Member Info for Zan_TM

Hi Legal,

I believe the money is issued, then, the shares are introduced to the market down the road once the conditions are met, which is the same as most of the raises over the last 18 months here I think.

I should correct. I meant unsuspended, not re-listed, but I'm sure most understand what I mean't/my point

If, and its a big if, they manage to get re-listed anytime soon, you would hope it also comes with some decent news attached as otherwise I could picture a big sell off on re-listing.

Id be suprised tbh bebeto, simply as 700k plus went into the books a month ago.

Thats about the only reason which would suprise me though. If it wasnt for that then id not be suprised at all as all the waxed lyrical hype robbie did one day before suspension, given the mad amount of time thats passed since, with barely any comms, going under wouldnt have been that absurd a thought.

Either way, time will provide us with the outcome even if the company cant as they dont have an unlimited amount of it to file the accounts.

Not on mine no. Doesnt help you either way though as not showing on mine doesnt prove much

I cant disagree that the timeframe taken is shocking. I cant see how anyone could make excuses for that either.

Management has a lot to prove here and as it stands are currently proving they aren't capable.

Surin, no invest or deal is without risk, nor can all risks ever be eliminated, however, in terms of Hainian and control, you will have a counterbalancing effect at play.

Any increase in risk from say controlling stakes and thus views, must be levelled with the risks of not having them involved at all.

Example being, without their funding money, there would be no DMS (although of course a different funder might have appeared, but its not a given the deal would have been any different).

In terms of possible future takeovers, again, always a risk, but the caveat is for me I'd rather be in a company that someone else wants to takeover than one no one wants to go near and by proxy it usually means your doing well.

In terms of Mali as an entity, the risk levels are no more than ever before, if anything, potentially less so (according to BA today at least). The risk here however is imo a bonus as if there was none, none of us holders could prob have ever brought in at decent prices as no risk locations or companies usually aint small cap.

In terms of the offtake. It feels correct to me and likely always the plan. Hainian put in circa 100 mil plus. There due diligence would have highlighted Suays offtake stake before they funded us, thus Im sure they always had there eye on 100% offtake, and thats not bad for us either as its a customer for all of our product at market prices. There was nothing concrete that said Suay would buy there 80% worth month on month and if they refused ever, we would have to find other customers.

End of the day the money is only made because of the sales and knowing you can sell 100% of your product is a great thing. Its that which will assist our figures.

Unless its part of a mattress JC lol.

At this rate we will be due the next set of accounts. Lets hope they have been working on those too lol

Moving back slightly to the original post, it is true the FCF (amount of) from the DMS is earmarked to go towards building the floatation plant. This isn't or hasn't been kept secret, but rather presented as the forward looking plan. The plan has figures attached, which will no doubt shift here or there a bit but it still provides the best evidence of costs v income that we could resonably hope for.

Now in terms of actual figures needed, I'm not sure it proves much going into the "how much will spod be" maths in (insert year) as its totally unknown at this point, and thus, yes, there is some uncertainty, which could be to the downside or upside, but no more than with any floatation build.

Lets not jump to far ahead either here. Things look great, but one step at a time, lets complete the DMS first and start hitting production targets.

I don't personally see how using the FCF to build a floatation plant is a negative. To me its a positive. Asset value increases, and in turn, its a route to higher revenue longer term, yet allowed KOD to obtain funding potentially easier (via lower capex needs for DMS) than trying for full floation amount from the off.

In addition, the additional equity outside of the DMS build provides possible asset value creators i.e., New MRE for lith. MREs for a few Gold sites too (not saying builds as they will cost a pretty penny in their own right to physically mine).

Thus for me, esp given the hard market environment right now for small caps, I'd much rather be in KODs position than many other explorers hoping to become miners position.

Positive.

Im also happy that they have been putting out a lot more RNSs of late to keep us informed. A lesson learnt maybe.

Certainly helps go against some of the rumour mill and targeted shorting club you have seen on here of late (im sure many accounts are the same person).

Hi JC,

Yes Rolr was a typo lol. I'm terribly dyslexic and when writing something it looks word perfect (I even re-read several times before posting), then later notice I've proper messed up so many times writing random letters instead of a word lol. My apologies.

In terms of evidence of RM knowing deadlines weren't going to be hit, I don't think its possible to state it as a fact. Actually, I don't think much can ever be stated as a fact with most posts, be they positive or negative. It is though my opinion, which I've formed taking into account certain known events, some previous history and some guess work.

In terms of the presentation, it was all dependent on the finance being sorted, I believe those timelines (roughly) still stand true once finance is sorted too. That was almost 12 months ago, so if finance was close, something else undisclosed must have gone wrong for it not to get over the line surely? Or, it wasn't close and Robbie thus knew the deadlines wouldnt have been hit.

Equally, not doing your accounts is a known cause for suspension. Given how long its taken post suspension to do them, you could make the case if they werent being worked on back in April, RM would have been aware they werent going to meet the accounting deadline and go into suspension, thus again, know he would meet other deadlines.

For me, given he has history of this (2022 they needed funding to hit 24k and we have been told it takes 6 months after money in to do that, yet in the Sept/Oct of that year stated we were still on track to hit 24k by year end in several interviews, even though he must have known we hadnt started expansion thus werent hitting 24k), my outcome is RM, in full knowledge, plays with the truth, which can mislead investors. For me, that history and event timelines speaks for itself as evidence of that, but no one on earth could prove it.

Now, as Ive said many times, you dont need to trust the ceo imo, and I do think if he had been more honest the SP would have been hit even harder, much earlier on, so I get why info is hidden at times.

Of course NDAs etc can come into play, but NDAs cant legally make you break certain laws or rules i.e., hide price sensitive info.

As an individual I totally get Robbies mindsets tbh, but as a CEO it can be more questionable. While Im not overly into trust (as I think CEOs tend to lie all the time from microcaps to megacaps lol) I know its important to many others.

I get some will defend someone no matter what, and some will lambast someone no matter what, but when the cards are on the table, I do find it hard to understand how Robbies false narratives arent apparent to all.

Is he improving? I honestly dont know yet as were still suspended so hard to tell. He was def more open in that last interview, to the point id say first time ive ever felt he was truthful and not just saying what he felt we needed to hear, but getting stuff over the line is needed now.

Hi JC.

The April presentation was a corporate booklet presentation which contained a yellow fancy timelime of expected events between that April and Dec 23. It included first Vim MRE, Tanz MRE, Killi MRE update, upgrade commisioning etc. All of those required the funding to come in.

For me, I feel it is giving to much credit to the rolr to simply brush off as "ceo is a tough job" type of thing.

FCA are useless, always have been, so the chances of being struck off are slim to none as they are opinions, not facts. A timelime, as you say isnt a certainty, just a set if targets, however, RM repeatedly sets targets which at the time of setting them must know he wont hit them.

The TG interview was done with stockbox, 1 day before suspension. At the time you discussed on here. I appreciate time dulls the memory, but overall, Robbie came over well, was very open and his explanations of why things were as they were made sense, but then he dropped"his view" in response to a question about Vim that was very over the top, which is where he goes wrong imo. It was just his dreamy view, but given suspension was 1 day off, Im not sure it was a wise comment.

Accounts wise, again, thats my point. Im not questioning the why, Im questioning the hidding of the fact they werent being done, while outwardly putting out presentations and doing interviews as tough all was well.

Again, I dont think thats a case of "ceo shoes".

To be frank here, using the walk in there shoes or damned if do damned if dont lines lets basically every company leader off everything.

Accountability surely only comes from allowing blame, not covering it up.

The fact is, there will be investors who put in decent money on the back of his untrue presentations and comments and that to me is why you have unhappy investors on here, which, the more you try to find excuses for Robbie for, prob just get wound up more. Thats not me trying to be harsh, but rather, logical.

Its possible to feel he has done a bad job, without wanting the company to do bad. Its also possible to think things will improve while still thinking the ceo played his part in past failures.

Hi Beb,

Not getting misdirected is def important and the Vim focus prob did and does move your mind off other problems.

In terms of loses, I would hazard a guess that the results will be dire, but equally manageable.

A linked but bigger concern surrounds shares issued without the prospectus, but linked to it i.e., to be allocated after prospectus approval. The money was raised to allow improvements/lights on cash flow, but you never get to see the small print. Is there a timeline attached or are we to believe those investors were happy to not get there shares in return for the front equity for potentially years upon years? If theres a prospectus approval deadline associated to those previous equity raises, then as a company it runs the risk of unmanageable/payable debt.

Given we were never told about one of the CLNs before, I don't expect to be informed about any other monetry movements that might occur to settle things, but still a point of interest.

In terms of current production. We know its not going to have been great, but you could make the arguement that it has allowed methods to improve and be refined, which if funding is ever secured, could prove very useful to future production after levelling up.

Its certaintly not all doom and gloom here to me. Plently to look forward too, but only if they can get themselves out of suspension soon.

I dont think that is being impatient either to want that.

Thanks Folio.

JC, on the interview RM did via TG, 1 day before suspension, RM stated that he believed Vim was a 200k Oz per year mine, with a 40 year LOM.

Which works out at 8 Mil Oz.

He did add, it was his thoughts and not proven, but that is what I am refering to about transparency. Its a very big statement to make, even with the caveat added at the end.

Again, not knocking his work efforts, but putting out a presentation in April showing your targets for next 9 months, knowing that they can't be hit as you need funding instantly to even have a chance of hitting them and knowing the funding wasnt near completion, along with knowing you werent even doing your accounts, thats a lack of transparency to me that no amount of busyiness excuses.

Note, this was all post finance fall through

Hi JC,

I totally agree with the viewpoint on Vim and cost/finance management.

I do wonder if they started today, knowing what thry now know (or feel), then maybe Vim would have been the focus from day 1, but as it stands, that high grade at the hill, is what has kept the lights on this last 12 months, so understandable.

Its possible that RM has been reigned in, or that again finance is at play here. RNS's cost money, PR costs money.

In reflection, RM has been open about his hopes, but less transparent with deadlines and targets (as in, knowing they wouldnt be hit but not mentioning). Thats happened repeatedly.

Again though, I can understand why, even if I dont really agree, as a part of his job is to try to provide shareholders with a return (aware he is failing lol). Telling all can sometimes hammer the SP more.

JC, I guess its hard to fully relax given how long the accounts are taking. To my mind the accounts werent started at or before deadline day, as they needed the raise money to pay for someone to do/audit the accounts. Thats my thought pattern and it feels logical timewise too.

That explains away some of the time it has taken to prepare them and file them.

That said, it still shouldn't take a team 6 months to do either. Now, we aren't at that 6 months point yet, but it is fast approaching.

Naturally, it does cause a lot of concern that Robbie and GCAT sort of hid the fact no one was doing the accounts last year right up until the last minute, but lets be frank here, thats how GCAT has always operated so rings true to there ways.

That lack of trust in the leadership and openess from them is surely an understandable reason many might be less patient than if RM had a clear and transparent way about him.

I've said it before and stand by the fact it doesn't overly bother me (the trust element) as I know to take what RM says with a pinch of salt, thus don't invest simply on the back of a rampy TG group interview, but for others, they must feel a little cheated that so much of the talk, was just talk.

I think its important here to breakdown what was and what is.

Beb is right in that the heap leach was originally promoted as an add on, not as a standalone.

Today, its a big change. Some reasons might be because the grades just didnt cut it economically to do underground when taking upgrading costs into account, but a positive is that the opex/aisc will be much lower now its not.

I have always questioned why GCAT focuses in the Hill when Vim (according to RM) is Hav sized potential and I think the main answer likely is found in the above (that money and time went into the hill as was going to be underground, by changing point, switching might have been a tough pill to swallow).

Price wise is cracking for producers and if it holds, good for explorers too.

Producers being main benefiters due to instant margin improvements.

Doesn't secure success or failure, but improved margins def aren't a bad thing.

To confirm it was the 1st of Nov for suspension.

In terms of what's going on. Impossible to know as nothing is or has been highlighted by BOD to give us a clue.

You would have to think though that Robbie felt things were solveable and fileable in terms of accounts and getting unsuspended as otherwise what would have been the point in Robbies very positive TG interview 1 day before suspension, as all it would have done is convince some holders not to sell, which if he knew it was going under would be pointless.

Radio silence right now, but still feel things will sort themselves.

How does suspending the shares help anyone? Madneas

Sell off means there shares. If they left and sold there shares your talking another 50% plus SP drop.