Member Info for addicknt

Eloro, I live in hope.

Thanks Kat. You've obviously met her.

Eloro, ha! I'd give him my wife, although if he asked kindly he could get her for free.

DBW, theoretically only 51% is required. 75% is required to de-list and 90% to exercise drag-along rights i.e compulsory sale.

Is 51% achievable? Definitely. Would a buyer be willing to accept that? Probably not. Is 75% achievable? Almost certainly -provided the offer offers good value.

I can easily see a situation where a jv ends up buying us. For example, Barrick or Newmont for the gold and BHP or the Chinese for the copper.

It doesn't need to be hostile. It'll be an agreed deal.

Schlem, DGR took one hell of a hammering on Armour and their cash balance isn't that wonderful either. NM really needs to get a return from Solgold.

And you accuse me of deflection!

Schlem, yes. It says we've been sold for £3.45 per share.

I was referring to your long held opinions and specifically your comment at 23:28 in which you say 'to stop unsuspecting fools buying into solg', not your reply to Fort. So it's hardly a case of me 'deflecting', I was addressing your direct quote.

Nal, as much as I'm sure many people will be grateful for your tireless efforts to stop people investing here, I fear your central premise is completely erroneous.

Many of the points you make about past performance and management are true, and in the past there were plenty of us who voiced dissatisfaction with the way NM ran the company (many of us voted against his re-election, me included). We also came to the opinion that DC wasn't much better and as it turned out his appointment has cost us a lot of time and money. However, and this is the point where your argument goes awry - the company in its current form is nothing like previous incarnations and SC is doing his best to achieve what we all want.

Sure, it's taken him a long time to start delivering, but it's a hugely complex equation involving many elements, including the laborious process of having to deal with a government. However, we've started to see the hugely significant progress he's made and we have much more to come.

I accept Fort's criticism of the fact we are an exploration company but are not doing any, but needs must. SC wants to avoid further dilution whilst he moves towards the final outcome and sadly, this means exploration has to be put on hold. He's taken this approach for what he hopes will be to our benefit, and personally I think he and the Board are right.

I know you think nothing's changed, but I believe you are fundamentally wrong on this issue, and recent announcements seem to support my argument.

DBW, yes I know, but I was trying to be polite. I didn't want to upset him just before he goes to bed.

Nal, yes, all of what you say is correct. It's just that none of it is relevant to today's situation.

Sorry, I need to clarify my comment. We have credible expressions of intent. Not quite the same as actual offers, but on the face of it almost as good.

Q, I suspect you may have missed mog's post which gave details of funding news contained within the TR? (I gave you a hat-tip for getting it right)

It's been revealed that we have potential funding, both long and short term, from at least 10 separate parties an have had so for some time. The question which arises from this excellent news is, why haven't we taken any of them up? This in turn has led to speculation that funding is our back-up route and now that we have access to funds, our negotiating position in sale discussions has been strengthened immeasurably. It should be noted that was no mention of any sale or jv discussions in the TR, but then again there wouldn't be as they're not relevant to that particular document.

I apologise if you had seen the post, but I'm assuming you didn't because you didn't comment.

The loathsome aspect of shorting is when it's done by those anonymous outfits who produce negative reports on a company in order to talk their own book. If someone wishes to engage in this activity they should be made to declare themselves publicly, including disclosing their positions, and not hide behind a cloak of anonymity.

So you think the independent Qualified Person was lying, do you?

RK, perhaps you could re-post that snippet, although next time for the benefit of those who find reading a struggle, could you do it in capital letters and include some pretty pictures.

HfH, I could't agree more. Oh, hang on! Nothing's changed. How stupid of me.

I realise you wouldn't have been able to read the relevant section in the TR - perhaps ask someone to help you. A neighbour, possibly?

Oh well, according to you nothing's changed so it's probably best we leave you in your Alice in Wonderland world.

p.s can you please stick to your promise of not reading this bb? It's not doing you any good.

Schlem, we now know we can get funding if/when we need it. I realise the market appears not to have understood this so far, but the Technical Report spelled it out in black and white.