Member Info for addicknt

Oh dear, oh dear. Never mind.

Sorry Q you really don't need to explain philosophy and logic to me, it formed one third of my degree, but thanks for thinking of me.
Your problem, which is of far more relevance when investing, is that you don't understand corporate dynamics and specifically you don't understand what's gone on here and what is likely to unfold.

Absolutely DBW.

That's my point Bozi, they won't have to overpay and therefore we fit their criteria perfectly.

And that was a non answer...again.

Bozi, no one, at least not me, is saying that BHP haven't said they won't over pay, what they have not said is what Q implied i.e they won't buy us. However, what makes you think they'll have to overpay here? Even if they paid NPV they won't be overpaying...they'll be acquiring assets equal to the consideration... in technical terms that's not overpaying.
Q has attempted and failed to answer the critical question which underpins everything here, which is; why does anyone think BHP will be content with holding only 14% of one of the world's most important copper discoveries? Why have they consistently been prepared to stump up more money to stay in the game? Until someone provides a compelling argument showing they will accept an ongoing minority shareholding, my view will remain unaltered. They will want this and they will get it.

What an excellent word!

"all but a hostile bid fails, however a hostile bid only works if people sell their shares, so they need to bid near full price...etc"
1) As I explained earlier and have repeated on numerous occasions, it's my opinion this will be an agreed deal.
2) of course a hostile bid only works if people sell. Is that meant to be a startling revelation?
3) "it will need to be at NPV etc." No it won't.
Your contention that because there's never been a bid, ergo there won't be one is, I'm afraid, just nonsense. And by the way, when have BHP said they won't "take us out", as you put it? Could you please post a link. If you're referring to the last RNS, it simply said all parties will work more closely together...which is to be welcomed.

Q, I'm afraid you last post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You've completely tied yourself in knots over this issue.

Q, there are two types of deal; an agreed deal, in whatever form it may take, or a hostile takeover.
You have argued 'till the cows come home that a hostile deal would fail due to the diverse book and yet you explicitly state that "all BUT a hostile bid would fail"; in other words a hostile bid would succeed. I take it you can see the inconsistency?

Q, "Solgold can defend all but a hostile bid". Perhaps you may wish to re-think that statement. For guidance, any other type of "bid" would come in the form of an agreed deal for which a defence is not necessary.

Dart, absolutely - they will look at ALL options which, by accepted definition, includes a sale. There's no misinterpretation on my behalf, it's others who've sought to dismiss the implication of the statement. Everything is on the table and I just hope our board can leverage our incredible portfolio to our maximum advantage.
As for the very odd bid for CGP, I'm delighted they rejected it - the implied dilution of our non-Cascabel assets was a price too far.

Bozi, the company committed to explore all strategic options in order to deliver shareholder value. Whilst I don't believe it would make any sense to sell Alpala at this stage i.e pre-PFS, and nor do I think the company would, one of the ways of showing intent would be to announce some jvs on the other concessions. We have been told there is a great deal of interest, but thus far there's no evidence to support this statement. It's my view one of the reasons for our languishing share price is the fact the market knows we have far too much on our plate and the sooner we become more focussed the better.
I also happen to think the appointment of a CEO who has a good track record of successful M&A would help our case. If we end up with a guy who is quite clearly from a purely mining background and this is his first CEO role, I will be disappointed.

Novice, you may be right although I don't see it that way.
We are awaiting numerous potentially value enhancing developments which, it is to be hoped, will move us away from the current low valuation and will establish the trading range at a significantly higher level. This will form the basis for a negotiated deal in due course.
This story is very far from being over, although it would be helpful if the company started meeting some self-imposed deadlines and started providing evidence that it's acting on the RNS which related to the CGP truce.

Thanks, Quady and make sure you get checked.

RK, me too. Diagnosed and treated, after a six month delay, last year. I found the hormone treatment far worse than the radiotherapy. I raised the issue with various friends and one of them got himself checked out and was found to be positive. He's now been successfully treated.
If you're over 60 lads, have a chat with your doc.

Yes it can, provided the company or any other party with a legitimate interest, can demonstrate good reason for it not be struck off. As it stands, the company has made no such appeal and if that continues to be the case I think it's fair to assume they don't care. I'm surprised shareholders haven't commenced some form of legal action.

10th of August Companies House issued a notice for a compulsory strike off for Whetstone. The accounts are are overdue by several months.
I'm sure the shareholders would like to know what happened to their money.

RK, Bettys? Thanks again for the update.

No Quady, I haven't. I'm convinced it will be an agreed bid, but I also recognise that should BHP be frustrated by our board, they have the ability and fire power to go hostile and despite your famed diverse book, they'd win the day.
SOLG in total, or some of its parts, are BHPs for the taking and it is, as it has been since the day they first invested, merely a question of timing... which will also be determined by BHP.