Member Info for RachT2

F1Driver

Many thanks for your eloquent and thoroughly researched responses to my earlier post — the one where I pointed out that your facts were inaccurate..

Rather than acknowledge the error or attempt a reasoned counter-argument, you’ve opted for the familiar route: ridicule and deflection. Always the choice of “masterminds” who haven't the ability to construct a valid counter argument.

A quick look through your posts here — and on other boards — suggests a consistent pattern. Virtually no original information, plenty of recycled ramptastic claptrap, and the usual insults directed at anyone who dares to hold a different view. A true reflection of your genius - LOL.

No doubt you’ll be along shortly to demonstrate your “formidable intellect” yet again. Sadly for me I won’t get to enjoy it, as I’ve now filtered your dross.

Do carry on though — I’m sure the performance will be riveting.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. It’s opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

And right on cue a new poster appears displaying their “in-depth knowledge” of the company.

That so-called “consensus 12-month analyst target” has actually been unchanged for years. The figure that gets quoted on sites like Stockopedia is sourced from a third-party data provider, and it only changes if someone actually publishes a new research note.

I think you'll find that the “current 21.80p” target dates back to November 2019, written by Simon Scholes of First Berlin Equity Research. At the time the company was still pushing the very optimistic narrative around the Dundas project — and we all know how that particular “debacle” played out.

So calling it a “current consensus target” is rather misleading. It’s not current, it’s based on hype that failed to materialize, and with only one historical note behind it, it certainly isn’t a consensus.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. It’s opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

And right on cue — the ramping crew appears to have gone into overdrive. 🤣

Take a look at the sudden influx of new posters. All experts, all armed with confident share price predictions and bragging of their investment - be they real or fictitious. It’s a familiar pattern and a good example of how spikes can begin to form.

I'm hopeful this spike has further to run, but as I’ve said before, I wouldn’t be surprised if it eventually unwinds in the days or weeks following the float. Once the excitement fades and the newer rampers move on, boards often go quiet again — at least until the next “big event” appears on the horizon.

Meanwhile PELI has been drifting down. My suspicion is that there may have been some redemptions, or that the market is anticipating them.

That’s a bit of a double-edged sword. On one hand, redemptions could reduce the eventual share float, tightening supply and potentially supporting the share price once GNLD lists. On the other hand, it also means less cash remains in the SPAC trust. That said, it’s not necessarily a major issue in the short term given that the initial drilling funds are not expected to come directly from the trust balance.

Either way, it looks like it could be an interesting week ahead.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. It’s opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Silverfoxd

Thank you for your reply.

At the moment we have two confirmed holders — Merus Global Investments and Decagon Asset Management — which together appear to account for roughly 14% of the SPAC. Depending on final redemption levels, that could translate into a fairly significant portion of the effective “available” float between them.

My initial assumption was that Merus would be the longer-term holder, with Decagon the more likely candidate to trade around the position in the shorter term.

However, if your interpretation is correct, it would actually support my broader view that the share price could see a peak in the days or weeks following the float. If both parties are willing to take profits on early strength, the initial move could be sharp — but potentially short-lived as selling puts downward pressure on the price.

As ever with these situations, the interaction between a tight float and early institutional profit-taking could end up defining the initial trading pattern.

IMHO. DYOR.

Ashton

Thanks for the correction — you’re quite right, it’s Merus Global that has a notifiable holding in the SPAC, not Metis Global.

I had been looking into both firms as their names have cropped up on the board. Metis first came up in SilverFoxd’s post referencing the 13G filing, which is probably where the wires got crossed. GNLD would fit well with the sort of opportunities Metis typically targets, but at present there’s no indication that they’ve actually taken a position.

That said, in my opinion the involvement of either firm would be a positive for the upcoming GNLD listing and further tightens what already looks like a limited public float.

The distinction is in their approach. If Metis were involved I’d probably expect a greater chance of activity around any early post-float spike. Merus, on the other hand, tends to be more of a conviction holder, so their participation may be more aligned with positioning for the H2 drill results rather than looking to trade short-term moves.

Either way, the presence of institutions like these reduces the amount of freely tradable stock and could have a noticeable impact on supply dynamics once trading begins.

All IMHO, of course.

I’m genuinely surprised at the apparent lack of interest here regarding Metis Global Partners taking a position. To me it’s one of the most important developments around the float of GNLD, yet it barely seems to register with some of the regular posters on the board.

In my view, the Metis position could prove critical in determining early share price direction once GNLD starts trading.

As SilverFoxd pointed out, Metis ultimately trades shares for profit — the key point is their holding behaviour. Their average investment is typically held for around 2–4 years, although that average obviously includes some positions held only months and others for many years.

Another factor is the likely tightness of the tradeable float. A significant proportion of GNLD shares will already be held by founders and early stakeholders, which immediately restricts the public float. That could tighten further if there are redemptions within the SPAC structure.

Metis may hold 5%+ of the SPAC, but depending on the final structure that could translate into a meaningful percentage of the effective free float. In other words, their position alone could materially influence supply in the market. If those shares are largely held rather than traded — which seems plausible if they are positioning for the H2 drill results — then the available float becomes even tighter.

That’s why the Metis stake is potentially pivotal. If demand appears into a constrained float, the share price could move sharply. Conversely, if the price spikes strongly and Metis decides to realise some gains, their activity could just as easily apply downward pressure.

Either way, their position is likely to be a key factor in how the share price behaves post-float.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. It’s opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

My take on Metis.

I’m a little surprised there hasn’t been more discussion around Metis Global Partners buying in. To me, that looks like the most meaningful external vote of confidence we’ve seen so far.

It’s also worth noting that their investment approach is quite different from the recent activity from Meteora Capital in Pelican Acquisition Corporation. Meteora’s SPAC strategy is fairly well known — build large positions and often flip them for relatively small premium gains.

Metis operates differently. Their focus tends to be on identifying alpha in micro-cap and frontier markets — in other words, asymmetric upside opportunities. Their model is to build diversified portfolios and capture bottom-up gains across a wide range of holdings.

With roughly $4bn spread across around 150–250 positions, they clearly see some merit in gaining exposure to GNLD from the outset.

That said, this investment represents an exceptionally small percentage of their overall portfolio, so we shouldn’t read too much into it. Even so, in my view it’s still the most meaningful external endorsement we’ve seen to date.

I still wouldn’t be surprised if we see a lull in excitement in the days or weeks following the float while the market waits for the next material developments.

Metis would also likely take profits if there were significant near-term gains.

As always with this company, timing tends to be unpredictable.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. It’s opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Amusing day on the board — Amy has reappeared.

Three posts already today, and the same routine we see on every board they turn up on. Highly entertaining.

Today’s highlight:

“There are some large buyers lined up both in 80M and in GLND when it lists.”

Oh really? Fascinating insight. Presumably sourced from the same crystal ball that produces the rest of those confident proclamations.

Perhaps you could point everyone to the source of that information? A filing, an announcement, anything verifiable?

No? Thought not.

So we’re left with what it almost always is — another confident sounding claim that exists purely in their imagination. Always impressive how these mysterious “large buyers” are supposedly waiting in the wings… yet the evidence never quite materialises.

Still, it keeps the board amusing. Always good for a laugh.

All IMHO, of course.

CC

Oh no, all 3 of the amigos are back in action again 🤣

Can you point me to the post where Ashton supposedly asked whether I’d topped up during the recent dip? I don’t recall it.

As I asked Ashton earlier — why the sudden interest in my personal dealings? By focusing on what I may or may not be doing, you’re implying my opinion carries some special weight. Does it?

For clarity, I’ve already stated I sold some for a profit and am holding the remainder until the float. Would topping up suddenly make my opinion more valid?

Of course not. Anyone who thinks position size equals credibility is as deluded as the gloating poster.

Whether you’re convinced by my stance — or the size of my holding — is irrelevant to me. Holding shares does not confer analytical accuracy.

We’ve seen bold proclamations about “large six-figure” holdings before, followed by a ~97% decline. A substantial holding didn’t make that poster correct — and the positivity continued for years - all the way down.

As for the endless “just topped up” posts — do you genuinely accept every one at face value? That’s a personal choice.

I prefer to watch price action and market reaction. The noise is just that — noise.

All IMHO, of course.

Ashton

You really are a strange one. You have repeatedly stated that you won’t reply / engage with me directly. Yet here you are. Bizarre.

You’ve also made it clear that you have strong conviction in RM and in this share. Fair enough — everyone is entitled to their view. But if your position is that entrenched, my opinions are unlikely to influence you in the slightest.

So why the sudden interest in my expectations of future events? If you’re confident in your thesis, my stance shouldn’t matter.

As ever, all IMHO, of course.

Murray

I hadn’t realised I was in the presence of such an expert. Thank you for clarifying that a strategy I’ve used successfully for decades is, in fact, “pure gambling.”

So the research, the understanding of company history, the timing of spikes, the risk management — all irrelevant. Apparently it’s just hope. Remarkable. I must re-assess my “hoping technique.”

You're talking a crock of s**t about something you know nothing about. There’s a world of difference between calculated trading of volatility and blind punting. Declaring anything you don’t personally fully understand (or have knowledge of) to be “gambling” says more about your own naivety and lack of knowledge than it does about the strategy I successfully choose to use.

But do carry on. It’s always enlightening to be corrected by someone so confident. LOL.

All IMHO, of course.

Murray

I didn’t respond initially because I consider it a pointless question, and I still do.

What “price range” are you expecting exactly? One so absurdly wide that it covers every possible outcome — and is therefore useless — or a neat little figure plucked from thin air to sound authoritative and help you make an investment decision?

At this stage nobody knows how this plays out. Anyone pretending otherwise is talking utter claptrap.

If you’ve read my posts, you’ll know I try to benefit from the spikes. I don’t indulge in heroic long-term price forecasts because I’ve seen far too many confident assurances and “this time it’s different” narratives end in failure, revised timelines and disappointment.

For 80M, I deal with what’s in front of me — volatility and opportunity — not fantasy ranges designed to look clever on a bulletin board.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. It’s opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Panman

In September you stated you had filtered me — and repeated the same claim again in January. So that’s twice you’ve supposedly filtered me, yet here you are responding directly to my posts. Bizarre.

As for taking offence at being described as a “ramper” — that’s rich, given that you’ve referred to me as a troll, a liar and a deceiver. That seems somewhat inconsistent.

If you are overly sensitive to labels, perhaps we can agree to avoid them altogether. I’m perfectly happy to reassess my view based purely on the substance of your posts rather than the tone — but that works both ways. If you’re waiting for an apology, though, I suspect you may have a long and disappointing wait.

Fair?

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. It’s opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Panman

In your attempt to praise a fellow ramper you’ve been a bit light on the facts; “ASHTON was "rampng" this back in Aug, Sept…” hardly tells the whole sorrowful story.

For anyone new: Ashton was ramping all the way down from 9.1p to around 0.25p — a 97%+ fall. The positive tone didn’t change. The positivity continued throughout several years of decline. Anyone listening to a more cautious tone (what you pathetically refer to as “trolls”) throughout those dismal years might have saved themselves a near total loss.

So to praise him now is totally out of context. Look at any share that's ever been - any fool can post an average of 5 posts a week for multiple years and (unless the company disappears) their continued nonsense will eventually coincide with the bottom. Someone staying relentlessly positive through a multi year 97%+ collapse and then praising them when the share price eventually bounces from the very bottom is ridiculous. It merely serves to illustrate your desperation to post a ramping narrative.

If ANYONE promotes ANY stock long enough, they’ll eventually catch the bottom. That doesn’t excuse the preceding years of inaccurate calls and numerous over optimistic claims that oversaw shareholder value utterly decimated.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. It’s opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

CC

The Fred West reference is tasteless and completely out of order.

Invoking a serial killer in a discussion about a share is neither clever nor funny — it trivialises real atrocities and drags the tone of the board into the gutter.

Debate the company, the strategy, the numbers — but leave that kind of horror out of it.

Banz

That’s a bit harsh.

LITT wasn’t the only enthusiastic voice — although he was certainly one of the more prolific. The broader issue is that a sustained volume of ramping / “highly promotional posting” from multiple sources can be very persuasive, especially to newer investors who may not yet be familiar with the company’s history or who don’t have the time or inclination to dig through old RNS statements and timelines.

This episode is, in my view, another reminder of why DYOTR (Do Your Own Thorough Research) matters. Message boards can be useful for sharing information, but they can also amplify the ramping narrative.

Some posters have a clear style: strong conviction, heavy emphasis on upside, minimal / no discussion of risk. They rarely engage constructively with legitimate negatives when raised — either choosing to ignore them entirely, deflect attention or resorting to ridicule and dismissive accusations instead of addressing the substance. On most occasions it appears there is simply no counter-argument offered at all.

It also doesn’t take long to review posting histories across different boards. You’ll often see the same poster repeating the same themes across multiple stocks, sometimes simultaneously, with enthusiasm fading once the story changes or ceasing entirely once they've sold and moved on.

Rampers, in my opinion, are an investor’s worst enemy — unless you are deliberately trading the spikes they help create. Their activity tends to generate short-lived frenzies rather than sustained long-term appreciation based on timely delivery of targets and with hurdles being achieved. Spikes driven by excitement are fleeting; value built on reliable execution endures.

Be careful out there, folks.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. It’s opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Well the markets have spoken - and they concur - the rampers have been talking utter nonsense. No surprise there then.

How much was the price going to be by now? LOL.

Apparently only needed the SEC filings to go ‘effective’ and then - BOOM. LOL. Reality - not even a plop.

Yesterday's “big” news of the listing date would apparently be another BOOM. Reality - plop.

Etc,etc,etc………………

Market here and the US (so far) totally underwhelmed. PELI down slightly on the news yesterday (are there redemptions being made?) and 80M flat.

Might I make a suggestion to Buzz, VikR and the rest of the ramping crew - give it a break; you've lost any credibility. Crank up your nonsense nearer to the listing - hopefully by then somebody might fall for your claptrap and help raise the share price.

I’ve always said the listing and the days / week that follow the listing will be the most likely time for this spike to peak. Everything else until then is just noise.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. It’s opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Panman

“Let's be clear” says you. LOL.

“Verbal acrobatics”?

I’d suggest simply reading what was actually written.

At no point did I state that the EBT was established at 0.619p. In fact, I didn’t state a specific establishment price at all. You’ve made that up yourself.

Clue: read the post slowly and thoroughly.

If there are verbal acrobatics here, they’re not mine.

As for the fourfold rise — yes, on the face of it that sounds impressive. But context matters. It was a rise from a near all-time low — a low that virtually coincided with the establishment of the EBT. Fancy that. That timing is hardly irrelevant.

If anything, that reinforces the point I’ve been making. It doesn’t undermine it.

IMHO only. DYOR.

CC

Much as I admire your devotion (or bias), let’s revisit a bit of history. I’ll reference RM simply because he has been central to events, is easy to track, and — as I understand it — is likely to benefit from the EBT. As I’ve said before, we still don’t appear to have full transparency on allocation within the scheme. We were told only that “Participants in the EBT scheme are directors and employees of the Company.” Which directors? Which employees? In what proportions? As far as I can tell, that detail has never been clearly disclosed.

Under RM’s earlier tenure the share price rose to roughly 25–27p, driven by very optimistic projections and expectations around Dundas. When Dundas failed to live up to the “cash cow” narrative, the share price didn’t merely drift — it collapsed.

RM resigned on 23/6/22. His holding was reduced below 3% on 6/9/22. The high that day was around 7p (with some preceding heavy-volume days higher), but let’s assume 7p for simplicity. That’s a fall from ~25p to ~7p during what Ashton later described as the Dundas debacle — roughly 70% value destruction during that phase alone. RM then rejoined on 20/12/23. The high on the preceding day was 0.615p.

At the time the EBT was established there were approximately 4.329bn shares in issue. The market cap hurdles equated to approximately:

£15m = 0.346p

£20m = 0.462p

£25m = 0.577p

£40m = 0.924p

So let’s be clear: the first three “performance’’ hurdles required a share price target materially below the level at which RM rejoined the company. Even the highest hurdle — 0.924p — represented only around a 32% increase over 0.615p. In a volatile AIM small cap, that’s not exceptional performance — it’s ordinary market movement.

So, assuming RM is a participant in the EBT, what exactly is being rewarded since his return — and why do you consider it appropriate? Is he not being rewarded for achieving a lower share price? Three of four hurdles were triggered at prices below re-entry level. The fourth required a relatively modest percentage move in a highly volatile stock. Meanwhile, long-term shareholders had endured an approximate 98% collapse from prior highs.

You may see that as aligned incentives. I see it as a very low bar in the context of the historical destruction of value.

How might institutional investors interpret such structures? Does the difficulty in achieving quorum at the last meeting perhaps offer some insight into broader sentiment?

We can agree to disagree. But from my perspective, the EBT was extremely generous and the thresholds were set far too low relative to the backdrop.

Nice work if you can get it. Less so if you were a long-term holder diluted along the way.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. It’s opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.

Ashton

Thanks for your prompt reply.

You state - ‘’Let's see where the share price gets to when ALL three pending outcomes have been actually delivered (I repeat "ALL three").

Yet you then reference the prevailing share price at the time I made my post. Why?

Are you implying that each of the three updates will independently drive the share price higher? That those increases will be sustained? Or that the share price will only be higher once all three have occurred?

If it’s the latter, then we’re broadly aligned — but in that case, why reference the share price when I made my post? That seems nonsensical.

Regarding the actual commencement of drilling, number 3, I already said:

“That said, I’m hopeful that company representatives — along with you and the ever-enthusiastic ramping crew — will use the event to generate another spike.”

So yes, I too expect a share price rise once ‘’ALL three’’ outcomes have passed. I'm looking forward to news of the drill starting — and to the inevitable burst of ‘’enthusiasm’’ that you and the ramping crew will provide to accompany it.

As with all my posts — past, present and future — this is IMHO only. It’s opinion, not advice. Please DYOR before making any investment decisions.