding the NBGC or RRAL deal - same material asset, Banbury said it probably wasn't going to go through with regard to the sale of POW's stake to RRR, it did complete with only one day delay due to an Australian Bank Holiday.

Banbury also said with regard to the 08:40am RNS on 23/08/24 that RRR don't own all of RRAL, they do - with a few obligations to POW which would have to be honoured if there was a sale.

All in all it seems to me Banbury has been rather biased and his repetition on lithium and claiming there was a trust issue is from a heavily biased motive against RRR.

it is clear, so far, that POW do not agree there is a trust issue with RRR and I hope that good relationship continues.

Re. 19:24, it is noticeable when his quips become more dismissive of others because he is another who has it in for this stock, so he tries to ridicule to weaken the perceivable stance of certain posters, tried a cheeky little quip re. Orslega yesterday - just words, AimDogs.

RRR have yet to conclude the sale for said lithium as per the half year report of 28/03/24 - it is currently stored in Beira and Harare.

Regarding 11/12/24 it said export costs for 200 tonnes of lithium had been paid for. Whether its all in Beira or some in Beira and Harare, perhaps there is additional lithium in Harare? but whatever the tonnage, there is nothing to say the potential buyer has fully paid. There is a reference to a £110000 investor, either that person or RRR or a a combination of both could have covered export costs. It is possible the customer/buyer has paid for it to be in storage but they are not selling lithium as much from their own stockpile at the moment / current time period. All of these possibilities would be consistent with the chronology of RNS'.

Your desperation for there to be a "trust issue" Banbury is because of your heavy bias against this stock, the timing of which sometimes intensifies.

... recent ... RNS'.

Banbury, your exaggeration and heavy bias against RRR with comments that are without evidence as well as cheeky comments about the moods of others (which you don't know) to try and fit in to your agenda means that there are more trust issues based on the recent evidence, than there are with recent RRR RNS.

Agreed specinvestor99....

The December 11th 2023 RNS only refers to the cost of export being paid for - there is no reference to money paid for the sale of lithium, two different things in my opinion and I think that crucial difference is reasonable to assume on a close reading.

Err no... I just said, Banburboy, that some people used to think the earth was flat - may well have been a majority of people - didn't make it true- the four minute mile reference was was to show how opinions change when facts are established.

The 15/11/23 RNS re. the start of lithium export absolutely did not mention payment or completion of sale. The first truck left for export to Beira. Extracted lithium is currently stored in Beira and Harare as per RNS half-year report of 28/03/24, the wording will have been checked by the nomad, not Banbury.