Member Info for AROK1975

Not sure if anyone had noticed, but just in case: Ecuador Mining Hub say a new push to move Llurimagua forward will attract major players...… and our CEO Dan Vujcic drops a ‘like’ on the post. Food for thought: does that hint at something bigger for SolGold in the Ecuador copper hub story, or should shareholders be saying, “Nice like, but how about getting a fair value for us after that paltry bid from JCC, Mr CEO?

Still scratching my head at how this whole thing has been orchestrated, and I’m none the wiser!

GLA

Nick Mather and team have banged on about multiple Tier-1s across the portfolio for years, spotlighting Blanca's massive porphyry system and Porvenir's high-grade potential alongside Cascabel and Tandayama.

Can't ignore the math:

Massive upside sidelined: 89 licences over 3,000 km²—Blanca (world-class porphyry target), Porvenir (environmental licence secured, drill-ready), plus others as district-scale Tier-1s; ExploreCo spin-off flagged to unlock non-Cascabel value separately.

Sunk investment reality: US$311.5m poured into Cascabel alone (2013-2023), plus unbooked wider tenement value from insiders' years of grind.

£850m total?

That's like flogging the Eiffel Tower to fund a baguette stand!

It really does feel orchestrated — the timing of the Canaccord moves, the sudden price swings, and the lack of target revision after the TAM MRE all point to coordinated positioning rather than genuine market dynamics. If Dan, Paul, and the advisory circles are still entangled with the old CGP–Maxit network, it raises serious questions about conflicts of interest and intent. At this stage, transparency and regulatory oversight are absolutely essential to ensure shareholders aren’t being played. Sadly, it looks like retail investors already have been — caught in the middle while the bigger players quietly work their exit strategy.

Shorts minimal (0.48% ActusRay, FCA-confirmed)—28p steals from TAM/$3.2B NPV value. Tenstar silent, flood investors@solgold.com for £1.80+ pre-Dec 26!

Dan's Franco-Nevada buzz + 60.2Mt TAM starter (low-strip open pit for early Cu/Au cash) drove us beyond 32p—JCC bid barely fazed it. Yet 28p ignores $3.2B NPV (£1.80+/share min). Email investors@solgold.com:

"Reject 28p—CEO data/TAM justify £2+. United holders demand better".

ATB

Board eyes 28p bid, yet Cascabel PFS delivers $3.2B after-tax NPV—equating to £1.80-2.00/share fair value. 50+ messages today warrants a board response!

GLA

Done.

Debating if we should send a message via LinkedIn to:

Hi Dan, Loved your post on the Franco-Nevada meeting—$6k/oz gold timed for block cave production sounds transformative for shareholders. Yet JCC's recent low-ball undervalues Cascabel's Tier 1 potential, especially with share price up 150% in six months and steady progress closing the valuation gap. As a committed holder, keen to hear your thoughts on pushing back for fair value.

Spot on! BHP's Noront stitch-up by Forrest was poetic justice—hunter hunted. Now they're fumbling SolGold into JCC's lap amid their eco disasters. NM & team need all hands—cheers for the £100 backing!

Cheesed off: BHP/Newmont's avg cost >40p/share in SolGold, yet backing JCC's pathetic 28p bid? Doesn't add up. Capping 32p+ rally to gift China the copper-gold century (Cu $12k+, Au $5k/oz)? BHP's dirty tricks history screams stitch-up on SolGold/Nick Mather. Business is business—no sentiment. Shareholders, demand better! #SolGold

GLA

Hard to believe it’s come to this, after countless AGMs where the BoD came to retail holders, caps in hand, seeking support for their resolutions. Do we still hold the collective weight to stand against this offer, as they once depended on us to carry theirs through? Just some food for thought

So the board rejects what they call a “low-ball” offer, only to roll over later for a pathetic +2p… you really couldn’t make it up!

This whole situation looks increasingly stage‑managed rather than fair value. JCC’s “possible” 28p cash offer, which the board has said it is minded to recommend if it becomes binding, while Proactive and others are talking about a tightening copper market into 2026 and beyond, plus growing gold demand and more upside to come.

On top of that, SolGold was recently trading around 32p and climbing, so 28p is not only below where the market had just taken it, it also looks miserly against the medium‑term copper/gold backdrop.

Add in the fact that BHP, Newmont, Maxit and Mather have all lined up behind JCC’s revised approach, and it starts to feel like the big boys are choosing a clean exit and quick liquidity, not necessarily signalling that 28p reflects the true long‑term value of the orebody.

Personally, it certainly feels like some JCC‑aligned or friendly holders have been leaning on the price, selling into strength to cap the move and make 28p look more attractive than it really is, although that part is my opinion based on the price action, not something that can be proven from public data. Against a tightening copper market, stronger gold and a data room that was supposedly full of suitors, this whole set‑up absolutely smells off!

Waiting to see if the board can pull a rabbit out of the hat, rather than out of its sleeve 😀.

It's out for all to see—Reuters reports Jiangxi Copper's (JCC) raised bid for SolGold at a dismal 28p per share, while Proactive highlights a tightening copper market into 2026 and beyond, with gold demand gaining momentum and more upside potential ahead. I thought the data room was swamped by multiple suitors/interested parties, not just one bidder like JCC?

BHP previously offered around 35p per share for SolGold when the company had fewer shares, less land/tenements, regulatory hurdles, and project risks—meaning their current 10%+ stake was bought at 35p+; their support for JCC's lower 28p bid seems illogical unless they're secretly planning to carve up/divvy SolGold cheaply among themselves post-deal. It doesn't add up!

"Your intuition aligns with common takeover tactics where major shareholders like BHP and Newmont (holding 20.6% combined) publicly back the 28p offer to encourage Jiangxi Copper to commit formally by the December 26 deadline, creating a window for a superior counter-bid.

Strategic Forcing Mechanism:

By signaling support alongside their 40.7% bloc (including JCC's stake), they pressure Jiangxi into a binding offer under UK Takeover Rules, incurring "put up or shut up" obligations that deter further escalation if rivals then table 32-40p terms backed by Western financing and geopolitics favoring non-Chinese control of Cascabel.

Risks and Plausibility:

This ploy carries execution risk—BHP must coordinate swiftly post-firm offer without breaching rules, and shares below 28p reflect market skepticism—but tier-1 status (multi-billion NPV potential) amid copper shortages makes intervention credible if Chinese approvals lag."

"Your intuition aligns with common takeover tactics where major shareholders like BHP and Newmont (holding 20.6% combined) publicly back the 28p offer to encourage Jiangxi Copper to commit formally by the December 26 deadline, creating a window for a superior counter-bid. Strategic Forcing MechanismBy signaling support alongside their 40.7% bloc (including JCC's stake), they pressure Jiangxi into a binding offer under UK Takeover Rules, incurring "put up or shut up" obligations that deter further escalation if rivals then table 32-40p terms backed by Western financing and geopolitics favoring non-Chinese control of Cascabel. Risks and PlausibilityThis ploy carries execution risk—BHP must coordinate swiftly post-firm offer without breaching rules, and shares below 28p reflect market skepticism—but tier-1 status (multi-billion NPV potential) amid copper shortages makes intervention credible if Chinese approvals lag."

BHP and Newmont hold significant positions (10.3% each) and have signaled support for the current 28p Jiangxi bid only conditionally, while historical patterns show Western firms intervening in critical mineral deals to counter China amid geopolitical tensions over supply chains. Market speculation highlights potential rival premiums of 35-50p per share to secure the asset, especially with copper prices near multi-year highs boosting Cascabel's value.

Fingers crossed !

GLA

What an AGM — full of fluff, excuses, and no real substance. After sitting through it (listening), there’s still no clarity or conviction, just the same recycled talk and empty optimism. Investors deserved more, not another round of waffle. The whole board needs serious scrutiny, particularly whom that is steering the ship with plenty of spin but no direction.

Embarrassingly, a long-term shareholder — though at this rate, “long-suffering” might be the more accurate term. I’ve been daft enough to stick with this company through multiple rounds of dilution, each one apparently a “strategic necessity,” yet the only real growth seems to be in the share count. I’m keen to hear how the CEO plans to turn things around this time — preferably with fewer promises and more performance, full stop.