Firering Strategic Minerals: From explorer to producer. 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.
"a million words, day after day"
And that's just you, needalife.
Pipe down you dafty 🤣🤣🤣
Fort is adorably simple
As if Fort can change the direction of Solgold with his vote anyway , you gotta laugh at the very implication.
Agreed Sharket …… Fort if you ask Nick he’s fully behind Scott
Not only one of them but fully supportive of Scott and the direction of travel. Fort has either sold his 600k shares for a huge loss and is looking for a lower entry, or has no idea what he's talking about. Probably the latter.
“ Sack the lot of them”
Mather is one of them ??
Bozi,
I repeat... doesn't matter what the first offer is... any offer will do. Even if it's 20p. Why... because others will follow? Why? Because Tier1 assets of this quality don't go for £600m.
The copper upcycle won't last forever. The sweetspot is likely 2 to 5 years away. You'll be late to the party if you waste another 2 years with these jokers. It's going to take at least 3 years to get production moving and into the market. And that's based on a phase one shallow resource base case.
20 interested parties in the data room. Copper in demand. So of course the assumption is there is huge demand out there for Alpala. Perhaps it's this management team that are the obstacle? Perhaps they are the ones that can't seem to engage with buyers properly? Perhaps they are the problem? When that penny drops... you'll soon realise that if you vote them down, you'll soon see positive events unfold. Why? Because they will get a deal done. The rest follows like domino's. Hopefully Noront style stuff.
They've had their chance. Failed. They had chance to get some exploration sorted to run in tandem through regional deals that are earn ins or zero cash burn cataysts for shareholders and they failed. They've had well over 12 months and they've not delivered anything that involves partners or moving assets forwards.
That's why they need voting down. Yes it sounds chaotic.. but from chaos comes 'action'. And to date I've seen no action from CGP at all.
No management team on this planet would go into this AGM with zero news and expect to be voted in. The fact they have zero to say or have been zero prepared spanks of a management team and advisors (maxit) that seem out of their depth. Scott's not CEO material at all. You know that. But he's Maxit's material that's for sure. And look where that has got us.
It's taken them almost 12 months to decide the best way forwards is to relook at the mine plan and pFS and go for a shrinky dink version lol! Erm.... guys... that decision should have happened this time last year and then we'd have it done months ago and would not have burned $70m and have absolutely nothing to show for it.
Sack the lot of them. Get Mather back on board... get some partner deals done and get some exploration underway. Then by all means sit back and let Alpala drift along while SOLG punches holes into more potential Alpala's.
Fort - do you think that someone favouring as opportune a time as whilst the company is changing CEO to make an offer will be interested in making an offer fair to all shareholders? They won't.
If binning Scott brings a bid event forward then the bid won't be worth the email it is written within.
If you voted Scott out in 3 weeks time, what control do Maxit retain? The guy they inserted as CEO will be gone and they'll be relying on Mather, Charmandy and MacDonald being able to pull enough strings in the background, and there's no guarantee of that.
It's time to stop rocking the boat. You've rocked the boat the last three AGMs and it has achieved Jack diddly. You can afford to do that when waters are calm, commodity markets are buoyant and everyone is happy with their portfolio. You can't afford to do it now where we're fighting the tide, getting smashed by some pretty big waves, etc. The boat runs the risk of overturning.
Your whole thesis relies on there being a wealth of competition. Without it your whole case collapses, and there's no guarantee that they're all waiting for each other to move. Were that the case, someone would have taken the bait by now.
For what it's worth Fort, I'm not against locking myself in for a couple more years. Get the phased development plan out and show an ability to finance it. In a rising copper market, that is the way to illicit a proper bid, not a 20p per share firesale.
50 years of investing heh NAL?
Clearly they had you in mind when they said that there is no fool like an old fool:)
So, if you have been investing for 50 years, that would put you in your 70s at the earliest. Spending your twilight years on this BB is you playing your favourite sport of Coffin dodging:)
At least you can blame your illiteracy on dementia. Have you changed your diaper yet NAL?
Being a schoolboy is infinitely better than having to rely on a carer for the basics heh NAL!
Mr Drake , says the man who has been wrong every week for the past 3 or four years. Who thinks you would be correct this time? You have a track record for coming to the wrong conclusion.
Bozi,
Getting rid of Scott as CEO doesn't effect the bid situation. I will likely bring the event forward. If we are to assume that Maxit have some parties lined up that have a rapport with them, then they would most likely bang in an offer if Scott gets removed pronto rather than run risk of new management coming in.
Maxit and co won't risk losing control so if they are faced with shareholder rebellion then you can banl your bottom dollar a bid will follow very quickly. And as for low balls... it doesn't matter what the size of the bid as it's all about forcing others to make a move. Until someone makes a bid... no one will move.
So think of it this way. If you want Maxit to feel some heat and deliver a monetisation event pronto... then vote everything down. Vote all of it against.
Then watch these CGP's act fast. Voting for them just gives them another 12 months to take the p155. You are bacially voting to be locked in here for another 12 months.
Nothing will happen in Q1... there won't be any PFS. Mark my words on that one. You'll be lucky to see a PFS in H1. They will just string it out. Why wouldn't they? No rush is there?
It's time to call an end to this poor management show ... $70m spunked this year on what?? No exploration?? It's woeful. Even I thought the CGP boys couldn't perform as bad as this. And I had high hopes for them. It's been a shambles.
Vote them out or you'll regret it. If you want a buyout... vote them out as it will land fast. There is no stability in continuing the weakness and instability. That's just plain stuipd.
You sad, sad bunch.
a million words, day after day, and it really makes not a scrap of difference how you vote.
clearly, nobody cares, nobody.
if they did they would be buttering you up.
instead, they have, they are, they will treat retail infesters with complete contempt.
and if you all fail to see it its even sadder, im a complete nincompoop, but after
50 years investing I think I can speak from experience, not from Irwin's share buying for schoolboys.
how are you getting on with it eloro.
Turkeys and Christmas come to mind here. After the turmoil of the last 2 years the very last thing we need is to vote out our heavily invested CEO who has spelled out that he is pushing for what we all as private investors want.
It should not even be remotely up debate, unless you are Quady and want us to transition into a producer.
MasterRSI, re your 22:22. When I read your posts I'm reminded of the saying that if you sit an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of typewriters, one of them will eventually type the whole works of William Shakespeare. You are possibly that monkey, but you're still some way off the big win. Keep it up though bonnie lad/lass. Giving me chuckles during these cold grey days.
Precisely Bozi!
The "if" which you mentioned is the leap of faith which I mentioned. Either way, that's why I haven't made a final decision on how I will vote. I know all about taking a leap of faith. So, having to take one will not be a deterrent for me. Plus, Warren hasn't sold the remainder of his solg position as yet.
Just to put this another way for folks...
If you believe SOLG could catch a bid in the 6 months after getting approvals through from the new govt and releasing a strong phased development plan, why would you elect to change the CEO now and leave the company vulnerable to being able to defend a lowball and negotiate for shareholders?
If you think a bid could land in Q2 or Q3 then binning Scott is cutting off one's nose....
I take your points Bozi.
Voting to keep Scott will be taking a leap of faith that a bid will be made within the next 12 months. It would be a leap of faith because at present, we do not have enough information regarding what is going on with the discussions. Even Warren has moved away from his 6 months sale time line.
Folks should be aware of the situation we will be in if after 12 months, no bid, and we will then need to find a new ceo.
I mentioned the SP Bozi because you previously mentioned it's possible fall as a reason why we need to keep Scott.
You have hit the nail on its head Covgaz. We will be taking a leap of faith that Scott will be able to get a bid within the next 12 months. If he doesn't, we are left with option A).
At least folks are now fully aware of the possible outcomes if we keep Scott and no bid manifest within the next 12 months. The argument to vote for Scott makes sense if the chance of a bid is 51% or better. Back to Add's point that we should have more info so that we can make an informed decision.
Ignore the first point. Misread on my part.
The SP has nothing to do with this Eloro. Respectfully, you need to try and detach your thinking from it.
Option A takes 6-9 months in a success case and longer if no buyer emerges. Option B is harder to quantify because you don't know how auccessful a new CEO would be now and whether they'd follow the Maxit party line.
Option B carries far more risk IMO. You dispense with Scott and Maxit in 12 months time if nothing emerges and then you're looking for folks who just see SOLg as another payday. Joy.
Well , we're not sure Eloro , we could be on the cusp of something , we don't know.If we get rid we start all over again. That's why I think give Scott the chance to get it over the line.
Bozi, for B, I wrote "We spend 6 months to a year"
A year=12 months. Maybe not in NAL's world.
For both A and B, we would be stuck trying to find a new ceo. At least with B it would happen sooner.
All we can hope for is that with A, a bid would manifest. No guarantee of a bid mind you.
Eloro -why does finding a new CEO in option A take 12 months but for option B it only takes 6?
If option A comes to fruition and Bob and Dan don't get SOLG sold then it's a natural time to dispense with all 3 of them (Scott included - they'll have had 18 months - 2 years to sell the asset or company and failed). At that point, you'd have to look at raising the capex and pushing on with construction yourself under new management.
I just don't see the point in getting a new CEO now just to follow the same strategy. Please can you explain how that will be productive in any way given what i said yesterday?
Besides, if nobody buys the asset in the next 12 months they will all be paying multiples more when the copper deficit kicks into gear later in the decade. If we have taken a turnkey asset towards productionin the meantime, all of Redknight's targets will be back in play.
Surely the same 4 years would also apply to option A?
All other things being equal.
Actually, if we wait another year, still not sold, no one would want the poison chalice then.
B could take 4 years , and that's assuming we find someone who actually wants the job.