Member Info for addicknt

MrC, no idea, but great set of drilling results would lift the spirits.

I find it extraordinary that people base future events on what has happened historically. Exploration companies simply aren't like that.

smick, my concern is not about a sale, it's about the prospect of a jv. We must not do one with the Chinese. Mind you, there's no chance of that happening.

And yet there have been a number of people on here clamouring for Chinese involvement in SOLG. We should have nothing more to do with them.

It struck me that he was simply stating the truth. Indeed, the company itself has said it intends to engage with the main shareholders in a far more positive manner than has been the case hitherto.

In a sense the majors have reaped what they have sown. They have lurched from a period of costly expansionism and reckless acquisitions to one where they've kept their hands firmly in their pockets and the result is a lack of new prospects.
It's all very well relying upon small exploration companies to do the job for them, but what if they don't deliver? Well, we know the answer - they end up looking down the end of a barrel, which is where they find themselves now. And for this reason our future is plain to see.

'Fraid not, smick.

Oh, I should add, he needs to have a great track record of successful exploration.

We need someone who combines both attributes. An experienced and senior figure who knows everyone in the sector, has taken things to production but who has also raised finance and bought and sold businesses. He must also be of an independent mind and has to be prepared to stand up to bombastic characters around the boardroom table. (can't imagine who I'm thinking of)
Not too much to ask, is it?

Optimus, I was referring to a jv between the two buying Cascabel. It's my interpretation of their recent strategy announcements that they will buy assets only once they've been proven and are less likely to take punts on early exploration targets. Cascabel is getting close to that definition, the other targets are not, so they'll be quite happy to sit back and let us assume the risk.
Personally, I think this would be a great strategy for us and is the best way to maximise shareholder value.

Q, I see an agreed jv between the two.

So you know more than every scientist who's investigated the subject? There is no evidence to support your suggestion...none, zilch, zip.
I tell you what, should you have the misfortune to develop cancer (I have) why don't you opt to use cannabis and see how far it gets you. I can assure you you'll soon change your tune.

Oh dear, yet another internet loon pushing out absolute rubbish. If I were you I'd stick to Facebook with this sort of nonsense.
It doesn't cure cancer...fact. End of.

uNkT, what utter tosh. It will not cure most cancers.

smick, they would need to persuade another 10% of shareholders i.e private investors, to support their bid. In takeover terms that's a stroll in the park. Additionally, we don't know how many other institutions own non-declarable holdings. You can guarantee they would follow the money.
Anyway, as I've said, I don't see this as becoming necessary. Had Mather remained, it may have been a different situation, but the new management will work together with the people who really pull the strings.

yes, they do, which they can do easily with the support of CGP and NCM. BR are one of the biggest shareholders in BHP (6%) and it's inconceivable they would vote with SOLG.

smickster, 50.99% does it.

Q, no they don't. But why would you include NCM and BR? A jv between NCM and BHP seems very likely and BR will go with BHP. And we've already seen NCM and BHP voting in the same direction.

The arithmetic is against you. Only 19.65% of shares are held in hands which can be deemed as friendly. This is ranged against 40% (including BR, who I'm sure would side with BHP) which are not in friendly hands (I'm speaking historically, they're probably best of mates now)
Provided BHP and NCM are singing from the same hymn sheet, and why wouldn't they be, it requires only 10% of private investors to jump ship for the game to be over. And the fact is most will jump as soon as they see anything that looks vaguely reasonable. It has nothing to do with the PEA, or anything else, it comes down to hard cash being on the table.
As I said, I don't see this as going hostile, it doesn't need to. It will be an agreed deal and my bet is that it will be Cascabel only.

And this is where your diverse book fails. If either of BHP or NCM launch a bid, and the only circumstances I can see that happening is if the board rejects and approach from them, they only have to win 50.99 % to take control of the company, which I'm sure they will get easily. They can then call an EGM and get rid of all existing directors. In these circumstances it's exceedingly unlikely any of the parties you mention would want to retain their shares as the majority shareholders will do exactly what they want.
Personally, I don't see a hostile bid as being likely, particularly now that NM is no longer in control. I believe there will be a mature conversation which will result in either the disposal of Cascabel or the sale of the company.
And I can assure you, I understand the nature of shareholdings far better than you.