London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
You will only have one login account. Registering with multiple accounts is not allowed. Any user found to have more than one account on this site will have all, and any future accounts suspended permanently.
Your email and password must only be used by you. If a post is made under your account, it will be considered that it was posted by yourself.
Your account nickname must not be the same, or contain, listed company names or board members' names.
While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate; rudeness, swearing, insulting posts, personal attacks, or posts which are invasive of another's privacy.
You will not;
discuss illegal or criminal activities.
post any confidential or price sensitive information or that is not public knowledge.
post misleading or false statements regarding the share price and performance. Such posts are deemed as market abuse, and may be reported to the appropriate authorities.
post any private communication, or part thereof, from any other person, including from a member of the board of directors of a listed company. Such posts cannot be verified as true and could be deemed to be misleading.
post any personal details (e.g. email address or phone number).
post live price or level 2 updates.
publish content that is not your original work, or infringes the copyright or other rights of any third party.
post non-constructive, meaningless, one word (or short) non-sense posts.
post links to, or otherwise publish any content containing any form of advertising, promotion for goods and services, spam, or other unsolicited communication.
post any affiliate or referral links, or post anything asking for a referral.
post or otherwise publish any content unrelated to the board or the board's topic.
re-post premium share chat posts on regular share chat.
restrict or inhibit any other user from using the boards.
impersonate any person or entity, including any of our employees or representatives.
post or transmit any content that contains software viruses, files or code designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of this website or any computer software or equipment.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
If you are going to post non-English, please also post an English translation of your post.
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium and Verified Members
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Good morning rcl2, as you know I don't believe this will happen. However I am unclear on one point. If the EGM goes ahead, I believe that CGP will put forward Directors to replace them. Is that correct, and if so, why would the major shareholders vote for this. Not something I know about, so would be interested who would appoint who, and at what time, if this went ahead, and was successful. All the best.
Hi ToS - yes CGP have virtually said as much if you read the various releases, the dates are deliberate. In the formal rejection of the Solg takeover offer they state:
"SolGold Has Neutralized its Largest Independent Shareholder until October while SolGold’s Second Largest Independent Shareholder has Clearly Lost Confidence in the SolGold Board BHP is SolGold’s largest independent shareholder, holding 13.64% of SolGold’s ordinary shares. BHP is required to vote alongside the non-independent SolGold Board until October 19, 2020 on certain matters. This arrangement provides Mr. Mather and his associates with significant influence over SolGold until that date and provides one obvious reason for why the Hostile Bid expires on October 14, 2020."
I don't think we can know for sure one way or another what BHP thinks. CGP are just trying to create the impression that BHP are unhappy with the board. The fact they are waiting to call the meeting very pointedly until after the standstill agreement comes to an end is just intended to imply that they know BHP will vote down the board once they are legally allowed to.
Which may be true... but equally may not be true at all.
FTJNY.... we all have different strategies, levels and circumstances, needs..... I agree, this is worth way, way more than 40p, and I sincerely hope we all get it. I believe we will. However, it’s not for me to tell anyone else how to play this share. It’s been the biggest disappointment in my portfolio for too many years for that. Although I strongly believe NM will achieve way above 40p ( I don’t believe he’ll take it to production) I am also fully aware of the strength of the majors, BHP in particular, and the risk of him being out manoeuvred here. For that reason, I recently upped my stake at these prices in order that I won’t be too disappointed by 40-50p.
Just had a look at what Willem Middelkoop (he of loss making, insanely high fee commodity fund fame) posted on twi tter again, the discussion is very interesting... several responders really press him on what his and WI's alternative proposals will be for funding Alpala and realising SOLG value and he simply does not answer! All he can say is "replace the board" again.
And then, he throws in a completely scandalous #metoo allegation about Nick Mather!!
"(.. and women warn each other for his behavior)"
What is that all about? Absolutely appalling tactics, lobbing that sort of unfounded rumour around.
Miagi, stick to what you think you know about eh? O'Connor is the top rated gold analyst in Oz and the Paterson is the hottest area in Oz, which is quite a well known mining country. Ecuador on the other hand is literally a banana republic. I would characterise the Paterson as maybe a Leeds Utd and Alpala as Twente Eschede if you want a footballing analogy.
TBTT - Your problem is that your thinking is too short term ( a bit like that of a trader) you just want a quick sale at 40p to make about 20p which under normal circumstances may seem reasonable. However what we have in Alpala is a Tier 1 mine which has a life of 55 years and as in most other finds of this nature will only grow as it is mined and other extensions evolve which would put Alpala into one of the largest and richest mines ever found! And here’s the funny bit - you want to sell this (along with all the other exciting prospects Solg have in the pipeline) for a mere 40p to make a measly 20p!!!! You clearly have very little vision or ambition and thank god someone like NM is running Solg and not someone like you (or Irwin et al) who would sell us down the river for a few measly shekels! In NM we trust to deliver fair and proper value for Solg and all its shareholders!
TBTT, what's your take on royalty streaming then? FN have stated that they'd be interested in a $1b stream in Alpala and I am convinced that they are serious. The beauty about having an NSR is that it doesn't matter who builds or owns the mine - Alpala will get built, 100%. Therefore, FN will get their money 100%. Why would FN then demand any other conditions beyond that? Seems to be a great business model and one that is proven to work. I assume there are plenty of other financiers who would like to get in on similar terms too.
CGP [well WI BS et al] have tabled this deliberately for this date implying they'll have/get BHP on board.
BHP to their credit have not been vocal at all re these matters so we don't actually know what they think - we're just hear noises from the other camp hinting they know - so at best it's hearsay - it may be true - we just don't know!
I give up. The groupthink on this board is unbelievable. And there are some pretty unpleasant and clueless people here as well. I'll take my profit in due course, and that's all I care about. To most of you - good luck. To a few of you - I hope you get what you deserve.
Just reread the agreement when BHP last upped their stake, and I had forgotten this clause.....
(iii) Board Recommendations BHP agreed for a period of two years (to 15 October 2020) to follow the recommendations of the Board of Directors of SolGold which are supported by an independent expert appointed by the SolGold Board of Directors to opine in respect of any proposed change of control transactions in respect of the SolGold share capital or its assets, and in circumstances where it is demonstrable that holders of 60% of SolGold shares (disregarding BHP) voting at a meeting or lodging acceptances are supportive of the particular formal proposal. BHP also agreed, for a period of two years (to 15 October 2020), to support capital change resolutions put to SolGold shareholders at SolGold's AGM affecting authorised capital limits and pre-emption waivers under the LSE rules, in the event that 60% of the votes validly cast at a meeting of SolGold shareholders approve the same and the pre-emption waivers are within certain limits.
So that made me think.... given the date given in the recent CGP release, do they believe they have BHP on board, but have to wait until after 15th October to allow BHP to vote with them? Pure speculation on my part, and I have certainly not seen anything to suggest it.... but the dates are a bit of a coincidence.
Over the years I've heard the following from tbtt and the like. We have no funds There will be a placing more dilution Mine to deep Grades not good enough Not open pit No institutional investors Mining taxes Unfriendly mining country Unstable government or country Cv19 The worlds coming to an end Mine is too big Nickn mother is crap Anyone care to add. Yet all can be pretty proven to be untrue and here we are with the biggest find in a decade a Franco deal to take us to dfs with opportunity to fund a mine, 18mth regional fund, 13 other prospects, Nick still doing a cap job, open pit possibilities lol really tbtt give it a rest
Tiger, sorry your argument makes no sense, your doing the corner shop mentality bit again. When you say we have no security, we do. If you are right, why are FN giving us between 100-150 million dollars, with no security. Why does Ingo have tentivily another billion lined up, with possible streaming deals. We haven't even published the PFS yet. We may get minimal dilution, but that could be because of the CGP offer, or we require, more funding for our drilling program, at a later date. As BNC has just said, maybe minimal funding for Alpala. We are not a corner shop, having to offer security for a loan, cap in hand. The people who want to lend us money, are coming to us.
Your correct BNC, I remember him saying, minimal dilution for building Alpala. I just feel that the PFS is going to be far better, than anyone thought at the time he said it, and the goal posts may have moved. All the best.