Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
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:
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 Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. 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.
Thank you addicknt.
The appointments are also designed to provide an objective view of possible outcomes which should remove the possibility of accusations that the board has not acted in the best interests of all shareholders.
Does the board then have to follow what the review suggests?
I would also assume the review would include short term/long term best interest’s for shareholders.
Eloro you convict yourself as being ignorant and arrogant by your own words.
Royalty and offtake agreements are always ring fenced for obvious reasons. The 0.6% and Franco Nevada's 1.27% can only be used for Alpala because they want a return for Alpala.
They are not allowed to use it for anything else and then say we don't have enough money for what you paid for.
They expect a return on their capital.
You could try understanding what these agreements are before sounding off and making a buffoon of yourself.
Here we go again! That rare specie of lesser spotted gobs-h-y-t-e, better known as Quadyus Productionus, is assigning intent to the recently announced $50m funding which I don't recall reading in the recent funding rns! Where was stated that the cash will be ring fenced?
Good morning addicknt, thank you for your description on the strategic review.
May I ask in your experience are strategic reviews done for the best short term outcome or the best long term outcome.
I ask this because the 0.6% royalty is ring fenced to take us to DFS and cannot be spent on anything else.
So is it possible that the strategic review will also look at funding options that open up to us at DFS.
Do you think they would look at that aspect as well.
Almostdone, the process is designed to provide a range of options and for the board and its advisors to decide which of them provides the best opportunity for value creation and shareholder return. It's not about what's in the ground - that work is ongoing and is a separate activity.
You suggest the board should already know this and of course they will have their own views. However, they will not have the same depth of knowledge of the potential buyer/partner environment, nor are they experts in capital markets...that's why advisors are appointed. The appointments are also designed to provide an objective view of possible outcomes which should remove the possibility of accusations that the board has not acted in the best interests of all shareholders.
Most people on here are of the opinion that a full sale of the company or disposal of Cascabel is the best route to pursue - others believe we should continue to plough our own furrow and move towards production. It's also the case that CGP/Irwin/Sangha all feel a sale is the best way to go and bear in mind our new interim CEO is a CGP appointee.
Strategic reviews are often a euphemism for finding a buyer, and most of us feel that's the case here. However, I would add this board has a track record of surprising us, so who knows what the outcome will be? Logic says one thing, but logic doesn't always prevail.
All the posters on here are clearly well clued up on technicals etc. but have different views and outcomes.
For myself I cannot understand why solg needs this review, is it for the board to know the best direction or to tell all and sundry what solg potentially have in the ground.
The board should by now know what is the best outcome and if it is feasible, and any prospective major should also know what is involved. So what will the review tell?
Sorry for being a bit dim if the answers are obvious.
Richbetter - muchbetter.
Z
RK. I used to own some GPM but I exited when I decided I didn’t like the way it was run and who it was associated with…but I have plenty of bullion and miners.
Redknight -you're so thin-skinned for a fella who has done a lot and been through a lot (from what you have said before).
You come at me telling me I'm talking rubbish for giving my opinion to another poster, before
1.) Making a statement that you can't verify and treating it as fact
2.) Completely misunderstanding a point I'd made on a separate thread and again jumping on me.
Instead of bringing the aggression and hiding behind the filter when all i suggested was you have a relaxing rest of your weekend, how about ask someone to explain their thinking?
It's clear to all that you hold yourself in high esteem but you need to stop treating me like I'm something you've trodden in because i won't accept that, and, before you say anything, this isn't the first time you've alluded to your own superiority. It's a horrible horrible look.
Redknight
A fella who worked for a major in senior positions for over half of his career doesn't just barricade his bridges and pulls in a completely different direction. At the very least, he was placeholding, ensuring SOLG didn't get above his station.
Ask yourself why his tenure lasted 11 months.
Ask yourself why he bought no stock.
Ask yourself why he suspended all regional drilling and never resumed it.
Ask yourself why we delayed raising finance until the time that markets hadd started to slide and we were competing with other juniors looking to get cashed up.
Impressions can be misleading. His CV clearly did a lot of heavy lifting and Nick Mather took it on trust that he was fully geared to pushing Solgold forwards. This after a prolonged recruitment process, that, for all we know, may have revolved around more than 1 candidate and more than 1 job offer.
Because it does matter would be my guess and Henry has been firing blanks for a while now
Jerry...its why I have 500,000 GPM and £70k of EQX...
Add, have you seen the cover story in MoneyWeek? Russia and China rumoured to be talking about gold backed currency. Usually only see these sort of stories in places like kitco.
If that were to happen Solgold might attract a very long queue of admirers. But I would still want out as the directors and management are the worst I have ever been invested in.
Exactly...a stake worth 0.04% of their MCap...pathetic...
And din't bother to reply...I'm fed up wth you anyhow.
Latest from Irwin in case anyone missed it last night
“BHP CEO Mike Henry said SolGold has come up with a "disappointing high-cost" finance option. Why does the CEO of the world's largest mining company bother to comment on the financing affairs of a junior resource company they own a tiny stake in??”
Filtered! I won't stand for that you ignorant dinosaur.
We’ll soon find out Monday morning once we see the price action or will there be an orchestrated release of strategic RNS releases to raise the stock price into what will be the inevitable buy out in the coming year or so !!!
ONWARDS AND UPWARDS
"0.75/0.8% is WORSE terms..."
Redknight - are you thick or are you just slowing down? I was clearly talking about the FNV deal.
I seriously can't believe you've had the career you have with those reading and comprehension skills.
Go and watch Matt Han**** eating kangaroo c*ck with Mrs Redknight and come back on Monday for crying out loud.
This is exactly what you said:
"But Solgold is out of cash now, not in 2023"
Rich...apart from your disgraceful sexism...
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about re Ayten. So change the subject.
Im posting unsubstantiated rubbish Redknight?
What is factual about this
"The strategic review is a smokescreen for a sale of SOLG or Cascabel.."
You're showing yourself up now...
Bozi...you can't honestly believe that Darryl was a BHP stooge when Nick was on the Committee that recommended him to the Board...?
We may never Montecristo..its all geared to selling Solgold...
Much much more!