Member Info for AROK1975

Yesterday’s RNS wasn’t about running out of cash; it was about running out of votes.

Fear is a tactic when numbers get tight - a poor look for a board asking for trust.

GLA

Fabulous assets indeed, RT - and if I remember rightly, Dan spoke very warmly about the Franco meeting. Success, it seems, means something else when 7p options are in play.

If the Court looks at the sequence of events, it may note the prolonged silence following the offer, despite shareholder challenges, and the initial reliance on generic Takeover Code wording when queried. Being “constrained by Rule 20.1” explains how information must be disclosed, not why the board only flagged risk and funding urgency weeks later, right before the vote. Nothing suddenly broke at Cascabel - only the board’s narrative did. The first whiff of NO votes explains the timing.

Let’s be clear - there’s no evidence Franco-Nevada pushed the company to sell. This was the board’s and JCC’s choreographed exit. Missed milestones + cash crunch = no mystery. Guessing hindsight is easier than admitting reality.

Rarely does a scheme this close to completion need a clarity update - yet this one sparks more questions than it resolves. Panic, clearly. A competing bid or a last‑minute JCC adjustment could change the dynamics… or see their pathetic faces in court. In the meantime, let them stew - their P45 awaits.

ATB

Perfectly timed to scare, not inform.

Pathetic.

Peak gold and copper, prime tenements - board credibility evaporates with today’s RNS.

To those who doubted a careful, measured campaign could make a difference - it has, and its impact is tangible. The board is listening.

This update reads overly conservative and choreographed. Contradictions with previous RNSs and the missing Franco money leave too many questions unanswered - it smells of panic.

Still time for a counter-bid, and they’re clearly cautious.

GLA

Public posts invite comment. If you can’t expand, don’t drop the hint.

I’m also struggling with this. Something that is “not price-sensitive” and “not specific” cannot simultaneously be relied upon to justify the board’s recommendation.

Either outline the point, or accept that hinting at unseen correspondence is unhelpful at best. Shareholders should be deciding on disclosed facts - not on trust in unnamed correspondence.

Full stop.

Imo, this article doesn’t close the door.

It explains why the door is worth fighting over:

Not proof it’s a done deal.

Not proof no one else is interested.

Proof Cascabel is geopolitically valuable.

Proof China is happy to take it at 28p.

Proof leverage still matters before the vote.

Cheers - have a good weekend all.

I get the fatigue - a lot of holders are worn down by this.

But I’m not convinced that “no higher bid yet = no higher value”. In situations like this, bidders often wait for clarity on the vote before moving.

A Yes vote locks in 28p and removes leverage. A No vote keeps optionality alive - whether that’s a higher bid, improved terms, or a rethink by the Board.

Everyone has to decide their own risk tolerance, but for me this feels less about belief in 28p and more about exhaustion.

ATB

A perfectly choreographed shock: 28p hits like a bolt from the blue - Ecuador clears the runway with its critical-minerals pact - now it really feels like a kick in the goolies. Value clearly more than this - as Delia said, let’s be having you!

Calling the asset undervalued one week and supporting 28p the next is difficult to square...that said… here’s hoping this turns into a classic auction - quiet room, reserve set at 28p, then just before the hammer falls the real bidding starts.

Reminder to the Court:

SolGold’s assets vs 28p offer - valuation incomplete, NPV/TAM missing.

Process issues - retail kept in the dark, key updates withheld.

Scheme disadvantage - committed shareholders get certainty, uncommitted left exposed.

Retail voice ignored - concerns unaddressed despite clear financial runway.

In short: assets undervalued, process dodgy, retail in the dark, committed scheme advantaged.

Gloves off - full context needed before a fair vote.

Nick et al knows we know we are being shafted - this statement confirms it, imo. DGR now backing 28p “unless a superior proposal.” A counter bid, or game over - the Court may yet shake things up, but we’ll need a decent slice of non-committed institutions… hope they’re not just waiting to cash in.

Exactly, RT - that’s the inconsistency. SolGold’s own financials show the company had adequate resources to continue operating for at least approx 15 months from Q1‑26 even without tranche 3, yet the urgency implied by “certainty” feels overstated. The wind didn’t naturally go out of the sail - someone chose to furl it.

Against that backdrop, J.P. Morgan now forecasts gold at $6,300/oz by end‑2026, driven by strong central‑bank and investor demand - material context the court should surely take into account when assessing whether the scheme fairly reflected the company’s position, imo.

Locking in 28p while so much remained unanswered was a choice. With momentum building, another month of warranted speculation might’ve told a very different story. Someone blinked.

Circular’s out, dates are set. “Almost” is the word - profitable, but not quite the life-changer many pencilled in… unless someone decides to shake things up.

ATB

The key point for me is simply that a sizeable shareholder has gone on record on valuation. The rest plays out in the next couple of weeks.