Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
We shall see...
Your definition of unnecessary is defined by the outcome you as an individual wish to see here - a takeover - rather than what the board decide as the best way forward in the interests of all shareholders, which may well include retaining the portfolio ex-Cascabel.
I am against paying taxes unnecessarily as a shareholder...
Correct colonelDrake Lasso just wants it built.
We have taxes to pay if we sell and we are having a strategic review to work out the best way to advance Cascabel.
So we are going to build it as 20% tax take and possibly more is a lot.
"Nick has always said that if you sell Cascabel there would be Ecuador taxes to pay..."
Taxes get changed all the time. They normally go up but in countries like Ecuador keen to attract new business partners and get mines moving which require $3bln Capex... ermmm they tend to change the rules or offer benefits. Recently some licence blocks in the south have had better financial terms agreed I believe.
What Nick says 2 or 3 years ago may well be right but things change and often with SOLG! Maxit, Mather et al have had more than enough time to sort their offshore accounts out so on a personal tax level...alot is manageable for those that are motivated. PI's have chance to offload into ISA (part or all based on balances).
The CGP guys want cash.... we know that. If that costs 10% or even 20% tax I think they'd be happy. Fairly easy for Maxit to factor some of that into the offer price talks/deals and Lasso to then give some back through greater Capex offsets/reduction in early phase Ecuador royalties. Lasso just wants it built ... and super majors want early profit pivot points not long term ones.
It's a while since my 'senses' have been tingling. Doctor says it's down to my age! :(
Yes SM I do but I'll keep the names to myself at the moment.
I've no desire to start a witch hunt but when you read the last few days comments and then read them again, my senses are tingling.
He's been reading too much John Le Carre, or Mick Herron (the best contemporary author of spy fiction). Where's Smiley when you need him?
"I sense there's one or two 'bad actors' loitering on this board"
Really Bozi? Not wishing a start a witch hunt, but please identify those you believe to be witches! ;)
Are you against the paying of taxes, Redknight?
If such an offer was made just for ENSA then SolGold would have to consider it, and if they went ahead it would then be up to them to try and find a solution with a corporate action.
Cheers Bozi...I'm more preoccupied with those that might buy SOLG towers...
;-)
I'm not being negative Redknight. I'm trying to offer an alternative view to a group think that is growing more desperate by the day.
I sense there's one or two 'bad actors' loitering on this board (as is their right) and I think they've expertly worked the genuine shareholders over. The company has only helped them by repeatedly doing it's best to implode in front of our eyes.
Also Red, whilst I find your continued bullish views admirable, you run the risk of disappointing one or two who are rowing along on your judgement. For example, your point about asset value was valid as long as Nick retained control and as long as the markets were bullish for copper. One of those things is gone forever and the other should be back shortly. With 0/2 and a group of angry PIs baying for a SR result, it doesn't bode well for those who will try and buy time at SolGold towers.
May I repeat...Nick has always said that if you sell Cascabel there would be Ecuador taxes to pay...
Not like you to be so negative Bozi...
Nick has consistently pointed to Asser Value, not Market Value...
Having 100% of ENSA is a big step forward...
I had to laugh at DG1s comment from Saturday...
"remember many of those investors trust SOLG even less than we do !"
Is that why 99.98% voted to join us af $4.07 equivalent...?
You're not wrong DM and I very much hope this information will be forthcoming in due course. In any event, there would need to be major change with the company, or at least he replacement hires for departed board members.
I also agree very much in terms of your preferred strategy. I'm a big advocate of it as a solution that meets virtually every investors goals in one way or another.
Get slug in the back , and me as the fly on there windscreen. That would be an interesting ride , unlike this one.
As bad as things have been the last 18 months to 2 years, all this chat just smacks of investors sat on losses, looking for any semblance of a return.
In a way, I wouldn't mind it if the company achieved nothing in the strategic review. No transaction and - 50% off the share price. Yeah it would hurt to look at my account but there's a longer game than that I for one don't see why SolGold should be prevented from playing it.
Post merger CGP and associates will hold about 22-24%. They'll have their SOLG shares to sell at some point too and that will dilute them further. Yeah let them sell. I'll have another crack at SOLG sub 5p to build my own holding for retirement.
The alternative is that Bob scratches around to sell this for 25-30p within 6 months? Nah there's no need for anyone to entertain that.
Start the car Quady! On we go!!!!
For some reason I thought the merger supposed to have been completed by end Jan? anyone know the reason for the delay
Good to see Bubbs is being more realistic too
I hope all the facts you have posted at 14.19 today come true Quady, especially the pound a share one.
Otc could you tell me who of our share register who would accept a bid in the high 20s?
Most have an average of +20p and pretty sure they would like to see a return on their investment.
DG ….. I think it all depends how much people want it and how many there are ….. the first bid could be the last bid or it could set this on fire
DG1, let's hope for top end ,deffo buy at this low price though ,am fully loaded ,have been for years waiting for my now lower exit price .