Member Info for NikeAir180

During "all that time" with regard to this company's relationship with rocks - since listing in 2005, Banbury at 14:00 is again wrong.

Your claim that that was boring suggests to me, your interest in Red Rock Resources has little to do with the rocks.

I note that you used apostrophies rather than quotation marks for a remark that you have made up, at 18:38, blueboy1975.

I note you used apostrophies rather than quotation marks, for a remark that that you have made, up at

18:38, blueboy1975.

Re. 15:50 Banbury, it is actually two loans at 20% interest per annum, their combined total is moderately over a million pounds, there are actually two loans at 0.5% interest a day: 50k and 150k which does not equal 300k - as per section 18 of the annual report, 13/12/24.

Your 17:47 post started with a false statement Banbury. A close read of section 18 of the annual report of 13/12/24 reveals unarguble evidence of this.

Beyond where your post was false, section 18 of the 13/12/24 annual report gives less selective details about loans and interest rates.

Further to 03:24 in response to 18:49:

I appreciate that there were mixed results at Regency Minrs when Bell was at the helm but i did find an authentic sauce via an article by Paul Johnson - that in 2010 it would have been possible to get 20 multiples return on a Regency Mines Investnent, made in 2008.

As I've previously said in the calendar year of 2010 it was possible to get 14 and a quarter multiples return on an investment made that year and as as someone has said to me the upwards range was rembered by them as more than that - perhaps within the small remaining window of that year (or early the following year) there was an absolute peak.

RRR have had 5 profitable years with Bell at the helm.

He made a strong contribution to the recovery of Grestland Gold with Paul Johnson and by bringing in a funding parner via his role as Chairman, he helped set it up for future success, and some, has since been achieved.

He ran a base materials focused fund at Morgan Grenfell and on previous reading of Simply Wall Street on line research facilit, it was stated that his was the number 1 fund, in that sector, for several years.

All in all the article in the link at 18:49, referring to a time from before RRR had even listed, does not seem to to be relevant to this company or its leadership.

That article (18:49) referred to a time before RRR was a going concern.

Re. 16:46: final paragraph - I don't recall Bell saying that - verbatim or even with the same literal meaning.

Your use of the word "may" doesn't confirm recent past tense but the word can be used in that sense when referring to someone else's expression - as said I do not recall an imagined expression as per 16:46.

The earlier point you referred to - I didn't regard as specifically negative, beaurocracy might have been regarded in the general sense (not specific to RRR) as potentially slowing things down, am sure he would agree with the idea that beaurocracy does some things well.

Banbury (17:35) seems like you are applying false dichotomy again.

Wrong way round... lucky circumstances - which might be the result of earned priviliges for someone borne into such. Eventually... I checked that the spelling was for one word and got the logic the right way round.

Have a good weekend everyone. : )

In general - if "privilege" is the result of achievement following a combination of ability and hard work, I don't see how it reasonably can be a gripe, or a sneering criticism. The privileges that are a result of lucky circumstances don't bother me either, often they have been earned by older generations, ancestors. Regarding achievement in one's own life, I don't see how others can gripe about that, less time griping might leave more time for one's own contentment.

Correcting start of 03:32: "may" does not mean will or shall... it does in that context mean could.

Re. 01:20 "may does not mean will or shall" it does in that context mean could. The agreement that originated as per 13/03/19 RNS was subsequently ammended on 10/12/24 as per RRR RNS of 11/12/24. The payment due nine months after completion - which was in june 2024, was majority, as in 200k, paid prior to the RNS of 11/12/24, a smaller proportion - 50k was intended to be paid in january 2025, it is possible that has happened.

The 250k of convertible loan notes value that was due in december 2024 was postponed to March 19th 2025.

I'm sure there will have been communication between the leadership of both companies, they will know more than posters on the share chats and will have considered variables with some depth.

... not 60 days late from 19/03/25...

Parfettt123, the detail I was considering was from the 11/12/24 RNS - RRR paid 200k of the 250k due nine months after completion early following an amendment to the agreement on 10/12/24. The convertible loan notes of 250k were instead put through to March 19th 2025, full details are in the RNS - it may be that 50k was paid in January adding to the 200k that was paid early. RRR are late, it would seem with lack of RNS relating to 19/03/24 but they are not 60 days late, they still have a good relationship with POW in my opinion and they have stated before they have the support of major shareholders for the deal, there is more than one possibility for how it could have been or could be paid, I am sure they will consider all shareholders including POW and I believe they will one day communicate the payment has concluded.

ART123, we will see how it all goes, direct expozure to Uranium asset(s) if that goes well, potentially indirect exposure to gold assets if they go well, from POW perspective, I like (curreny direct exposure) Tati gold potential.

21:04, he will know more than you on the minutia of the agreement, two days is not 60, a previous RNS from RRR actually referred to one aspect paid early, battery out now but both ckmpanies have demonstrated a little bit of flexibility and a good relationship.

Bell and Johnson helped Greatland Gold recover fromthe 0's to around 2.5p (source an interview on youtube with Johnson from a few years ago and am assuming Bell left at the same time as Johnson) Bell as Chairman brought in a funding partner which helped Greatland Gold to be stable and pursue future success (source - interview with Proactive Investors and Bell from a few years ago).

Wade became CEO of POW in March 2023, Johnson stepped down from CEO but maintained an advisory role, possibly still does.

POW also has some shares in RRR and will retain royalty interest in what used to be the joint venture. It is for Wade to decide what is in the best interests of POW, possibly with a deeper analysis than a few comments from the share chats.

It remains the case that it is partly thanks to RRR and Bell a few years ago, that POW recovered from the latter ABM days, that recovery was also in large part because of Johnson, some other people as well and I also have a lot of respect for Wade and POW's development and his ledership, over the last couple of years - implementing Johnson's original vision while adding his own good ideas, interpretation, occasional adjustments.

It was clear from reading some POW RNS' which go back to June 2019, the strong relationship between POW and RRR.

Bell became Chairman of African Metals after the refinancing was voted through in Febuary 2019 and stayed on as Chairman of Power Metal Resources (after the renaming in june 2019) through to September 2021, he left so as to concentrarate more on RRR and RRAL but did agree to stay on in an advisory capacity to POW for a further twelve months which I think is an example of the esteem in which he was held and as I said, I believe there to still be good esteem between the two companies and between their leadership.