We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
Well, that Porvenir update doesn't do it for me Scott...
No indication of timescales or costs for the MRE.
I thought Scott had also said Porvenir "doesn't meet the criteria we want to develop" at recent Diggers & Dealers?
Does he mean SOLG don't want to develop, so JV or sell?
Clear as mud.
NM
Fort I find your logic very confusing sometimes. Mather, Caldwell, Maxit, the former CGP shareholders are all holding tens or hundreds millions of shares each. They are extremely incentivized to get the shareprice much higher than it is today, most likely by selling the company or Cascabel. You seem to think that their master plan is in fact the opposite, to keep trashing the share price ever lower so they can "issue shares to their buddies at low prices". Or grant themselves "free shares" (in fact they are usually options, which will never vest in the money if the SP keeps going down, which would render the whole exercise pointless, but you seem to ignore that as it doesn't suit your narrative).
How would issuing shares to their buddies at ever lower prices be in anyone's interest? The price will keep going down, they are diluting themselves and the rest of us on existing holdings so the final exit price will also be ever lower, and quite frankly it's just a bizarre idea that anyone holding millions of shares in a company want the price to keep going down.
Even if it were their actual intention to keep letting their mates load up at bargain prices, the only way that achieves a favourable outcome for those mates is if the company gets taken out or otherwise gets the SP up to a much higher price than it is now... and trashing the SP today to issue millions more shares is just diminishing the chances of that ever happening.
And finally, if the directors who are all aligned with us or are acting on behalf of the shareholders who want to see a high takeout price are voted off, who is going to replace them? There are other major shareholders who are diametrically opposed to our interests in the form of BHP, Newmont and Jiangxi, and they will surely jump at the chance to stick their own directors on the board and then what will the strategy be? It will be massive dilution and a creeping takeunder by the majors. BHP literally already said this. In response to the FNV NSR deal they said they wanted to see the project developed by equity finance, which means massive equity issuance funded by themselves so they take more and more of the company until they have majority control. It doesn't matter whether pre-emption rights apply or not, none of the other major or minor shareholders have the financial means and/or appetite to keep putting more and more millions in to maintain their holdings. BHP, Newmont and Jiangxi do. Solg will then end up developing Cascabel, as a mere wrapper for a BHP/Jiangxi joint venture and we will all be squeezed out for single pennies at best.
Fort, there's absolutely no evidence to support your claim.
Bozi, I don't disagree, but it's clear others do.
Bozi 09.46 - spot on.
I suspect they need to seek approval to issue those shares as they are in fact held by 'shareholders' through the merger deal. Of course, passing this resolution would allow them to issue the shares to their buddies at low prices. So they effectively owned the CGP shares themselves, then did a merger which they were part of that deal and now want to be able to reissue those shares to themselves at much cheaper price which is entirely down to their own doing.
mmm
I think that's called daylight robbery.
Anyone seen $4m lying around? Anyone seen thse 157m CGP shares ermmm they were down the sofa.
These guys are toast. Stick with them and the sp will be 3p in no time. I actually think the market will rerate SOLG if they lot of them were sacked simply because the market would assume the next plausible stage will be an advertised sale.
Vote them down and you'll soon see the result of the SR lol!
Add - what more can he say? It's not his fault that folks aren't listening to what he has said these last 6-9 months.
He could shout until he was blue in the face and I still think the point would be missed.
Adikt, once again your your trying to show your presumptions as facts.
Who told you my alternative, view, or others views for that matter, is that our criticism of Caldwell is because he's wasting time. What a load of boll**cks.
Where do you get it from. I've not read one scrap of evidence to support your absurd claims.
Who do you think you are.
My and many others concerns about Caldwell, is the fact he's out of his depth.
Not what your trying to suggest.
You are once again trying to change the narrative.
I expect your now going to tell us you've had an email, purporting exactly what you've just made up.
Clown
Last time Mather was under threat, we had a sobbing letter (at great expense) pleading for shareholders to vote for him. The retail vote clearly has more power or influence than you are suggesting - I think you'll be surprised at the amount of shareholders that vote for change. Like I said... vote them down and just watch Bob and his mates scramble around and get a deal presented ... they won't hang about nor will any buyers in the ring right now. Things are too cosy right now. The apple cart needs turning so that all Bob and co and the potential buyers realise that if they don't get it done soon... someone else will and it won't be as cosy as before.
You can vote for another 12 months drfit again and woeful comms and performance or you can vote to cause some disruption and FORCE their hands. It's not just Bob and co... it's the buyers in the data room. They'll be afraid and unsettled alright. And if it's the chinese involved... then they'll get on with rather than kicking tyres.
Vote them down. They did nothing this year and burned $70m. They'll do nothing next year and burn the more millions, deliver zero exploration and just award themselves more bonus shares next Feb or March lol!
Bunch of hopeless halfwits who are only in control due to their original 15% ENSA stake and subsequent merger.
They did absoluetly zero at CGP and are doing the same here. They need to go and pronto.
I might be wrong of course, but I think that the big noise made on this BB will just result in a non event at the AGM, which will run rather smoothly and with no particular surprises. The company will continue along the path it has explained, comms will still poor and at best ambiguous, and PIs will be left to just wait as usual. But I see that as inevitable and almost desirable since we are on the receiving end of whatever resolution SOLG will get to, sale, JV, else...I really don;t see an alternative to letting the new cast go on with their job.
SM, I might be wrong, but I think it means they are seeking approval to sell those shares on a non-preemptive basis i.e they don't have to be offered to all existing shareholders and can be sold to anyone the company wishes without our approval.
But 11 (b) refers to the sale of shares held in treasury, which by definition are already in issue? Sorry if I'm being dim.
Bozi
The ones shouting loudest are the ones that need a quick fix ie an increase in the sp …….
You should only invest what you can afford to lose, however some ie red ramper are looking for a payout in retirement, no one and I mean no one in their right mind would advise investing in Solg to secure a retirement payout…….
That’s not to say that Solg will eventually see a decent return.
However poor red ramper is in at a much higher price so he may never see a return hence the fantasy figures he throws around despite his 🐂 💩
So have I BBG. Dont see there is a viable alternative to plan A. Monetise the asset asap.
Any motions voted down will probably cause the sp to weaken further and if some are voted down, the company will probably go into liquidation. IMO.
I should add, SOLG can see votes made (fairly swiftly due to the system in place) but votes can change. If you vote through your broker, check to see if you can change your vote at a later date but obviously before Dec 20th.
Some PI's could vote eveyrthing down and then change their minds in a few weeks if Scott or Maxit actually deliver something meaningful before the AGM.
They'll get the message sooner rather than later.
Yes, let's put an ESG consultant in charge of a mining company. What are you smoking Fort?
SM, because the shares are already in issue.
Yes, agree entirely. The only vote SOLG got from me was for Maria.
When Scott gets booted, they should make Maria CEO. She's more suited to the role than Scott who quite frankly is way out of his depth. He's better off in his boiler suit.
As an investor, I can only go on what the company give me.
Decimated share price
Absurd running costs
Yet more dilution
No value adding activities
Unacceptable lack of communication
Zero marketing or social media engagement
I was kind and abstained from voting Scott out but if he loses his post he needs to take a look at least at his comms because like all before him they are disgraceful
Caldwell has 19,407,244 more shares than redknight, Quady and NAL (combined).
I'd prefer to be guided by Caldwell than the parrots on this board...
Cheers add. Not sure I get why but I will trust your judgement!
SM, no.
Just reading through the specials. Does 11 (b) refer to the 157m(?) shares we hold? Do we need the special to pass to be able to sell these?
This board has always been fractious, but it's interesting to note how people who, broadly speaking, have been on the same side are now opposed to each other.
One group believes it understands the strategy Caldwell is pursuing and is prepared to support him, the other doesn't. This is not a criticism because I think it reflects on the corporate communications which leaves so much open to interpretation.
Those who support him feel he's taking logical steps to enhance the value of Cascabel and recognise this is not a quick process. The alternative view is that he's wasting time and shouldn't be allowed to continue in-post. The reason for our disagreement is that he hasn't made a crystal clear comment that he intends to sell either Cascabel, or the whole company, and he hasn't given us an unambiguous update on progress. But the fact remains that both sides on here want the same thing - to sell the asset, and yet we are at each other's throats.
So should he issue a clear notice of intent? From a traditional corporate finance point of view, probably not; the thinking being you don't want to reveal your hand in any negotiation. The counter-argument is that everyone away from this board already knows it's for sale, so an announcement is superfluous.
I'm of the opinion he probably should make a statement, but I wonder how the government would react, and if the company has judged it wouldn't be a good idea, we should respect their decision as they know what's going on and we don't.
So, it all comes down to communication and I can see how Caldwell, who I have no doubt is acting in our best interests, has decided it's not appropriate to come clean just yet. Everyone is free to vote as they wish, but I'd urge some careful thinking as it could lead to some very nasty consequences.