Member Info for addicknt

'the truce was forced on the company by BHP and Newcrest...' Sounds about right.

Oh well, Quady, I made the offer and your defensive reply tells me all I need to know about your real feelings.
(the 100% was an innocent mistake, but I'm sure even you managed to grasp the central point)

LM, you ask why does it matter if BHP/NCM vote against any resolutions. The fact is it does matter - a lot. Companies find it very difficult indeed to operate when just one major shareholder is opposed to the management let alone three who account for such a significant minority and who would make life almost impossible.
One of the reasons is that potential new investors/lenders would be most unlikely to support the company knowing that considerable shareholder unrest existed. And then there's the question of special resolutions. From time to time virtually all companies have to make use of them and if our main shareholders were at loggerheads with the board, we would end up in some sort of dreadful stalemate, and we private shareholders would suffer as a result.
However, I happen to believe the company is being true to its word and is now actively and regularly engaged with BHP, NCM and CGP and therefore do not anticipate a re-run of last year.

Quady, there's only one way to settle this. If, by the end of 2026 (I'm giving you a years grace) Cascabel is in production, is 100% owned by SOLG, is paying dividends and we have not been diluted out of sight by equity issues, I'll come on this page and will humbly admit I was wrong.
I expect the same from you if none of the above has happened.

Utterly clueless Mather and it just shows how much you understood, or rather how little you understood, about what happened last year and my comments at the time. And it appears you still don't get it.

Mather, you are completely deluded. I was spot on and the fact you still can't grasp what happened last year and the implications is baffling.
The world of solg changed irrevocably and yet you still maintain you were right. Words fail.

Mather, you were one of the people last year who failed to understand what was happening. It seems possible you're making the same mistake.
If you can provide a single convincing reason why you consider what's been going on is completely normal, I'm all ears. And pray tell, why has the company failed to fill the two most important executive roles at a critical point in our history? I guess you think this is perfectly acceptable. Oh well.

LM, I share your sentiment but the parallels with this time last year are clear. Background noise about CG was becoming apparent and the appointment of proxy agents pointed to the fact that something was going on which we private investors were unaware of.
This year a shareholder raise concerns (as CGP did last year) and the company reacts by engaging in selective shareholder communication.
The other similarity is that certain people vehemently denied that anything was happening and it was all par for the course - they were completely wrong. I'm not suggesting history is repeating itself, but something seems a bit unusual.

rcgl, you're right, NM is not up for re-election and decisions about committee structures are a matter for the board. However, just as technical point, a large shareholder can table any motion it so wishes. If someone wants a vote on any NED they can table a motion accordingly. Personally, I'd be astonished if we see this at the next agm, but reading between the lines, my guess is that there may be some dissatisfaction with the current situation.

BBG, are you wholly unable to understand what people are saying? Or are you pis*ed every time you post? Or maybe you're simply deranged.

Bozi, I'm hazarding a guess that your post was directed at me? If not, I apologise.
I'm sorry to say I disagree with virtually everything you say.
There is something fundamentally wrong with where the company is at the moment and specifically with the governance of the company. We are leaderless, and have been for most of this year - this is totally unacceptable and perhaps you could give an example of another main market listed company which has failed similarly.
The announcement of shareholder engagement on the issue is simultaneously a recognition that something is amiss (normal, happy companies don't feel obliged to do this sort of thing and particularly not in response to a public letter from a small disgruntled shareholder) and was also mishandled very badly indeed.
You may be critical of my/others analysis of the situation, but I'd suggest our criticism is absolutely justified.

RK, thanks for the reply.

anon, good post. As far as NM is concerned, the moment it was announced he was staying on I raised the concern that his continued presence would muddy the waters and would make life difficult for anyone taking on the role. This seems to have come to pass.
He must resign his NED position and the sooner the better.

We all know there's only one thing which will move the share price significantly, and it isn't the PFS, another MRE, drilling results, jvs on the unexplored tenements (whatever happened to those?), or any reassurances on corporate governance.

CD, actually it wasn't; I really don't know the answers. I can guess, but that's not the same thing.
I should probably let this rest as I know I'm flogging a dead horse ( I don't mean RK, but the company who seem intent on keeping us in the dark)

Question: what do you think is the real reason for these governance roadshows? And why does the company feel they are necessary?

mog, exactly!
At the time of the last agm there was supposedly an opportunity to ask questions, as there always should be. When I tried to lodge a question the tech didn't work and since there were no other questions, I can only assume other people faced the same problem. My cynical mind made me think this was deliberate, but that would just be a conspiracy theory, wouldn't it?

RK, no I'm not. Institutional presentations are different and are necessary. There are other ways of communicating with small private investors which are less open to misrepresentation and confusion. I take it you accept that yesterday rather proves the point?

RK, I hope you understood my position on this? I was not critical of you nor of your efforts over recent months to talk to the company. My concern was entirely directed at the company.
As for the next time - I hope the company no longer indulges in this form of shareholder communication, that it heeds the reaction on here and adjusts accordingly.

BHP have been forced to pay a 213% premium in order to get board approval for their Noront bid. If they double that premium they can have my SOLG shares.