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.
Could be the canadians have seen this is going nowhere and do not wish to get caught. I looked on Yahoo earlier and if its correct McDonald pays himself $357k per annum. A,wise investment with the,way things,are. No wonder they are selling shares. Ned
Concur. Just like Ebay. The runner up sets the price. No-one With an ounce of wit bids early if they can avoid it. Keep your powder dry and be ready to pounce with your best and final offer. Bit steep to process via PayPal though.
That has lead me on to conclude that I believe most majors will have already discussed SOLG internally, and they will already have decided on the price they are willing to pay when the bidding starts...just like an auction. The prospectus is out (PEA) and an upgrade is in the offing (PFS).
Truly, there will be fireworks when that first bid flies. The winner will have to pay top dollar because all the other majors will force them into it; if my competitor is going to win a fantastic prize, I will make him pay dearly for it.
Rcgl2 - you also make a good point there. And it's the same logic that I applied to the BHP takeover of SOLG and then sweating out CGP, for eventual purchase of $3.5m.
I suppose the difference is size. If BHP buy SOLG, they then own 85% of ENSA (yes there are shareholders within that, i.e. NCM/CGP but BHP will be the managing directors, making the decisions). There then remains 15% of ENSA outside of their control under CGP.
So, in that situation you have 85% vs 15%. In the situation in which you get an NCM/BHP/CGP ****tail, that's just shy of 50% of ENSA vs 50% freefloat. BHP is the muscle in that situation again (I don't rate NCM's firepower - they had to go to the market only recently to raise cash), as it is in the 85%/15% scenario. But clearly, there's a huge difference between the two - will Barrick/Rio sit idly by while BHP takes out 50% of one of the best prospects out there by a country mile? Serious competitors will make BHP pay top dollar for it (if I were in their shoes, say Barrick, I would internally set the highest bid price that I'd be willing to pay - I would then push BHP up to that level - if BHP back down, hey presto I get what I wanted anyway).
If the material information is non-public and has been withheld from Cornerstone shareholders, then how would Cornerstone even know that Solg had such information in the first place?
And as Quadi said, surely it would be irresponsible and possibly market abuse to release bits of information piecemeal before all the results have been obtained, checked, verified and the PFS fully completed and signed off? What if they decided to release some amazing information which sent the share price rocketing up, only for that information to be massively watered down in the final PFS after everything had been checked and confirmed.
I'd like to see NCM sell their stake to Barrick or another then duff up Sangha Irwin & Chamandry - [SIC for short - which is about right] aka CGP.
Feel a bit sorry for Brook MacDonald putting his name to this bs...........
Shame really - I think they make him & CGP look poor & CGP have a great relationship with the Ecuadorian gov't - they have a jv with Enami.......
One thing we keep missing on this bb is that Sangha & Irwin are not short of a bob or two, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility they could support CGP through the funding issues associated with costs reimbursement & ongoing mine development costs.........if they chose to do so.........and it doesnt necessarily need to be equity..........although as I write I think I'm correcting myself here as Nick definitely said something about CGP NOT being able to debt finance their stake in Cascabel.....
ps - Copperpot - hope you get your power back soon buddy!
I was doing a bit of reading on this earlier. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3513932 Is a good bit of case law on it. First solg isn't an insider. It's frankly silly to suggest it . It has no board representative and less than 10%. Secondly the PfS is being produced independently it will be silly to draw any recommendations and unlawful. The more you dig into the cgp arguments the more you realise how rubbish they are.
Good point Miagi... Do you think the other majors will want to get involved in a bidding war against two other majors who are already invested and therefore have a lot of incentive to keep bidding up to secure the prize? Will Barrick etc realistically think they can win the fight against BHP? I hope they do of course, because a 3 or 4 way bidding war between majors is exactly what we want to see to get the final price up into the £1+ range isn't it.
Native, are you referring to SOLG's takeover bid for CGP there? If not, see Quady's reply. If so, then CGP's assertion is ridiculous - it's like saying AAL would have to disclose all their innermost secrets to ARCM if they were to take them over...never going to happen.
Regarding the withholding of PFS info - good luck to CGP trying to prove that one. It will be impossible for them to do so, even if it is true that SOLG have been withholding (and I'm not saying that they have).
Good afternoon Native, they are currently developing the PFS, you cannot print bits of it in isolation, it may lead to false assumptions. Also we are not required to provide enhanced disclosure, if we have not had a takeover deal. If we have had a takeover put to us, then confidential agreements would be signed. So Cornerstone would not be aware. Cornerstone would only be made aware, if it was a bid for Alpala separately.
Food for thought regarding Solgold integrity per Cornerstone legal review: “ ...SolGold has withheld and continues to withhold material non-public information in respect of the Cascabel Project (including information on the progress of the ongoing pre-feasibility study at the Cascabel Project) from both the market and Cornerstone shareholders; is not compliant with Canadian securities laws, including the requirement that an insider (which would include SolGold by virtue of its participation, including as operator, in Exploraciones Novomining S.A. (“ENSA”), the Ecuadorian company owned by SolGold and Cornerstone that holds 100% of the Cascabel concession) provide enhanced disclosure and a formal valuation in connection with a take-over bid...”
rcgl2, even if this board does get ousted (and I'm of the mind that it won't) and they install NCM/BHP stooges, do you imagine the likes of Barrick etc won't be interested in offering a bid higher than 30p for one the best Cu/Au porphyries available, plus a world class pipeline of projects?
Just to make crystal clear Miagi, it could not be more clear on this Board that I do NOT foresee a takeover at 40/45p, nor would I be happy with that...
My view has consistently been that if there were a first bid at 40/45p it would not be taken seriously and would be quickly countered by at least one major...and that if an auction develops we could be taken out at least 100p , maybe 125p...