Member Info for addicknt

Woody, on the face of it the passage I've quoted is pretty clear and is referred to elsewhere in the three documents. Why would there be reference to a new bridge loan dated the 13th if we'd borrowed unsecured funds from someone else?

I did wonder if this was reference to the first facility we had when we drew down funds as a bridge before the conditions precedent were met for the full facility, but it can't be that as those monies are long gone and these recent documents refer to a new facility.

I'll happily put my hands up if I'm wrong, but as it stands I remain of the opinion FN were the lenders and the new charges are updates to take into account the new facility.

Jack, have you asked hubris what is his explanation for the references to a new bridge loan (dated 13th May) and the fact FN are referred to as the lender?

I'll admit it's confusing, but how do you explain the quote?

It refers to a bridge loan signed on the 13th May in which FN are described as the lender and we're described as the borrower. Strange, eh?

Jack, are you sure about them being 'ruled out'? Did you not see my more recent post?

Nal, I know the nearest you've ever been to boardroom is cleaning the outside windows, but if you had been any closer you'd understand a little more of how things work. For example, an appointments committee always comprises of a number of NEDs and given his knowledge of the company, it makes sense that NM sits on it. Why you think this means he controls the company is way beyond me. In your mind it's as if the last two years simply haven't happened.

Sorry, I wrote NV in brackets rather than FN.

Here's another reference in the Registration of a Charge document: ' And whereas the Secured Party (NV) as lender and Solgold as borrower and other Pledgors as guarantors, are party to a bridge loan dated May 13th2024...'

Jack, that's interesting . There were three documents issued, one being a loan document which specifies FN as being the lender.

Jack, if I were you I wouldn't attach any significance to the fact NM was the second signatory on the document. It required two directors to sign and it would have been a question of either availability or the fact NM is probably regarded as the senior NED. It's no more exciting than that.

Rcgl, agreed. The secrecy seems completely unnecessary, particularly when they knew they had a statutory requirement to register the Charge.

Incidentally, on the same day the Charge was registered we cancelled 898k shares. I've no idea what that relates to.

By the simple expedient of checking the Companies House filing record, I can confirm the mystery of who lent us the 10m is solved. It was Franco Nevada.

I don't know why I didn't think to check before.

One way or another we'll be looking at a very different situation in December, so there's zero point trying to predict now how you'll vote. Who knows, by then you may think Caldwell is the best CEO in christendom.

Eloro, over recent weeks you've posted numerous bullish comments about the Exploitation agreement and much else besides. Who do you think has been responsible for the progress you've been hailing? Father fecking Christmas?

Eloro, so, you know what he's going to deliver over the next couple of months, do you? Of course you don't, so perhaps it's best to wait and see before making statements like that.

What an interesting and comprehensive article. Thanks DBW.

If this doesn't make people feel confident, nothing will.

HfH, the end of our financial year is June.

HfH, the 10m will not last until the y/e - the company have already said so. To quote;'...it will last a few months'.

CMG, I'm all for discussing possibilities, but that one's too far left of field for me.

CMG, how likely is that? Haven't you been reading the various announcements and government statements?

RK, given DGR and Mather are connected parties and insiders, wouldn't this require disclosure?