Member Info for addicknt

Fort, there's absolutely no evidence to support your claim.

Bozi, I don't disagree, but it's clear others do.

SM, I might be wrong, but I think it means they are seeking approval to sell those shares on a non-preemptive basis i.e they don't have to be offered to all existing shareholders and can be sold to anyone the company wishes without our approval.

SM, because the shares are already in issue.

SM, no.

This board has always been fractious, but it's interesting to note how people who, broadly speaking, have been on the same side are now opposed to each other.

One group believes it understands the strategy Caldwell is pursuing and is prepared to support him, the other doesn't. This is not a criticism because I think it reflects on the corporate communications which leaves so much open to interpretation.

Those who support him feel he's taking logical steps to enhance the value of Cascabel and recognise this is not a quick process. The alternative view is that he's wasting time and shouldn't be allowed to continue in-post. The reason for our disagreement is that he hasn't made a crystal clear comment that he intends to sell either Cascabel, or the whole company, and he hasn't given us an unambiguous update on progress. But the fact remains that both sides on here want the same thing - to sell the asset, and yet we are at each other's throats.

So should he issue a clear notice of intent? From a traditional corporate finance point of view, probably not; the thinking being you don't want to reveal your hand in any negotiation. The counter-argument is that everyone away from this board already knows it's for sale, so an announcement is superfluous.

I'm of the opinion he probably should make a statement, but I wonder how the government would react, and if the company has judged it wouldn't be a good idea, we should respect their decision as they know what's going on and we don't.

So, it all comes down to communication and I can see how Caldwell, who I have no doubt is acting in our best interests, has decided it's not appropriate to come clean just yet. Everyone is free to vote as they wish, but I'd urge some careful thinking as it could lead to some very nasty consequences.

It's remarkable that virtually every time the company appears in the press, or issues an RNS, the news is always ambiguous and open to various interpretations.

I wonder if they do it deliberately to keep us on our toes?

RK, I'm not sure you understand my point. If the shares remain in Treasury at the point of an exit, the company can cancel them, thus increasing the return for all shareholders - fact. This is what I was referring to.

RK, you didn't read my second post.

Eloro, that's an interesting comment from Sangha. Let's hope we never get to the point of needing to do anything with the shares - other than cancelling them!

Re the AM. He's always pouring scorn on people for contacting the company/Maxit/Irwin as if somehow these people are gods who would never respond to a mere private investor. The fact is they are approachable and are willing to engage. As you suggest, it would be a good idea for the AM to give it a go.

Sorry, that wasn't clear. I don't mean issued, I mean placed with a buyer.

Anon, let's say a deal happens and the shares haven't yet been issued, the company can then cancel the shares thus avoiding dilution. If they are issued when the company is still trading, your point is valid.

Anon, they didn't sell them because they're trying to avoid further dilution and are obviously hopeful that a deal will happen before the need to raise cash arises.

Bozi, I totally agree with your observations, particularly those related to a lack of experience, but there's one exception; the budget.

SC will have ripped-up the existing budget when he he got his feet under the table at the beginning of this year and will have devised a new one based upon his turnaround plans. Every decision that's been taken is framed by the need to preserve cash for as long as possible. He's buying time to allow the delivery of the strategy and we must give him the space to do so.

Eish, many of us share your frustration, but we understand the damage that would be done by voting against Caldwell. I think our decision making process would be helped if SC was able to provide a more detailed description of what's going on, but there are regulatory reasons why this isn't possible.

Over the years the company has managed to concoct many acts of self-harm, but I'm struggling to think of anything that has been as serious as a vote by shareholders against SC would be. It would be disastrous.

He needs 12 more months and if we're still here next year with no progress, I imagine everyone will vote to give him the boot.

Good post Bozi, and Covgaz, although you and I have disagreed in the past, your 13:01 post is spot-on.

You have no idea what's happening with regard to the SR process - none of us do. We can only rely on what we're being told. So no, you not right. In fact your idea of getting rid of the CEO during the middle of the SR is remarkably stupid. Do you really want to destroy our chances of getting a return?

You have absolutely no evidence to support your suggestion that management are encouraging buyers to sit on their hands.

A reply from Warren to an email I sent this morning:

'I think it was time for both of them to leave the board. Scott is doing a very good job from what I can see. If we lose him, I have no idea who would replace him. Not many people want to live in Ecuador.

I think there are lots of people who want this asset. The issue is no one wants to move first and get topped and look bad.

At some point somebody will move, the asset is too good and Ecuador is becoming one of the better South American jurisdictions'.

p.s to save you the bother of posting your opinion on this, NAL, I won't read it and I couldn't give a toss if you believe me or not.

Kapil, I suppose it's possible you don't understand the meaning of the word desperation - perhaps you meant 'urgency'? In any event, if we give the impression to buyers/interested parties that we are 'desperate', how do you think they'll react? Will they say, ' oh dear, Solgold have got themselves in a real mess, we must help them out with an offer at £1.50 per share'. Or do you think they'll say, 'excellent! Solgold are desperate, we can now nail them to the ground'?

Giving buyers any sense of desperation is a guarantee that we'll get completely screwed and your suggestion that we should is just plain daft.

So you want someone who will show even more desperation? Sorry, but this is amazingly naive.