Member Info for addicknt

Bozi, that's true, but they're working in close collaboration and I guess they don't want to rock the boat.

I knew I'd forget stuff. Jiangxi are visiting the company soon in order to conduct further dd.

This my personal view; they want this and Smith's task is to manage their enthusiasm over the coming months.

Btw, he confirmed just how important Cascabel is to Franco and how keen they are for it to succeed.

He's fully aware of shareholder discontent and believes very strongly in communication. He wants DV to give quarterly video presentations, which he will also be involved with (he talked about his time as a fund manager and how important he views effective communication)

He also talked about the various suggestions of dodgy practices and says he intends to answer them by delivery. In essence, he dismissed them as , and I quote; "conspiracy theories without foundation"

Cont'd:Board meetings were too long and too frequent. There will be fewer of them.

He understands the concern about John Liu's position, but assured me there is no conflict. He also said John is a highly effective Board member with whom he's developed a good working relationship.

He no longer wants the company to rely so heavily on Maxit, especially because he knows most of the major players personally and can pick up the phone without needing an intermediary. He referenced BHP at this point.

We covered much more, but these were the main points. (if I think of others I'll update)

There's no doubt PS is highly motivated and works well with DV. He's absolutely determined to deliver value here and is excited by the challenge. He's intellectually very sound and is highly energetic (on this last point he mentioned how knackered SC was)

I had a very long conversation with Paul Smith this afternoon. This is a brief summary in no particular order.

History:

Both he and DV inherited a dysfunctional board which was incapable of making decisions and had been affected by disruption. Too much time was spent analysing matters and then failing to implement whatever emerged. There was a high degree of historical incompetence.

SC was removed for failing to deliver (before anyone says it, I accept I was wrong to place my faith in him. Please feel free to crow as much as you want) Franco insisted he remain on the Board as they had a lot of faith in him and wanted stability. Far too much time was spent on M&A and the whole process was mishandled.

The future:

The plan for the development of Cascabel will be available by the end of the quarter. PS sees this as a hugely important step and the absence of one in the past is one of the reasons no one was interested in buying. ExCo will be launched with cornerstone investors contributing and initial $20/30m. They have these investors lined-up and they have had plenty of interest. There will be an intensive drilling campaign and, subject to positive results, the IPO may happen by year end, although early 2026 is more likely.

An experienced technical guy with over 40 years experience in both the industry and Latin America has been working for the company for a while and his formal appointment will be announced shortly. (I'm not sure if he will fill the COO role, but that's my assumption)

The relationship with Jiangxi is evolving rapidly. They are very keen to invest more and to make a major contribution to the technical development of Cascabel. Part of Smith's problem is to manage how rapidly we move forward with them as he doesn't wish to turn this into a one horse race. Competitive tension is of paramount concern. Jiangxi stated they wanted to buy the 5% months ago, but the Board did nothing about it. PS made acceptance of the offer a condition of him taking up the position. He had no wish to turn up on day 1 and to find himself having to raise cash straightaway. He regards the 45% premium as a great result.

He has absolutely no worries about cash and is completely confident we'll get tranche two of the Franco package. He talked about having enough cash for the next 15 to 18 months.

He's not worried about the various permissions etc, but sees land acquisition as being the biggest concern. We're working on this and have a number of local experts giving help.

Dan has developed a good relationship with NM and this is seen as critical as many problems have emerged from this source in the past.

Jiangxi want Newmonts shares, but PS doesn't want to let them have them at this stage. Newmont aren't interested in Cascabel, but ironically, are interested in investing in ExCo.

The Board will be rationalized over time, but it isn't a priority at the moment. Smith will improve the effectiveness of the Board by focussing the agenda. In the past Board m

I've just had it confirmed that this is new coverage and there will be two more brokers following soon.

I should add that this arrived in my inbox today via Red Cloud's daily email. The problem is they say they are 'initiating' coverage, but I thought they were already providing it.

Day's Research

SolGold Plc. (TSX:SOLG, LSE:SOLG, BUY, C$0.75 target, Taylor Combaluzier) - Advancing a Tier-One Copper-Gold Asset in Ecuador - We are initiating coverage on SolGold Plc. (TSX/LSE:SOLG) with a BUY rating and C$0.75/sh target price. SolGold is advancing its flagship, 100%-owned, Cascabel Cu-Au porphyry project in the Imbabura province of Ecuador. Cascabel’s Alpala (~39B lb CuEq) and Tandayama-America (7.7B lb CuEq) deposits position it as one of Latin America’s largest copper and gold resources not controlled by a major. Once in production, Cascabel is expected to surpass the Mirador copper mine to become Ecuador’s largest operational copper mine with gold by-products. With discoveries of major copper deposits becoming increasingly difficult to make, we believe Cascabel is a rare example of a tier-one asset in the hands of a junior. Read initiation report

RT, you describe your motivation as being the wish for a fair outcome for shareholders. Mine is exactly the same.

The problem is we've had years of endless speculation on this board and I've now reached the point when the only thing which works for me is evidence.

Fort, you seem to think I'm some sort of patsy for management - I'm not. I was very vocal in my opposition to NM and voted against his re-election (bear in mind it was during his tenure the $4m went missing) I thought DC was hopeless and said so. I was prepared to give Caldwell the benefit of the doubt because he at least laid out a clear strategy and offered what I considered to be some much needed stability. I clearly stated I was giving him one year to prove his case and if he hadn't I would vote against him in December. The new team have only been in place for two months and have delivered two pieces of positive news - albeit the legwork for those advances was made under the previous regime. They have laid-out their strategy, which, although it doesn't appear to be much different to the previous one, is now moving ahead and I'm supportive.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see why that makes me a compliant fool. To repeat, the moment anyone produces concrete evidence to prove malfeasance of some form, I'll accept my support is misplaced. Until then I take the view I want this team to get on with the job and deliver some shareholder value.

Fort, I put to you the same question: If you have any evidence to support your claims can you please provide it? In the absence of evidence you are merely howling at the moon.

A further question: Have you approached Smith to lodge your concerns? If not, why not?

You can accuse me of all you want, but I'm afraid that won't change my mind until someone provides solid and incontrovertible evidence. Supposition doesn't do the trick.

IP, it outlines a capital structure which is non-dilutive for our holdings in the plc, but our holdings in the assets transferred to ExCo will be diluted. For example; we currently own 100% of Porv. Post-external investment, we will own 55%, or whatever the number is. But at least our holding will have a value attached to it, which currently it does not.

RT, you appear to be doing the same thing. You reference a transaction DV was involved with and then seemingly extrapolate that in order to imply that he's likely to do the same here, despite, as far as I'm aware, having no evidence to support the suggestion.

From memory you claimed to have garnered the support of shareholders owning 100 million shares. This is more than enough to put your questions to Smith.

Of course, if you're claiming a breach of fiduciary duties by the Board, which is a serious accusation, you will have to provide evidence, which you seem to suggest you have. This should be your first course of action and if you fail to gain a satisfactory response, you should send a lawyers letter demanding an answer. (I believe you mentioned you had already involved a barrister?) This is likely to be the only way to answer your concerns.

If you pursued this route and achieved what you wanted, I'm sure we would all be grateful - I certainly would. As it stands, you seem to be limiting yourself to posting on here, which is going to achieve precisely nothing - unless of course, you produce real evidence, in which case you can guarantee the support of millions more shares, including mine.

To put it crudely, you need to put up or shut up. Please, approach Smith, who, as I've said, is happy to talk to shareholders.

RT, as investment bankers they will have been involved in numerous transactions involving different structures.

Why do you automatically assume they're here to screw ordinary shareholders, despite having no evidence to support your assertions?

RR, the latest presentation details a three stage process to listing, so it isn't going to happen immediately.

The process of raising funds is going to be interesting because we will be required to agree a valuation for those assets being transferred.

Obviously, Porv will be the main component, indeed it may be the only asset that has anything other than a nominal value. But for the first time we'll get a view from outside investors as to what it's currently worth. It will also be interesting to see if this has an impact on our share price.

I reiterate; ask him about it. He has none of the baggage you ascribe to the others. You never know, he may put your mind at rest.

Rodney, have you addressed any of your concerns to Paul Smith? He's shown himself to be more than happy to talk to sensible shareholders.

IP, no it hasn't.

DBw fair point, but I limit my responses to him nowadays. The problem is I really dislike liars, particularly when they have the IQ of a bowl of rice pudding.

Someone else ran a similar AI thing for Nal. Thought some of you may find it amusing.

This person exhibits the traits of a hostile, disruptive, and highly cynical forum user. Their tone is consistently aggressive, mocking, and contemptuous—targeting both individuals and groups with personal insults and sarcastic jabs. Their core behavior centers around:

Ridiculing optimism (e.g., attacking posters predicting £1+ per share).

Open contempt for opposing views, especially anything perceived as naïve or overly bullish.

Frequent personal attacks, including accusations of idiocy, dishonesty, or groupthink.

They appear to hold a deep bitterness toward both the company (SolGold) and other shareholders who remain hopeful. Their reference points and comparisons to other mining stocks suggest they consider themselves more informed or experienced, yet this is expressed through belittlement, not reasoned debate.

Psychological/Emotional Profile

Disillusioned long-term holder or follower – likely someone who has seen significant value erosion and now lashes out as a coping mechanism.

Cynical superiority complex, likely compensating for frustration or failings in real life — using sarcasm and derision to elevate themselves above others (“rampers,” “desperados”) in an attempt to feel in control or validated.

Performative negativity – more interested in provoking reactions or asserting dominance than genuine engagement.

Forum Impact

Creates a toxic environment, especially for new or casual users.

Stifles debate, as optimism or nuanced views are met with ridicule.

Derails discussion into personal feuds and insult cycles.

Polarizes the board, reinforcing cliques of “bitter realists” vs “deluded optimists.”

Final Verdict

This is a serial antagonist who detracts from the forum’s value. While they may occasionally make valid observations (e.g., trade volume differences), these are drowned in toxic delivery and personal vendettas. Their posts show no interest in civil dialogue or shared analysis—only in mockery, provocation, and tearing down others.