Member Info for addicknt

BHP have been forced to pay a 213% premium in order to get board approval for their Noront bid. If they double that premium they can have my SOLG shares.

Good find ,Mogg. There's only one reason to buy CGP shares.

Interesting assumption you've just made there, RK. You don't know what I suggested. What I will say is that it would provide far greater clarity for shareholders than private conversations with small investors followed by cryptic messages on a chat board.
And I'm not negative, it's simply I don't feel this type of shareholder exchange is in any way appropriate for a public company.

I've had plenty of contact with Fawzi, including several emails today, when he explained what went on. I offered my opinion as to why I feel this type of shareholder engagement is inappropriate and suggested a solution. It will interesting to see if things change.

You've made it perfectly clear that you can't provide any, so why would I push you for something you fell honour bound (understandably so) not to disclose?

'people are crying out for information from Solgold and when they're given it and it's not in an RNS, they cry foul'. That's the whole point, RK, we weren't given any information.

RK, sorry, I'm totally unconvinced by your argument. However, and to repeat myself, I do not in any way 'resent' your discussions and do not hold you responsible for what I regard as a very poor piece of pr. I'm pleased you feel able to talk to the company, but given they can't disclose any confidential information, am slightly at a loss to understand the point of it. Still, if it makes you feel good, I guess that's okay.
By the way, I didn't say the questions were anodyne, I said the answers were. There's an important difference.

RK, I get all of that but it begs the question; if he disclosed nothing of a confidential nature, why did he say he didn't want you to disclose the contents of your conversation? Surely you can see how this looks to the rest of us?
If, as I suspect, your conversation was fairly anodyne, I fail to understand why he imposed this restriction upon you. By virtue of making this comment he's opened himself up to the criticism which is all too apparent on this board.

RK, you've missed the point completely. People are not being critical of you, but are expressing their anger at the chairman. And I would suggest that if you can't understand why, you need to think a bit more carefully about the issue.

This has been yet another spectacular own goal by the company - the latest in a long line. What on earth was he thinking of? I think I'm right in saying this is his first chairmanship of a public company and I'm afraid to say it shows.
Thank god we have such good assets, otherwise, based upon the management team alone, this company is un-investable.
As you can guess, I share Jerry's anger.

DBW, in my opinion the chairman has broken the rules. Whatever he told RK should be freely available and it's totally unacceptable to prefer one shareholder over all others. I'm almost tempted to report this to the Stock Exchange.

RK, I'm fascinated by the fact that he was prepared to reveal stuff to you and does not want it made public. You'll forgive me if I find this extraordinary. Does he not understand the basic principle of disseminating information to all shareholders simultaneously?
I appreciate your efforts and you appear to have asked many of the key questions, but what on earth was the point of it all?

Woody, I'm not sure what the term of office is, so I don't know the answer I'm afraid.

RK, some questions to ask him (although I'm sure they are already on your list)

1. Why did the company feel it necessary to release the RNS last week?

2. What specifically is it about the current corporate governance that the company feels needs to be addressed with the main shareholders. Have they expressed concern? If so, what has changed since 28th May?

3. Have they been made insiders? (he won't answer that one)

4. Why is it taking so long to fill the two most important jobs?

5. Is the PFS still on track for this quarter?

6. Are there any unusual motions scheduled for the next agm? Has the company retained the use of the proxy companies?

7. Is NM acting in any executive capacity? If so, why?

8. How is the relationship with CGP? Are they being constructive?

9. When will the roadshow be completed and will he be issuing an RNS explaining the background and conclusions?

Thanks.

RK, can you ask him if the information/answers he gives you are the same as he has supplied to the main shareholders? If he's providing them with anything different, unless they've agreed to become insiders, he would be breaking company law. If possible, you should remind him of this in the politest possible way. In law, every shareholder has equal standing...although obviously in reality we don't.

Fair point, RK.

It's worth revisiting this announcement and paying particular note to the comments about discussions with major shareholders; specifically those relating to the various changes of corporate governance.
Last week's announcement suggests one of two things: the main shareholders are no longer happy or, the company wishes to explain proposed radical change and doesn't wish to incur the displeasure of the shareholders. I'm struggling to think what else it could have meant. What it most certainly doesn't mean is that the company simply wants to have a chat about the status quo.
Something has happened, or is happening and clearly we can expect some news soon.

I'd be amazed if Mather as an NED were awarded any more options. If the company is trying to persuade investors that its governance is strong this would be the final nail in the coffin.

Mather, this isn't hearsay - as demonstrated by the RNS. Or do you think it's usual for the company to undertake a roadshow to discuss governance? As for "making up scenarios", that's what an investor should do - try to put yourself in the boards shoes and second guess them. Sure, it's often a futile exercise, especially with this company, equally, it's often a worthwhile exercise. For example, last year the speculation about the agm was proved to be 100% correct.
However, you're right about all the other stuff going on and I just wish we could progress normally without these disconcerting distractions.

rcgl, agreed, and I feel sure it's something to do with avoiding any damaging agm votes. But, in turn, that begs the question what resolutions are likely to be tabled which they believe may cause concern?
As you recall, this time last year we saw the appointment of that raft of proxy agents who, uniquely, were tasked with garnering our support. Some people thought this was all par for the course, when in fact it was anything but. Maybe the board, once bitten twice shy, are making sure they don't fall into the same trap?