Member Info for Pocko

It's great that investors can take losses with such good grace and humour. A nice drop in Sweden suggests a likely drop here too.

I'd have thought it quite obvious what occurs from this point? Rinse and repeat. All those lovely cash calls down to pennies.

And Bowie is a finance guy, allegedly, that's managed to do a worse job of the finance than the mining guy, who incidentally, never mined a thing in his life. Budge was a Nepo Baby that clung to the coat tails of his father.

Life doesn't work like, and not does business....

And when you work for a business, like Bowie and his ilk, you have a duty to shareholders interests. So far, he's lined his own pockets.

And I get the distinct impression that you've never owned or run a business?

You're a kite flying in the wind.

Take a look at Discord... Lots of very unhappy Swedish investors

I just don't believe that the company is 'busy behind the scenes', and I do not buy into the notion that somehow, beyond tea and biscuits at junior mining conferences, that let's face it, have often resembled amateur hour, Kallak is on the near radar of major miners.

Again, if they wanted it, they could buy it for peanuts.

Maddog38, stop with the conspiracies.

The SGU discovered Kallak in the 1950's - It's no secret.

Every major mining company is aware of it's existence, but that doesn't mean they want to buy it, have discussed buying it, offered to buy it, or had cosy little chats with Budge, Bowie, or anyone else connected tobtje company.

The market cap is £12.6m - A mining giant could buy it, and it would be nothing more than accounting error to them. It literally represents that small a financial risk to a big company.

why they bod are seemingly absolved of any responsibility for our current predicament is beyond me?

budge inherited 'a mess' from csp.

bowie has alluded to 'inheriting a mess' from budge.

time they owned their own ****.

The court decision is undoubtedly a drag on the SP and creates huge uncertainty.

However, we've a share consolidation, and signposted within the last RNS was a further equity issue. The new shares will be circa 35p, but who in their right mind would buy at that stage, knowing that there will be a discount to the market with a fundraise imminent?

It's not just the court that's created uncertainty, poor management has played a significant part too.

The BOD should own their mistakes.

Are you aug59 in disguise?

Absolutely nothing has occurred or been discussed behind the scenes for the last 14-years, that much is quite evident from our lowly position.

Not to say that won't change... But history is a great teacher.

and what can rostin have possibly done to warrant being paid £144k on top of his retainer?

am i the only person to have actually read the latest financials? if the figures contained within don't make your **** boil, there's no hope

The £3m spent on adminstration last year? Now that's a waste...

The court ruling is an uncertainty, and a drag on the SP. But the current state of affairs is wholly the doing of the BOD.

And that court ruling is literally game-over for the company if it goes against the government.

And it's an opinion piece, fact based, but none the less, an opinion piece. The market currently values us at 0.07p per share.

That report was written, from a financial, at a specific moment in time, and under a specific set of circumstances. It will no doubt be re-written to reflect new circumstances.

So yes, it's completely out of date from a financial perspective, much like yesterday's news.

Let's stick to the facts.

The recent SP evaluation is another matter altogether.

5p is just a rating... Not an actual market value. They will be 5p Ordinary shares. It's a legal thing... They could be ordinary 10p shares for instance.

And I accept that a small cap with billions of shares in an unattractive proposition, but without without news, we'll be there again in no time.

38m shares will very quickly become 76m... Watch this space.

Dumb money? That's how Bowie and his ilk view private investors.

And apologies, tapping away on a phone - Likewise for the figures if they are out

1:50 share consolidation

The new shares are designated 5p Ordinary shares

The old shares were ordinary 1p shares

Prior to the last fundraise, they were split to 0.001 and 0.008 (Because legally they weren't allowed to issue more equity under the 1p ordinary share designation.

The new shares will enter the market at the current market value - So around 35p.

Now, in answer to your question, as you can see from above, 35p offers nice discount opportunities when issuing new equity, all the way back down to where we are today!

Roundly decried for my negativity, but there you go - Exactly what I've said all along.

They can do this in perpetuity, or for at least as long as dumb money allows.

Rxecutive Directors’ terms of engagement:

Mr Budge was the first Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer during the reporting period. His annual

salary was £210,000 (2022: £180,000). Mr Budge stepped down as CEO on 3 May 2023.

Mr Röstin assumed the role of Executive Chairman and interim CEO effective 3 May 2023 at the time of Mr

Budge’s resignation. Mr Röstin was remunerated under his consultancy agreement during this time. Mr Röstin

stepped down as interim CEO 7 August 2023.

Ed Bowie assumed the role of Chief Executive Officer on 7 August 2023. His annual salary was £210,000.

Non-Executive Directors’ terms of engagement

The Non-Executive Directors have specific terms of engagement under a letter of appointment. Their

remuneration is determined by the Board. In the event that a Non-Executive Director undertakes additional

assignments or work for the Company, this is covered under a separate consultancy agreement.

Mr Röstin annual fee is 500,000 SEK per annum (approx. £38,000) (2022: £Nil). Mr Röstin has a consultancy

agreement with the Company for the provision of advice over and above his Non-Executive duties. In 2023, he

was paid £144,711 (2022: £Nil) under this agreement. Mr Röstin has a one month notice period under his letter

of appointment.

Mr Davies annual fee is £36,000 per annum (2022: £36,000). Mr Davies has a consultancy agreement with the

Company for the provision of exploration advice over and above his Non-Executive duties. In 2023, he was paid

£20,750 (2022: £3,000) under this agreement. Mr Davies has a one month notice period under his letter of

appointment.

The additional consultancy fees during the reporting period for both Mr Rostin and Mr Davies related to the

period of time between the departure of Kurt Budge and the appointment of the new CEO, Ed Bowie as they had

to assume executive responsibilities. Following the appointment of the new CEO these fees have reduced

considerably.

Mr Schauman was appointed as Non-Executive Director on 7 July 2023. Under Mr Schauman’s letter of

appointment, he is paid a fee of £33,000 per annum. Mr Schauman has a notice period of one month under his

letter of appointment.

Rostin and Bowie seem to be doing ok out of this...

It's the fact that we've just been through a fundfaise that has been detrimental to private investors, and barely improved the circumstances of the company, and yet here they are again, fiddling at the edges.

Seemingly little tangible process, and the board have the time to focus on awarding themselves options.

They should be wholly focused on operational matters. Rewards come for results, not to motivate.

And don't just focus on the initial consolidation... Think it through. More dilution to private investors, who get caught in a never ending spiral of having to buy more shares just to stand still. Think about that.

The SP is distressed, and the last fundraise not fully achieved. I'd say that's evidence enough that the market doesn't believe.

Every single RNS is vague and contradictory to the last.

And having been in post since last August, I'd say that's plenty of time for an employee to have knuckled down and got on with it.