Member Info for addicknt

More deflection with a bit of sanctimony thrown in for good measure - excellent.
How about answering the question of how exactly CGP have been neutralised? For guidance, they and their backers now run the show and do so with the full cooperation of Mr Mather. Once you've grasped that fact you may have a clearer idea of how things are likely to pan-out.

Have you actually read the RNS relating to the SR?
And you say 'CPG' (sic) have been 'neutralised' and that they 'can safely be ignored'. Are you joking? It's becoming apparent you haven't got a clue about what's been going on recently and you most certainly don't understand how things have changed.
Perhaps it's time for you to drift back to your world of celebrity encounters and 'much cherished letters' from Ester Rantzen.

Indeed it is.

Quabbles, I thought you promised us unparalleled insight, advice and unique analysis of Solgold? Instead, all we've had is a remarkably tedious catalogue of your life, which has revealed nothing more than the fact you're clearly rather odd. Perhaps your tales would be better placed on Facebook or Instagram.

SM, warms the ****les of my heart!

SM, I completely agree. I was merely saying I understand how someone could see the statement differently, particularly if it supports your existing argument. In fact, this is true of many statements issued by the company over the years; as I said the other day, they've been the masters of ambiguity and obfuscation. It would be nice to see the new team address this problem and to speak plainly in the future.

rcgl, in fairness to Quady, it's possible to see how NM's statement could be misinterpreted.
Q's argument seems to be that this relates only to DGR's position. The counter-argument is that it refers to Solgold. I know which of the two I believe, but there is a degree of ambiguity.

For the first time since the AGM I've just noticed a message from HL relating to virtual attendance. It says that they need 5 days notice in order to provide the access codes. I didn't know this and must remember next time.

It certainly will, copper, but not in the way you suggest.
As for your question, I think you know the answer and it comes in the form of our new Lords and Masters and their own stated intentions.

I won't suggest that isn't a possibility, but I come back to the question of why NM would sell DGR's shares whilst simultaneously believing greater value could be had by holding.
The other thing to bear in mind is NM's attitude towards a jv, which he has publicly stated is not a route he wishes to pursue.
In my view, NM will use DGR's stake as part of a bargaining tool with a potential buyer. By doing so he's in a strong position. Once DGR are out of the picture NM's influence becomes broadly insignificant - and I simply can't see him wanting to be in that situation.

Q, it doesn't seem very likely though, does it? Why would DGR sell out if NM considers far greater value could be had by staying put? Additionally, in the absence of a corporate event, all of the major shareholders would struggle to sell their shares without crashing the market, so it strikes me it would be suicidal of Mather to dump DGR's holding knowing full well it'd damage the company and, by implication, his own holding.
Incidentally, the SR is about far more than advancing Cascabel.
Fort - I lied.

Fort, no you won't.

Quady, to ensure I don't 'misrepresent' you, am I right in thinking that you forsee a situation whereby DGR sell their holding but Mather keeps his?
This is a straightforward question and I'm not inferring anything.

The fact is Q, a jv doesn't deliver what Sangha and Mather have said they want and I'd argue this means we won't enter into one. I'll leave it there.

Q, gawd blimey! I wasn't talking about the financing, I was talking about the financial implications of a jv for shareholders. To make ot simple, show me your arithmetic which demonstrates a jv is a good option.

Q, that's not an answer to my question; it's merely your opinion based upon some pretty dodgy thinking. Incidentally, I've also suggested that given you've ruled out the production route and you don't like the idea of a sale, you are, de facto, in favour of a jv - there being no alternative.
The question I've repeatedly asked is about the financial implications of a jv and why anyone would think they are beneficial. Until someone provides a cogent argument in favour of a jv i.e how it will benefit shareholders and also why Sangha and Mather would change their minds, I'll continue to be highly sceptical.

Q, may I ask you again, why do you think a jv is such a good idea for us? I'm afraid I don't recall having seen a coherent and compelling argument from anyone with regards to this possible outcome. Nor do I see how it in any way achieves the stated ambition of Sangha &co.

Q, we're clearly a very long way off having a DFS/BFS, therefore there's no chance funding is 'being raised in the background'.

happened to SM's post about the LND situation? Did the thread get out of hand?

SM, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Confusion has been caused by the ambiguity of the various statements released via different sources, with question arising; what exactly does 'advancing and de-risking Cascabel' actually mean?
As you point out, there's an inherent contradiction in stating that the various on-going work is designed to advance the project, but somehow has led to a delay in the production of the DFS. Does this suggest the previous work was incorrect, or sub-optimal....again? Is the work supplemental and complementary, or is it a complete re-think...again?
From the moment this was announced I was scratching my head wondering what it really meant and I confess I'm none the wiser now. I think to release a statement saying the DFS is being delayed without explaining why, was a classic piece of Solgold obfuscation; which is a pity.