Member Info for NikeAir180

Not done the maths on it Helpful but have checked transactions over the last twelve months, excluding comission there was one tranche which was buy coincidence £285 at a share price of 0.0285 , in the other wrapper there was slightly over £830 bought at 0.0268 - haven't sold any RRR shares during the last twelve months.

Aspiration of 142 in the 23/10/25 RNS - consistent with what I heard in the most recent published video.

I heard it as 142?

From his posts I seem to recall Helpful saying he was not invested in Cote assets relevant to RRR, he is presumably not employed by RRR nor a major - above 10% shareholder (nor above 3%) so not obviously an insider to RRR's sale of Cote asset, in my opinion.

22:41, 22:58 - Banbury, you were actually responding to a post (19:47) by Spec, not Helpful.

Get it Right before Midnight ! 😎

You realised Banbury - 15/10/24, that gold "production" was just a target for by the end of the year, that was clear in one of your posts. As time passed and there was no announcement of that target having been met you decided the target was a "promise" as you continued on a path to more naysing.

Sounds like some stuff is before Christmas, some stuff is after.

No evidence yet that they are taking control of "all gold mining".

2024 / 2025, he's been alright on deals so far.

I believe that you are a sometime cyclist.

"fully impaired in the current year" as per section 13 of the annual report of 13/12/24.

Correct thread - 12:37: notably, following a recent slim din from naysayer, it is to Red Rock Resources PLC.

Re. 12:37: notably, following a recent slim din from naysayer, it is to Red Rock Resources PLC.

Except plans changed re. gold Burkina Faso, new start up team - management as explained with continuity through atumn and winter RNS' - 2024, crucially equipment got on to relevant site and necessary minimal license conditions were fulfilled as per Chairman's starement - annual report, 13/12/24.

Just a slim din on Tin Hill - paraphrasing slightly but it.was on tbe lines of: how much would be significant ... 1 m , 2 m ? It was a rhetoical answer to a naysayer with a little bit of sarcasm and was non-literal - and that's how it read at the time.

While there was a previous mix up regarding photos such as incorrrect one(s) apperared (never even saw so can't remember number) having read the explanation from Bell, support from Winnifrith and broad agreement from Helpful, the reality seems to be those previous one(s) weren't "fake" even if incorrectly and mistakenly applied

... And an edit was a bit slow.

It was detaling two days ago regarding percentage change and it could have been different to earlier in the day rather than a previous day or compared to a previous day. It could have still been the same today or it might have changed.

22:15 was an improvement on accuracy.

Although the the 10:25 RNS was today it was detailing yesterday and the day before so aprroximately 4.9% detailed by the RNS but today might have been different to yesterday or could still have been the same in that regard.

19:24: regarding the interview, I think there is a good rapport, they both have a sense of humour and there is a little bit of banter as the conversation starts. There was a little bit of side eye when Bell said "a few days of beachifying appointment" which I think was absorbing the turn of phrase and consideration of what he meant within the context of what was being discussed, like a slight slow down as one listens and understands a specific. Near the end of the interview, Bell was optimistic about progress - "quickly" for something that been not fully resolved for a a few years, I think the smile of the interviewer was out of respect for the time it has taken so far, scepticism and the possibiliy that it might happen. As ever the interviewer concluded the chat courteously with a serious smile which I interpreted as respect not just for Bell but also those watching the interview and for time...