Member Info for addicknt

Bozi, indeed. We've pished on their chips several times now and if the new funding isn't yet another message to put up or shut up, I don't what else we can do to persuade them of the situation. It's rather difficult to see another rapprochement and hopefully the gloves will come off.

Stackhigh, that's a reasonable observation, but the fact is we've never engaged in a Strategic Review before. Presumably you can recognise the significance?

Fort, it pays to read people's posts carefully.

Fort, what a charming and wholly unnecessary comment. I think I have expressed my opinion clearly enough since the day the merger was announced and it's not too far from yours.
Sometimes you really can be an utter tool.

Bozi, an interesting point, but I think Irwin, Sangha and NM would have already known if that was the case and wouldn't have greeted the merger with such enthusiasm.
It's clear to me they got what they want and perhaps we really are further down the path. Mind you, this is Solg we're talking about, a company that is quite happy to progress in terms of geological ages.

someone asked about the timing for the Review and I'm not sure I saw any suggestions.
The obvious answer is; what is the start point?
If the company already has a clear idea of which route it wants to go down and is already sitting around the table with an interested party, then it shouldn't take too long for there to be an announcement of an in-principle deal.
If however, if the process is starting from scratch, is not merely a lip-service exercise, and all possible outcomes really are being examined in depth, it could take 3/4 months, or possibly longer given that Christmas is fast approaching.
In the past Ive been involved in quite a few of these and the longest took six months - mind you, there was no pressure from the client on that one and they were perfectly happy with the timetable.
None of us has any idea of how far progressed matters are, although Twigger's comment the other day was encouraging. I'm also fairly convinced that Irwin and co either believe or know where this going and have only signed up because they've been told.
So what do you lot think? Is this a genuine full review, or is it the exercise merely a euphemism for an already known and clear path?

Regardless of who is, if he's been given the heave-ho we will miss his valuable insights. There are very few posters on this bb who possess anything like the detailed knowledge he has of the way the market works.
The censorship some people exercise on these boards is, quite frankly, appalling.

Bozi, I've mentioned the Enterprise Value thing on a few occasions, but it seemed few people were interested.
These royalty deals are all well and good but they come with a price. Having said that, as far as this latest deal is concerned, I'm not that fussed. We needed the cash badly and its source didn't really concern me - particularly as I believe it's only for the short term.

Good one copper! Definitely for the record book. Perhaps you've been spending too much time dreaming on the riverbank. And if fishing is 'living life...' Still, each to their own.

Q, the terms of reference of the review states full or partial acquisition of ENSA or Cascabel. And it's quite easy to understand what was being implied by the final point when it talks about other options.
You know full well what's going on and have previously agreed a disposal or sale is now a possibility...why deny it now?

Q, how about this mornings statement from the chairman's. It couldn't be clearer and there was no mention of Plans Aor B.

Q, as I said this morning, the Plan A, Plan B thing has been superseded by the Review.

Dart, production is no longer the stated plan - it's simply one option currently being reviewed. Life has moved on.

is going crazy with excitement! So far 15,000 shares have been traded! Wow!

Bubble, Mitsui not Matsui. Two different companies.

that the whole Plan A, Plan B thing has gone out of the window.
It's perfectly clear the Strategic Review is taking precedence over everything else and although the board is under no obligation to implement the recommendations of the advisors, it would be pretty self-defeating if they did...and disastrous for the share price.
So the question is: what is the most likely conclusion of the process?

sean, agreed and it's astonishing our board has taken so long to realise the fact.

Q, again I agree that seems to have been the plan, but do you not agree that's it's interesting that Twigger didn't mention it in the RNS? Was it deliberate, or was it an oversight? I suppose it could be argued that moving to the DFS is value creating and he felt he didn't need to mention it again, but personally I think it's odd he didn't reference it.
By the way, the review process it self will be costing a good deal of cash and bear in mind we also need money for general working capital purposes.

Q, interesting that Twigger didn't mention the DFS and merely referred to the Strategic Review, isn't it?
Btw, I don't disagree with with you that production is a path to extract value, it's just not the path we will follow.

regardless of who said what, surely our overall feeling this morning should be one of relief?

We now have the headroom and breathing space to complete the strategic review from a position of strength and the board can ensure they deliver on their promise to create shareholder value. As Twigger said in the release "Solgold can now devote its complete attention to the Strategic Review which is now underway to maximize shareholder value". I'm pretty clear in my own mind as to what that means.