Member Info for AROK1975

Since just before Christmas, this has been a slow, grinding process. It didn’t have to end this way - but the board chose certainty over maximising shareholder value.

The outcome wasn’t inevitable. Other options were still on the table, and a different call could have been made.

Yesterday’s volume was roughly double Monday’s. To my eye, that looks more like positioning than an endgame. The scheme still feels in balance - failure, a higher JCC bid, or even a late counter are all still possible.

GLA

Yesterday’s trades suggested the scheme remains in balance, with sellers met by larger buyers - showing demand still exists and stock moving from weaker hands to stronger holders. Make of that what you will.

I’ll be watching how today’s trades unfold.

GLA

Appreciate the kind words. Just an ordinary holder trying to protect my position and share a few thoughts along the way.

GLA

Exactly, RT. Timing and facts matter. The board sees who adds value versus who’s just shouting.

Ignore.

Few green boxes appear immediately after - can only suggest tosh being talked. Typical troll behaviour. Once a troll, always a troll. Full stop.

Thanks, RT - spot on. A counterbid can come at any stage, often with no warning. The window’s still open, and these last few days will be telling.

ATB

The shareholder meeting and Court approval happen after Day 53 - so it’s just a timing reference, not a stop-sign for bidders.

Formal or private approaches can still land up until the vote, and yes, a late bid could technically appear even after GM/Court if our hand-in-pocket board chooses to entertain it.

Keep your eyes open - the game isn’t over.

Couldn’t agree more, Bob.

28p “final”? Board says no approaches - translation: nothing formal, not “nobody’s thinking.” Window for a counter or strategic shake-up still exists.

If the scheme fails, price could wobble post-23 Feb - then rebound sharply. The gloves are off. Last few days will show who’s really playing for value - and who’s being shepherded by a lousy board.

GLA

IP - solid research. Appreciate the time and detail you’ve put into that. Good job.

That said, the board’s begging RNS, plus DGR and ISS Glass Lewis forced declarations, expose just how fragile the 28p narrative is. A NO vote doesn’t just stall the scheme - it could reset the game entirely, with the pendulum swinging toward a higher JCC offer or even a counter. In this game, it’s not just the price - it’s the timing, the backers, and how it’s seen that swing the outcome.

ATB

1. Hide Early Offers (24-26p) - JCC feels exclusive; rivals hesitate to step in.

2. Position JCC as Preferred Bidder - Signals scarcity, making it appear the only serious option.

3. Leverage Top Shareholders - Builds credibility and pressures shareholders to vote FOR.

4. Create Urgency Ahead of Scheme Vote - Psychological timing and pressure drive acceptance of the 28p offer.

These dynamics - early engagement, perceived exclusivity, and aligned shareholders - make mounting a competing bid difficult and high-risk.

Players like BHP are committed to supporting the board’s recommendation, and no BHP representative sits on SolGold’s board. With JCC quietly engaged in the background, launching a counterbid would require significant time, coordination, and capital - which helps explain why no counterbid has emerged. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t act if the scheme fails.

Bottom line: By controlling the narrative, the 28p offer looks like a fait accompli - even though the underlying asset value suggests otherwise.

Spot on MF - shared CapEx across a consortium could make a counter feasible - thank you. Hopefully the board doesn’t shut down any alternative paths for shareholders.

ATB

I hear you, and I don’t blame anyone for thinking that. Tier‑1 Cascabel, drilled, mapped, gold & copper strong, Ecuador approvals in place - left alone, we’d likely be north of 40p. The evidence points to a well-orchestrated JCC deal that no one saw coming. So it’s a top asset versus a board that’s clearly out of its depth.

They throw everything and the kitchen sink now to scare shareholders.

Look at their 9th Feb update - they tried to blame a dip in gold for recommending 28p. Laughable - gold is already back over US$5,000/oz.

Boards usually inflate numbers to sell a project; here they’ve done the opposite - deflating the Scheme NPV.

Independent spot‑price analysis still points to an NPV of Alpala alone around US$6.7 bn (roughly £1.60 per share).

If this lowball 28p passes, it must go down as one of the most desperate undervaluations in the history of mining schemes.

Funding milestones from Franco were in play, but progress stalled while the board focused on JCC! Retail has been left carrying the burden - putting it mildly.

Don’t let the board scare you - look at the evidence. Your reference point should be the beginning of the Franco‑Nevada/Osisko funding, not their latest panic RNS.

If no counter-bid emerges and the scheme fails - via a NO vote or Court pushback - short-term dips are normal. But the resource, data, and strategic value are still there.

SolGold is not running out of money - the US$750 m Franco‑Nevada/Osisko gold stream is milestone-linked. Initial tranches have been released, and further funding unlocks as the project derisks. Financing can continue, or another JV / strategic bidder could step in - just don’t expect these clowns on the board to be steering it.

ATB

Damers - so, in SolGold context, JCC or another major investor - large institutions, hedge funds, or potential strategic bidders - could be quietly betting on the share price while watching how shareholder votes are shaping up. They can profit from synthetic positions, but only actual shares on the register carry votes - one share, one vote - that’s what really counts. That’s why the register might look “quiet,” even if these big players are very much in the game behind the scenes.

For the NOs, it’s a reminder that your vote matters - the scheme is far from a done deal. And for those watching bidders like JCC, it shows that optional moves, upgrades, or counter-bids are still very much possible, keeping the pressure on the board.

Still in play.

Platforms like II, HL, AJ Bell feed votes up to the registrar in batches - boards see the overall trends, not every click. Retail chatter moves the vibe, not the official tally.

Boards watch voting very closely - even if they pretend not to notice the chatter, they will quietly advise the bidder they back, keeping them updated on proxy trends and shareholder mood. So it’s not just speculation - the big players are monitoring the vote every step of the way.

Just an observation: Why might a bidder wait? Yesterday’s RNS shows so many proxy votes out, it’s easy to see which way the wind blows before the vote locks in. Maybe they’re watching if JCC upgrades their 28p bid - a move that could change everything. So, why the sudden begging note from the SolGold board (JCC in the mix, board sweating bullets)? And DGR - they’ve said they’ll support the scheme ‘in the absence of any other bidders.’ They previously flagged SolGold as undervalued. Their board is clearly manoeuvring behind the scenes, and recent statements may reflect behind-the-scenes pressure. Draw your own conclusions.

Surely, the scheme undervalues the company and lacks adequate disclosure. Full stop. This deal has been carefully choreographed by the board and JCC for some time - hardly a level playing field for other shareholders, even with past RNSs showing multiple serious suitors had reviewed the opportunity. The lack of new bids isn’t proof of no interest - savvy majors often sit back when a board has already picked a side, watching the vote unfold before deciding on next steps. Patience, not absence, explains the silence. Or it’s all just smoke and mirrors.

ATB