Member Info for addicknt

Nal, perhaps you've missed the events of the past six months? If so, you'll find the timetable in the November presentation. From memory, it was also revealed at the time of the funding agreement.

However, I do agree with you that the company's past adherence to timetables has been very poor, but this time there's a very big difference - our future depends upon it. It's also the case that the schedule has been jointly agreed between the company, FN and the government, and one would assume the agreement was based upon the setting of realistic targets.

You also state the future is 'fraud' (sic) -with danger. Yes, there are many obstacles to overcome, but the fact is we are no longer the only party involved in the process. Both FN and crucially, the government, are also committed to delivering the milestones. This is a first for us.

2024 was a transformative year for Solgold and for the first time ever we have clearly stated objectives for the coming year. It's now incumbent on all parties to deliver.

Eloro, I assume you mean the company should be able to give a timetable? If so, I think you'll find they've already provided one.

I guess most of us will be relieved to see the back of this year, but it most certainly hasn't been as catastrophic as the share price suggests.

For the first time ever we have a clear strategy with definable performance benchmarks, which the management has no choice but to deliver. We now know why we've had to go down this path, even though it was no one's first choice, and the finance package is a real demonstration that major financial institutions have faith in both the project and the management team - as do the overwhelming majority of shareholders who bothered to vote. And the support from government is not to be sniffed at.

Caldwell informed us that the previous defeats relating to the Special Resolutions had prevented us from pursuing a number of important strategic options. Well, he's now got the authority he wanted and it's incumbent upon him to back up his statement.

There's no question the company needs to improve its woeful shareholder communication and it must recruit a strong and independent chairman. Again, the Board now has the cash to get one, and they should do it asap - they've had long enough.

The turnkey strategy makes a great deal of sense and, in the interests of shareholder value, is probably the only sensible option available.

As far as this board is concerned, it's a great shame it's a shame so many really good contributors have disappeared in the face of the never ending BS from the idiots.

Anyway, I hope all the decent folk on here have a very Happy Christmas, and let's all pray next year will see the market wake up to what we are sitting on.

How about Lloyd's for one? BHP? There are numerous examples. Why do you think so many companies have ended up being taken private? This aspect of private equity came into existence as a direct result of the markets inability to price companies properly.

Eloro, I agree with you about the futility of trying to communicate with the board and Iike you I don't like it. Shareholders can't expect directors to answer every question, in fact I don't trust a board which spends too much time doing so. But there's a balance to be reached and we are not at that point.

I'm afraid this is as far my agreement with you goes. As far as precedent is concerned, there have been/are many ceos and boards who are doing a good job but that performance is not reflected in the sp.

Smick, you're right, I think this is a good letter. Before the AGM I sent an email to Chris in which I raised a number of the questions RP lists. I didn't receive a reply. You may also recall I made more of a fuss about our inability to access the meeting than anyone else, and was laughed at by a number of people on here for doing so.

I have made no secret of my concerns about poor communication and lack of transparency - it's been like this since well before Caldwell's time, however, this doesn't mean I think SC's doing a poor job. The fact is certain people have had a problem reconciling themselves with the reality of the situation SC was confronted with and how it required a complete change of strategy. If this fact is accepted there may be a greater recognition that so far he's delivered on the new direction and his success, or otherwise, will be judged by his delivering the milestones over 2025. Do I understand the frustrations? Yes. Am I fed up with the sp? Yes. Am I happy with the comms? Absolutely not.

Like everyone else on this board, I wish we'd been able to sell Cascabel for a good price, but we couldn't, so I've adjusted my expectations accordingly, as have those shareholders representing 93% of the votes cast on the 5th. It's time to accept reality, but I do believe we should make our collective views on the comms known to the board.

Scott's doing a great job. There you are...feel better?

I see BHP have received a Class Action on behalf of all women who worked for the company in Australia after 2003, which alleges sexual harassment and discrimination.

If BHP launched another hostile bid for Anglo, it'd be interesting to see if Anglo used this against BHP as part of their defence.

Not the only junior suffering today, GGP was down 6.5%. Mind you, that doesn't make it any easier to watch.

Over the past couple of months I've kept an eye on the buys versus sells figures. Curiously, the number of days buys have exceeded sells is far greater.(I know the reported figures on here are not particularly accurate). The other feature is that it takes many more buys to move the sp up than it takes sells to move it down. I've no idea why.

RK, have you seen how TM1's sp has reacted to news of an off-take agreement with Glencore? I know it's not of direct relevance, but a copper off-take with someone like them may work wonders for us.

Formerlyeasyp, I thought Rule did hold shares - he's been pretty positive in various interviews over the years.

Eloro, if it pans out as you suggest i.e no steps forward, I suspect you won't have to worry about Caldwell still being in charge. As for his 'ramping', he's not in the same league as Mather was, and from what I read on here it seems people want him to be more rampy.

Btw, I'll ask whatever questions I choose, whether you like them or not.

Fort, the answer is you don't have any evidence and are inventing stuff to suit your own narrative.

Fort, you say Franco know that management additions and changes are necessary. Do you have any evidence to suggest they're unhappy with our current team?

RK, the company had made a $3m provision for what I assumed may be for settlement with DC. Ultimately, they released $1m suggesting the cost was $2m.

Lancs, the BHP options lapsed on 2nd December, which, since they were exercisable at .37p is hardly surprising.

They were classified as a derivative financial liability. The only question I have is whether this should have been announced? Does anyone know the relevant rule?

One other thing I missed previously is the fact we're carrying a provision of $716,170k for "Employee and Legal Expenses" which was also on the balance sheet last year i.e we have a liability but haven't paid it yet. I don't believe this was related to DC as that was dealt with previously. Anyone have an idea?

Rich, I suspect most of us are frustrated that this hasn't worked out as we originally thought, but we are where we are and more patience will be required. Whilst there are plenty of things we could moan about, Caldwell's salary is not one of them.

Rich, of what relevance are the earnings of the 'average pi' to those of a publicly quoted plc CEO?

No they haven't, but I think all of us understand what RK was saying and the nature of their commitment.

Nal, ha! you fell for it! Now you know how it feels to have someone twist the truth about you. You've been doing it for years - oh, sorry, you've only been a member for 18 months. And by the way, you really are that thick.

I'm still looking forward to the day you post something about the company, rather than your daily ad hominem garbage.