Member Info for NikeAir180

15:16: Banbury, you left out the bit from your diatribe where you had predicted an outsized number of shares to be issued in future relating to potential request in future AGM with regard to this year, subsequently your prediction was demonstrably false as the number of shares which could be issued in future pertaining to this year is much less which is what Dicko80 was referring to following this year's AGM - as he responded to your excess. Unsurprisingly you tend to miss out the relevant detail when trying to present yourself, in comparison, as Mr. Reasonable and Factual.

... on this thread. : )

Comments by me today are all actually relating to RRR RNS of 12/09/25.

Corrections - 17:45... with regard to Soma announcement on 12/09/25 as they don't use RNS in Canada.

Final line - 17:16: ... in your opinion Spec.

There is no doubt that the agreement with regard to £1,000,000 was a defintive agreement which Soma had entered into with RRR and that agreement had been executed - as was clear from the Soma RNS of 12/08/25. One might wonder how many days until that monetary value - pertaining to the sale of the royalty - was or will be received by RRR but the statement fom that RNS defines a non-relevant space for wondering - in my opinion.

No - 15:57, I will add re. 14:42 - the whole of the RNS also referred to features of the royalty as well as sale of it, value of the sale - monetary value and warrants to be issued, the crux of the RNS was the greater part of the whole of which I had previously summarasied - there is enough similarity between the whole of the 12/08/25 RNS and the whole of the italicised comments from that RNS for me to say "No" in response to the start of 15:57.

Ha ha : ) I sometimes mean comment as comments - an informal sense of the pural but technically comments as plural of comment particularly when writing is more correct.

In Bell's italicised comments (from 12/08/25 RNS) he wrote about the value of the sale of the royalty plus the warrants and conveyed his opinion that it is a fair deal, he later said (am slighly paraphrasing from memory) there will be a further RNS when consideration is received. He only wrote consideration(s) once within his italiced comments - it was clear what his train of thought, with regard to the italicised comments, was and so continuation possibly meant as the plural of continuation in the general sense - relevant to the whole of his italicised comments - seems to be a fair and reasonable variation.

... as considerations ✅ or the considerations (countable things - specific in some way) consideration (plural in the general sense or it could be singular). The general sense within the context of the RNS might have been been a reasonable variation.

Consideration can be regarded as the plural of consideration and that may have been what was meant in Bell's italicised comment from 12/07/25 - if that was the intent it could alternatively have been put as condiderations or the considerations, given the whole RNS was to do with the sale of the Royalty, the money to be received for that and the warrants to be received - consideration - possibly intended as a plural of consideration in the general sense might be fair enough with relevance to the RNS.

Even if it drills first that is for a potential oilfied, prospective gas is still relevant.

Re. 22:05 - To put it better: ... an automated aspect done too quckly ...

On a separate matter I read about an automated process done too quicly - article was dated 29/08/25, there were some positives alluded to in the article but speed of change was mentioned, hopefully it is a temporary complication re. process regarding the slower aspect Bell referred too and given he said "we" had used them before - hopefully things can run smoothly again.

20:15 - Banbury keeping it "simple". 😉

Conclusion of 14:39: Ditto for over fifteen years back with RRR.

Re. 12:38 post by Banbury: RRR listed in July 2005 - for the first 5 and a half years there were no updates by RRR concerning Greenland and no updates re. exploration or investment with regard to assets in that country.

The annual report of 13/12/10 details a clendar year share price rise from 1p to 14p and 1.77 to 14p rise with regard to the second half of 2010. Both 2010 and 2011 annual reports detail multiple millions of pounds of profit to RRR. Fifteen and a half years back with RRR might yield positive memories but to do with assets other than those in Greenland.

Nice try blueboy - 🙋‍♂️

Last year was relevant to the comparison with Theeeduke's commentary re. the 32 / 31 million shares - even Bell has bought and sold shares in recent years (within the last three full calendar years) buying and selling of shares is often reasonable behaviour as is holding shares, as is not holding shares.

Helpful bought some shares last year, according to him (if memory is correct) - no mention of subsequently selling them. That (09:05) was not the reason Theeeduke gave at the time re. the discussed 32 million / 31 million shares, last year.

Their responses then are better than yours today, blueboy1975.

Re. 11:18: Well responded to by Bell and Winnifrith in the comments section under the article.