Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone 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.
Twigger and Clare gone
Jumped before pushed ?
Looks like it. Mather not letting go though
Is this some kind of plan pre agm that they sacrifice two directors in the hope that shareholders then have little choice but to retain the rest??
Mmm... So why would you acquire 750k share Mr Twigger and then step aside?
I wonder whether his rebuff to BHP has come back to haunt him. Scott.... did you sacrific Twigger to please BHP and save your own bacon??
Not going to work sunshine... you are toast unless you deliver something 'major' pre agm.
Adikt. What's your take on the director changes.
Something positive I expect.
Me, I think the wheels are falling off.
Eloro. What does irwin think
Notice of AGM and Circular to be sent to shareholders next week.
Au revoir Twigger, I'm afraid I won't miss you.
So much for 'stability' DBW... looks like the CGP boys can't handle anyone else around apart from themselves.
They've effectively taken SOLG over. 100% control yet last year they had minor 15% ENSA stake and 6% SOLG control.
Funny old game innit.
Https://www.linkedin.com/in/steve-van-barneveld-b15a8616/
nondescript...just a placeholder until takeover?
I reckon they jumped before they got voted off...
Leaves only Maria and Dan as INDEPENDENT NEDs...(Nick is not Independent)
"At least half the members of the board, excluding the chairman, should be independent non-executive directors."
"The UK Corporate Governance Code recommends that the listed public limited companies within the FTSE 350 should have at least half the board, excluding the chair, as NEDs; companies outside the FTSE 350 should have at least two NEDs."
So Board is now Scott (ED), Maria (INED), Dan (INED), Steve (INED) and Nick...I would expect Maria to be re-elected; Dan and Nick may not; even Steve may not...
Hmmm
Fort, for the first time in months I agree with something you've said. I reckon the company has been sounding out major shareholders who wanted to remove Twigs and SC agreed to do so in return for ongoing support for him. Clare is irrelevant.
As to your point about GGP interests controlling the company, it's hardly news, is it? As I said the other day, this is, to all intents and purposes, a Canadian company.
Exactly Add smacks of a trade off
NM last Aussie standing not that it matters if they get the right price in the end
They are just the sacrificial lambs to appease us irate shareholders.... its an attempt to ensure shareholders see heads roll, but keep Scott..
Im happy they have gone...
Clare has 1,143,137 shares
Liam has 392,156
Not much to lose...not much to sell...
No real volume or SP movement since the RNS...quite encouraging really...
Well, I'm not happy with losing two directors for no apparent reason at all.
So I'm voting Scott down come AGM unless he has some news that changes my mind.
Throwing some lambs to the wolves is lets face it... rather cowardly and seems to sum these CGP boys up.
They are toast. Bring in a the new team... that can get the job done for goodness sake.
Plenty out there more experienced and capable of getting job done.
Who Fort? Where are SOLG going to magic a whole new BoD from at a time they're trying to re-present Cascabel to the market and push on with government approvals?
By letting Twigger and Clare go SolGold are now a stranded buffalo out in the serengetti. Is a hungry pride going to cross our path or will we be left as finger food for the vultures sat up high?
Hmmm.
So Fort you’re not happy with losing 2 directors for no apparent reason ….. so hey WTF let’s make it 3 or more ???
Absolute madness
Exactly DBW, the same kind of irrational behaviour as those who will vote Labour because it’s not conservatives
Certainly feels like the scene is set for an offer announcement but whether that is teased pre agm and fulfilled in H1 2024 .. who knows... but the 'how to sell a company' playbook has been pretty much followed to a T.
1. Reduce share price so threaten shareholders with some kind of misguided reality
2. Reduce cash balance to point that means more dilution
3. Reduce company to moth ball status and bore shareholders to death
4. Sack or remove chairman and anyone esle that gets in the way of sale plans
5. Present pony offer to shareholder and pray someone else counter offers it.
Tick tick tick...
Trouble is... they have an AGM coming up and the above is not going to help much if Scott gets the boot. So what else do they have up their sleeves as planning like above always results in plan b's and they knew what they were walking into Come Dec. So come on Scott and Bob... time to show your hand very soon. Lets have it then.
Based on what we've witnessed the last 13 years 1984 that is the definition of completely rational.
'Well, I'm not happy losing two directors...' In fact, I'm so unhappy I'm going to vote get rid of another one. Hmm.
You've given us five points suggesting the company is being lined-up for a bargain basement sale, but appear to be happy to trash the sp completely by getting rid of the CEO. Another hmm.
In an earlier post you also seemed to be implying you want the Chinese to bid for us at a negligible value just to provide you with an exit. Another hmm.
You really do seem to be very confused at the moment.
Add - the director argument is garbage but I can understand the general sentiment.
Do you not worry about what the path might be to a sale back in the region that many were initially expecting - say 40-60p (60 being close to the analyst' average)?
For me, it means SOLG needs to survive and keep itself solvent for another 9 months. We need the phased PFS to be water tight, attractive and generally not far short of definitive in its standard/bankability. We're going to need commodity prices and sentiment to move and hold in our favour and after all that we'll still probably need a competitor to the first bid.
That's a lot to hope for unfortunately.
The problem for Fort is he has gone from being the most bullish chap on his to the bearish. There's no in between. There's little to no nuance. It means he understandably gets picked up on for extreme views on both sides.
I do hope we can all find some peace where SOLG is concerned and quite quickly. Many of us have gone through the wringer in recent years with the way the company has been managed and it's about time it came to an end.
For me, if Scott and Maxit aren't going to sell it, step aside and let someone else come in and push it the Quady route.
Don’t agree bozi. Replacing something terrible with something even worse for the sake of change is totally irrational. But hey, people are so stupid they’ll just do what the bbc tell them anyway
As for Scott, let him finish. He’s not moved to a s.h.it hole like Ecuador for the long haul
Bozi, do you not think we're pursuing two separate and contradictory paths at the moment? On the one hand we've opened the doors to all comers and have said we're open to anything, and on the other we're supposedly working on a new PFS, funding etc. The matter was further complicated by the suggestion in the MD&A that we're not actually doing any work on the PFS. Which is it? A question for the AGM, I think.
I understand Fort's frustration, but I do think he's terribly mistaken about SC, notwithstanding what I've just said.
Add, in case your comment RE lack of work on the PFS was because of what I'd shared on here, the document did state that some of the technical work would be done in house (which we have to hope is underway, god knows who is actually leading on that though), and then a third party would be found when required. Direct quote:
"-Engineering of the elements required to advance the study will be conducted by SolGold technical personnel; and
-Required third-party engineering will be sourced through a multiple-bid process and awarded to qualified firms
based on quality, cost, and schedule"
Reading the second part of that to me implied we haven't gone out to tender for this work. Perhaps we have in October/November (as the doc in theory only an analysis up to end of September), but then again we do reference activity that has taken place in October/November elsewhere (e.g. under Government Relations).
I'm not too sure what to make of the resignations. I don't think the two of them would have been voted against at the upcoming AGM other than by the usual suspects. I found it interesting that Mather was quoted. First we've heard from him for a while.
SM, yes it was, so thanks for clarifying. And I agree with your comment about Mather - it's not typical for an NED to make this sort of comment in an RNS.
My main point is that if a new PFS/MRE/mine design etc is critical to maximising value, why did we commence the SR simultaneously? Wouldn't it have made sense to wait until we had all the info available?