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.
Depends on whether BHP want to add a director to the board?
Is this how Scott buys their votes? Mmm.
Could be in the 6's by the AGM, how will they explain that one?
TI, and yet the Sedar announcement mentioned special resolutions. I guess we can expect another attempt to dis-apply pre-emption rights. The director elections are a red herring as they don't require a special.
The last 'special meeting' was 2019 I believe so unless there was anything meaningful raised in the 2019 meeting then yes... just standard stuff but clearly 'special' added for a reason.
So what was special about 2019's AGM?
Just to reiterate, Scott said I was reading too much into the "special" part of the AGM, as this was going to be a normal AGM and all the directors were going to be up for confirmation.
Another positive 'hunch' from Fort, who was certain we wouldn't see the AGM he's now counting down to.
Beware this particular tool.
Rcg, adikt doesn't need to see it in writing.
If its in his head, it's a fact.
Sorry I misunderstood. I thought you meant the AGM resolutions had been released. I see what you mean now!
Rcgl, not sure what you mean. I was making a general reference to the type of item which requires a special resolution.
I may be being dense but where are you seeing these? I can't find them on the website or anywhere else. Thanks
It's not necessarily 'special resolutions' but 'special meeting' but could be the same. If someone like BHP wanted to table something then they could based on having a 10% holding. That would require SOLG add a 'special meeting' to the standard Annual General Meeting.
Perhaps Scott could come clean on this and send us all out a AGM notification along with all the resolutions being proposed?? Nahhh.. that would be far too helpful. Can't have that can we?
AGM kicks off in UNDER 8 weeks.
Just a hunch but I think we'll get news next week.
There's a reasonably extensive list of agenda items which require special approval and it's worth having a quick look. The key feature is that they require a vote of 75% in favour to pass.
In the past the Special resolutions we've been asked to vote on have related to the dis-application of preemption rights - I can't recall anything else, although I may be mistaken. The one thing which doesn't require a Special resolution is the election of directors. So Caldwell's comment to TI seems to be a bit strange.
Thoughts?
Scott as the CEO ultimately has to carry the can but it's really Bob and Maxit that have failed to deliver anything. If they had achieved something then Scott could announce it. Trouble is... when you have very little to say, you look a bit of a tool.
Shareholders tend to looks for someone to blame but all I can say is that in this market (today) it's tough to gain any traction or credibility as no one is listening. It's the kind of market whereby Maxit could say... we are in advanced discussions and likely offer will be significant premium to current sp blah blah blah and the sp would probably nudge up 20% lol and then fall back.
Remember... it is of no interest for Scott or Bob or Maxit to line 'traders' pockets. So they have no interest in creating near term spikes in the sp that simply allows a few to exit or some newbies to cash in.
The only way they get their pay day is they do a monetisation event that involves a significant buyer. They have 800million shares to offload (including Mather and his crew).
They need an exit ... not a few share price spikes. They can't sell into any spikes as volume demand not there. Only reason Chinese were able to pick up 1&+ in open market was largely down to mopping up Blackrock's stock.
if they came in with some humility and said look this is going to be tough guys but we will do everything we can to try and get a great result for shareholders, people might cut them some slack. but they came in all ****y and said we are the man! we will teach the big guys a lesson! we don't need to be wasting our time with studies! the previous guys were slow and dumb , we are fast and smart etc. etc.
so imo they should be held to account for what they said, then failing to deliver big time and now basically going back to what the previous management were doing! you know live by the sword die by the sword and all that (metaphorically speaking of course).
Lustra nailed it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcEkS9tcIjg
Eloro - I didn't call you dumb, nor am I professing to be clever. It was used as an adjective.
It's too easy to make posts saying "Scott/Bob said this and it never happened therefore he's a clown..." but we're talking about managing one of the more notorious junior explorers sat on, you guessed it, a tier one asset. It's never as straightforward as just looking at the surface and not adding any of your own thinking.
The situation changes on any given day with stories outside ours, the company's or its management's control. You've got to piece together numerous things that happen over time and join the dots dare I say.
I'm not for one second saying you can't do that. You seem to agree with Fort a lot when he attempts that.
In terms of your personal attack, I don't make many predictions. I've no desire to be seen to be right. One thing I did say is that I thought there would be a window in late Q2 or early Q3 this year. That has passed without any activity, probably in part due to the political situation, the extent of which wasn't apparent at the time. There's no ego, I am simply conversing as I always have.
Point taken Add. Bozi got a lot of ego like some others here implying that I am dumb. I don't need to remind folks that all of the earlier guessing by the big egos here have been proven wrong so far and the outcome is the decimated SP. I didn't see Bozi predicting the merger, nor the tanking of the SP. Yet he would have believe that his guessing makes him smart and myself dumb. Go figure. I think our biggest near term concern should be what will happen to the already depressed SP if Scott has to raise funds to keep the lights on in the next quarter.
TheItalian, that is my reading of the situation too.
Eloro, all of us are 'reduced to crystal ball gazing', including you.
Bozi is looking for an explanation of the situation, as are we all, and what he said makes good sense.
No it isn't. It's about analysing an event or set of events and deciphering what has truly happened from known information and solid assumptions.
There was nothing groundbreaking in what I said.
Scott and Bob were bullish, the crap hit the fan with Lasso, we've been in contact with parties with data room access and then Scott and Bob rowed back.
It's not rocket science or stargazing, but yeah we can stick with dumb literal reads if you want?
Thank you guys for the article, I remember it now, the infamous article with the chest thumping and the "fast and smart" statement that has not really helped our cause.
But I agree and it is my understanding from Scott's comments that the priority set on moving the project along with the permits and the exploitation agreement and recalibrating the technical and financial side of Cascabel into the phased approach must have come out of necessity since the fast and smart did not happen until this time. And the necessity must have been the result of the conversations with the potentially interested parties.
If I had to guess, going for a smaller project at the inset points to no big sale but rather a different financing profile linked to Solg going solo with a royalty, debt and equity package, of course unless someone finally shows up to take us out of our misery.
So we are reduced to crystal ball gazing now Bozi? Reading between the lines equal guessing.
Perhaps we would have better luck setting up a fortune telling tent at the next circus in town at this rate
TI, here you go mate: https://www.afr.com/companies/mining/how-bhp-newcrest-may-lose-their-copper-prize-to-a-scrappy-crew-of-minnows-20221114-p5bxxy
TI, sorry no good with links etc. I Googled Solgold takeover and scrolled down a bit.
Add, have you got a link to that AFR article by any chance?