Member Info for Tangodog1024

@stevebt - it's on the WA mining titles website - status on licence application was updated today from 'pending' to 'granted', for an initial period of 21 years. Why there has not been an RNS is anybody's guess but we are all familiar with the clowns running #UFO

00:00:00 hours on 18/04/2024

M47/1633 - Has been updated from pending to live - granted for 21 years

There are definitely new exploration applications been submitted according to the WA Mineral Titles website - all within the last few days - E47/5157, E47/5158 and E47/5158. Not sure of the significance or if it is purely housekeeping.

Are not UFO's headquarters in London?

I see that referral under NTA for E 47/5001 was completed on 26/03/2024 - a little bit of progress. Just need the planning objection by BHP et al to be sorted

Are we sure that Max111 hasn't hacked Goingtomoonufo's account?

"The Company intends to start civil and site works immediately after Native Title is received in parallel to the grant of the mining licence. " - well, that has not happened so another example of UFO bulls**t to pretend to investors that all is well. Just like being shovel ready 2023, just like the appointment of a CEO early 2024 - there's a theme here. Not entirely convinced by the enthusiam on display in that most recent interview.

Thank you, Hindesight, I'm more concerned that on the mining website the NTA agreement is still pending even though its agreement was announced in mid-December. Is this because the self-reported historical issues are more serious than the company have us believe? My understanding is that NTA has to be cleared before any mining licence is approved so are we any really further forward than we were before the RNS announcement of 14th December? It does not appear so at this stage.

@Max111 - I have heard numerous declarations by numerous UFO Board members over the years and very few, if any, have materialised in the timelines of those declarations. The heresay of the non-executive chairman means jack s**t when he can't even get correct his own official proclamations over the appointment of a CEO and the EMT. There's been one RNS this year which turned out to be the 'Emperor's new clothes'. We all expected a DFS and got a development study - as always with UFO - so close yet still so far away. On top of that, we learn that UFO has had to report itself for breaches of regulations and the mining licence is nowhere on the horizon. By your own example, we should have had it weeks ago. If something looks like s**t, smells like s**t, then there's a good chance it's a pile of s**t. I remain a disgruntled shareholder.

@Max111 - on what evidence are you basing 'coming any day' for the mining licence? M47/1633 still has KNAC as pending even though it was supposedly all sorted a few months back - the position has not changed for months.

@Max111 - "Doesn't take much to get UFO moving." Although it does seem to be beyond the capabilities of the current circus, sorry, Board.

They have to report it, @wentsland, because it is information that could have a material effect on the share price of the company and on decisions by investors on whether to buy, hold or sell shares. I'm surprised it took so long to be reported.

I admire your positivity @Max111 but I think you are stating to border on the delusional. What is stated during an interview means jack s**t compared to a regulatory RNS announcement. UFO has so completely f****d up since its announcement of 27th December that it's easy to ask "Why should believe any thing that comes out of the mouth of a representative of UFO?" To state on 27th "The Company expects to make an announcement in the coming week about the new executive management team, who are expected to commence in early January 2024." is mindoboggling incompetence especially given the almost total silence since.

I totally agree with you, @Unclejim, this was supposed to be the defining quarter for UFO but we've had zilch apart from a couple of interviews that basically said what we already knew. The BoD could not even perform to their own self-imposed time frames regarding the appointment of the CEO and executive management team. It totally symbolises the inept performance of this company at such a crucial time. The lack of communication is mind boggling and the RNS in late December announcing the management changes could be bordering on market abuse (allegedly) as the obvious non-fulfilment has led to an erosion of the share price.

@HH - I have read the RNS announcement many, many times and it is quite clear:

"4. If, within 60 months of executing the Option Agreement, Alien disposes of its interest in the Projects, the Company will pay Windfield a performance payment in addition to the Upfront Consideration (Performance Payment).

5. The Performance Payment is calculated by:

a. In the event of a Tenement Sale: 50% of the value uplift attributable to the Projects;

b. In the event of an IPO/Spin-out event on a recognised stock exchange: 50% of the value uplift attributable to the Projects; or

c. In the event a decision to mine is made: 50% of the project valuation uplift attributable to the Projects.

In each case, the uplift payments are reduced by 50% of the incurred project expenditure. "

Clause 5 is directly linked to clause 4 - decision to dispose of assets. I have been involved in enough contract negotiations in a previous life to know when one clause clearly links to another. Also, it would be very amiss for UFO to mislead the markets if they knew of hidden clauses that could have a detrimental effect on its share price, in fact, it would be against regulations.

That clause is in relation to the BoD deciding to get rid of the asset by either sale, takeover, etc. It is not based on purely the decision to mine but getting rid of the asset. It is a common clause in most such contracts in many industries. It is similar to football clubs selling on a player and the player's previous club getting a cut of the sale.

They may have done - off market, but we will not know for 2-3 days until a TR1 appears or not.

You need 30% of shareholders to call an extraordinary AGM. Clause 10.2 of Alien's Articles of Association states "Upon the written request of Shareholders entitled to exercise 30 per cent or more of the voting rights in respect of the matter for which the meeting is requested the Directors shall convene a meeting of Shareholders."

If it's a subsidiary, the BoD can do what they want with it according to the Articles of Association. The other point to note is that although UFO is listed on AIM, it is not incorporated in the U.K., so does not have to comply with U.K. company law. It is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. I guess that is why there is no reference to shareholder voting on the disposal of subsidary assets in its Articles.