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.
SharketMare so when we did an offtake agreement with Franco Nevada that in your mind was a failed fund raise because our major shareholders were not onboard.
I think you can see how ridiculous you sound.
Life's too short to spend Saturday morning arguing with someone convinced that down means up. See you all Monday.
SharketMare this were talks no fund raise was executed and failed.
So you're saying any discussion the company has that doesn't go their way is a failure.
That's just mad.
They didn't even publish any proposals of a fund raise, because it never got that far.
What a ridiculous statement.
But you know better, so tell me what the proposals were.
Quady, part of any fundraise is getting your major shareholders to sign up to it. SOLG failed to do this, which is why their proposed fundraise failed.
Basic stuff.
So telegraphist50 you believe that proposed terms is a failed fund raise.
It's really not.
Solgold were just discussing this with their two major shareholders. We don't know what was discussed. That's why I have asked if anyone has any details.
If this is a failed fund raise, then any company proposing any fund raise means its a failed fund raise if they decide not to proceed.
I hope you would agree that's just crazy.
CD @ 20.52 last night - great post, wholeheartedly agree. Reads like it could have been written by your mate Sean!
In order for it too fail it had to be placed. Nothing was placed therefore nothing failed. I dare say you have read the article by now. Please seanhunter feel free to block me.
We know the company needs to raise funds now or soon, they were actively considering their options on how to do so and some of the large shareholders didn’t like the proposed terms. I’d say that sounds very much like it failed but pure semantics in any case.
Quady I don't want to block you like that rocket Fort, but you are increasingly sounding like this guy....
https://youtu.be/vC5UTUAxgpE
No fund raise ever took place. You are correct. Because it failed.
Morning smickster just type in your browser Solgold failed fund raise. It's the one from the Australian. At the top of my page. Looks like protected link so can't copy easily on here.
Good morning Quady,
Can you try link again as it's not found.
Ok for some reason that doesn't display, search on Solgold failed fund raise.
I found the offending article, it says Solgold forced to withdraw fund raise.
Very melodramatic, but as you see no fund raise ever took place.
https://amp-theaustralian-com-au.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/solgold-hits-fresh-troubles-as-finance-boss-ayten-saridas-leaves-only-weeks-after-failed-raising/news-story/c971d30c3e39872c770f69671b9a72b6?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16609823882947&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fbusiness%2Fmining-energy%2Fsolgold-hits-fresh-troubles-as-finance-boss-ayten-saridas-leaves-only-weeks-after-failed-raising%2Fnews-story%2Fc971d30c3e39872c770f69671b9a72b6
This was a speculative story that someone posted on here.
Okay if we had a failed fund raise, we would know the terms.
Why you ask ?
Because it failed, find me the terms of the failed fund raise. I tried and failed, then read about the discussion with the major shareholders. You soon discover that no fund raise took place.
If one took place and failed, show me anything on the terms of the failed funding please.
No one can because it never took place. You will understand this, when we undertake a fund raise and all is fine.
I sometimes wonder if you are a spoof account Quady, just heret to wind us up.
Yeah and JFK wasn't killed in Dallas, he just had a close encounter with some bulkets and is currently resting.
It was a FAILED fundraise. I know it, the market knows it, Elvis knows it.
Seanhunter we never had a failed fund raise.
It didn't happen. No official fund raise took place.
There was a discussion with our major shareholders and no agreement was reached, so Solgold didn't go ahead.
We will have a fund raise later on in the year.
Completely agree CD, this is on the CEO. We were told the company were working towards getting the shares pricec re-rated earlier this year when we were at 27p. Admittedly Solg delivered an excellent and believable PFS, but everything since then has been a s**7 show. This is unacceptable and we must now start asking senior questions of the leadership. C
Surely if there had been a fundraising that failed, we as shareholders should be informed by RNS?
CD, agree with the last paragraph of your 18.44. Very annoying that we as shareholders get little clear information from the company and have to piece everything together from message boards, contacts and press articles.
Re Cascabel funding, I haven't looked back but I had it in my mind that the FNV money was to take them through both PFS and DFS. Could the fact that the PFS was delayed again and revised have pushed costs up materially? Alongside covid and inflation and the fact they keep having to do more drilling at Cascabel outside Alpala.
Well the way Darryl is going he can join Bizwas in terms of popularity or the lack of it. I understand the market metrics and the finer details of getting finance rounds sorted but this far all we know is that he thinks $25m is enough to see us through to PFS2 and Porvenir PEA but that's it. We know nothing about the cash requirements for DFS. We know the basic cash burn of the business and we know that $30m per years sorts a decent exploration plan on the regionals. So the question is... if SOLG knew that the Franco $100m would only see them through to PFS, then what did the communicate to the major shareholders regarding the funds required to DFS? That might be the big issue here. SOLG may have said, that Franco's $100m was it. That's what's required to DFS. And then suddenly it isn't. Mmm. On top of that, $4.5m seems to have disappeared which shows poor discipline. So whilst I am not trying to balance out the likes of NCM and BHP's concerns, what I am annoyed about is that all seem in total darkness regarding what cash SOLG need or needed and that's on Darryl I'm afraid as it's poor communication at the highest level. I don't think he can just sit back and watch the sp drift and be oblivious to the fact that his running the business is the reason why the stock is at significant lows. What's he going to do to turn it around? Come Darryl... step up to the plate or you're toast in just over 3 months time as is Mather et al.
Biswas is not liked at NCM so to be frank, I don't give two hoots about his opinion.
If Biswas has balls he would had made a move. Talking chop aint his style too. The only thing he has is a very small mangina!
rcgl2, I think you're wrong on this occasion. Darryl has already referenced that the 'test the market' process identified some shareholders who were not happy with the structure of the finance.
The cash box deal was done very shortly after the Franco deal as far as I'm aware. Bizwas is clearly referencing the structure that was used last time and that it was suggested as one off. That's potentially the cash box but also the Franco deal which we know NCM and BHP were angry about.
We don't have to get in semantics here... I think we can read between the lines. The Franco deal was part of the structure and strategy to reduce equity dilution. Of course it's going to be the same solution this year as well. Why wouldn't it be?? Well one reason why the royalty tap would not be needed is if the equity tap could be done at a fair price circa 35p+ levels. It seems the market might have been moving toward that (Blackrock included) but for some reason, NCM and BHP decided at the last minute to back out.
I'm guessing on the latter but there was a solid reason for Norges and Blackrock to be buying quite heavily in the early 30's just weeks ago. That reason hasn't gone away but their share purchase activity has which is why the sp has drifted down. Understandably, the likes of Norges and Blackrock are awaiting guidance from SOLG on what happens next as if equity raise on the table again, then they will participate in that rather than buy in open market.
The longer SOLG remain quiet, the longer the market will fill the gaps with negativity.
One thing that annoys me most right now is that SOLG haven't actually communicated to 'ALL' shareholders HOW MUCH cash they required to see the company through to DFS plus some exploration. All we know is that the current $25m cash pile could be stretched to year end. That's pretty poor by all accounts. Even AIM listed minnows outline what they need cash wise to see the business through the next 12 months. SOLG are playing a cagey game and not treating all shareholders as equals. Some larger shareholders know the amount of cash required. And that's out of order and needs to be addressed.
Good afternoon rcgl2, I think the reason BHP/NCM don't want a cashbox issue is they won't be able to increase their percentage, and by doing so it means we get to DFS and can then raise the money ( BFS required ).
Which means game over we go to production.
Why would they want to help us get to production.
However we can do this without them.