Member Info for NikeAir180

Winnifrith and Bell still get along and I have seen snippets if him being positive on RRR, I have also seen recent snippets of him being critical.

Regarding NBGC being slow to crystallise... there were interviews with both Johnson and Bell, they had been considering Canada for the IPO but then the market became less favourable, then they considered London but high inflation and sustained high interest rates were making it a rougher environment for some of the small market cap stocks and IPOs. Looks like in the most recent interview Bell considers Australia at the

moment. Within the last year we have the "re-

discovery" as informed by news of Sunday Creek by Sothern Cross Mining and that is interesting for Kilmore / Kilmore West so NBGC could get some following.

Well lunch time to be fair... 12:58pm which is before my brunch time, on the bright this self-correction brings me to another one, principally for the attention of news and all who like a bit of the sliced stuff.

Got this clarification on a Monday when it was quiet, in a good value pub chain that also does food, bread and butter is actually in the main menu section under pub classics, just above brunch options - available all day.

Cheers...

They stuck to procedure, TR-1 was published this morning 10th July 2024 via RNS, once the shares had been bought by the large holder who back on the fourth of July was not such a large holder.

We were told in the 04/07/24 , the shares would go through on 10/07/24 or around that time, it looks like the relevant transactions were facilitated yesterday afternoon on 09/07/24. RNS issued 10/07/24 confirming large hokding of shares consistent with the previous one so not "forced" as a naysayer claimed, the statement was going to happen as a matter of procedure.

The 04/07/24 rns was a decent explanation. Other details regarding concerns expressed at 13:57 are not anyone's right to know beyond what regulations determine and are communicated as a matter of procedure.

13:37 post, adding correction - in the scenario Theeeduke imagined, there would not have been an opportunity for capital gains, free of tax concern.

I had missed a word.

Correction, I was re-writing my 13:21 post.. which was on the wrong thread. Thanks

Am re-writing my 13:23 post, thought I was on this thread...

Theeeduke, in the scenario you suggests, there would be the opportunity for potential capital gains free of tax concern.

I note Banbury has since demonstrated understanding of how the ISA aspect could have worked, I had said something to that effect early am on 06/07/24. I also mentioned early am this morning that had been considering other variances. The outline on the other board this morning is consistent with one of those variants but expressed it much better than I would.

Cheers...

I definitely didn't type updude! Upside was started in terms of typing, site specific predictive text took over that one.

May all dudes have a good day...

Meant to delete would...

The interest payment(s) on the convertible loan note would could have been received outside an ISA, converted to shares, then sold and then bought with cash available in the ISA.

RRR would have had to issue shares purely for the CLN holder and that would have involved a broker to facilitate that. There is a very relevant post this morning on the other board.

Banbury, why would a high net worth person with a possibly high value ISA have to sell everything in their ISA to buy a few hundred million shares in RRR? that doesn't make sense and there doesn't need to have been a transfer...

He hasn't implied it it was an ISA transfer.

Think the one 22 seconds later was a buy... My aim might have been off with the typing for a few words.

Have a good day...

Correction... will leave these out of further posting, not put off till later!

Bit ironic the spelling and concentration was good at 02:01, except for the fact I had mis-read what I was replying to.

Apologies specinvestor99, I note you have assumed ultimately two net sells as you think there were two deletions. In that case you didn't think there were four sells for the approximately 405 million shares. Therefore my 02:01 post should be disregarded.

We seem to be agreed in thinking that it is two transactions, I think the one 22 seconds later facilitated by a broker on the clients behalf. I have got other variances going on in my head around this but will leave these put of further posting.

Cheers

Specinvestor99, you are assuming four sells for exactly the same amount of 405,175,088 shares and the two transactions listed unknown for 405,175,088 shares as deletions. I think they were the real ones ones, one a sell and one a buy. This would be a possibility, in keeping with the RNS of 04/07/24 for reasons I have already given. if you look at the transaction at 15:33:05 the price was 0.045, if you look at the trade price at 15:33:27 the price was 0.04502 - fractionally higher and I think that was the buy - it is a very small difference between the two prices and it wouldn't surprise me if it was done on behalf of a high net worth individual by a broker who negotiated the best possible price.

Four sells for such a large amount of shares within 22 seconds would seem to be unusual and it would require two sells to go through 15:33:05 on the same second... and two sells to also go through at 15:33:27 on the same second... all with the 405,175,088 shares - I don't think that is possible so I think we are left with one sell of 405,175,088 and one subsequent buy of 405,175,088 shares .

Also meant to say two large trades as specinverstor99 implied at 16:27, but what with checking on the other page and holding my thoughts together, I forgot to acknowledge, I might not have thoroughly... checked promptly without that post. Thanks...

Not approximately... I was going to type the cash value changed it to shares - so exactly: 405,175,088 shares - I will check the share price records one more time... Will probably be offline most of the evening.

Cheers...

I think it is a sell at 15:33.05 and a buy at 15:33.27, so two large trades not six, with three duplicates showing up on today's prints. In relation to the RRR rns of 04/07/24 I think a conversion option has been taken instead of interst payment on something like a fund and share account but crucially a non-ISA platform. I then think those shares have been sold but then bought back 22 seconds later with high value spare cash that was available in an ISA such that the approximately 405,175,088 shares are now held in an ISA.

Fair enough... but if I was in that position I would want the current boss of RRR retained for at least Mussoni, think I would still want to retain the current boss - don't know how that variance would fit in and how the various preamble would work.

I suppose CLN note holders might not all just be exposed via RRR viaa CLN and that may or may not apply to a plural.

I don't know how all the value apportion of this company is exactly divided but shareholders still own part of it and there are still shares outstanding. My guess and only a guess is that CLN holders don't have full control, if there was an issue as you suggested possible, I think others will possibly have an influence e.g. large shareholders and I think people could still become part of the play e.g. new shareholders or even strategic new lender(s).

I am only considering based on logic but no knowledge of how that stuff works, I will say I've always liked New Ballarat... but can't afford to put a hat on it... If I could, I would....

And would they loose a hat on New Ballarat?...