Member Info for AROK1975

One thing that’s hard to ignore…

across the market, explorers with a fraction of SolGold’s asset base have been re-rated over the past year - far less drilling, far less work, and far less certainty.

Many of those companies are years behind on fundamentals SolGold already has in place, including advanced technical studies, environmental work, and a well-defined permitting pathway.

SolGold hasn’t suddenly become less valuable. If anything, the underlying value has improved as metal prices have moved materially higher since this offer emerged. What’s changed is the board’s decision to anchor value to a single bid, rather than allow the company to re-rate alongside the sector.

That’s why the register still matters. That’s why over a third of institutions remain uncommitted. And that’s why the >25% NO threshold is still very real.

PS: Thanks Damers for the Jiangxi Copper bond-raise link - an interesting read in the context of where the sector is heading.

Many will wait to see whether the scheme passes or fails before showing their hand - waiting is about decision-making, not necessarily launching a counterbid. The scheme isn’t legally effective until Court sanction, which exists to test fairness and process, and once the meetings pass, the outcome is usually settled. Of course, if the scheme fails, anything is possible - we can’t assume there’s no one ready to step in.

That’s my view - I respect yours, but technically that’s correct.

Agree Davyjwavy - well put.

Funny, Bozi - the horse hasn’t bolted, yet here you are, all wisdom and no stake.

For an asset of this size and quality, bidders face a trade-off. Launching a counterbid before the vote would be aggressive and could complicate the scheme, but waiting until the result is known reduces risk and avoids wasting effort if the scheme fails anyway.

The window - usually a few days to a couple of weeks between a passed vote and Court sanction - means a counterbid is conceptually possible, imo.

Much obliged - happy to share my thoughts.

Sadly, yes, Damers - if shareholders approve and the Court sanctions it, the scheme becomes binding.

It isn’t legally effective until Court sanction, which historically happens shortly after the vote, and that’s when the “game” is truly over.

Absence of another bid at this stage doesn’t say much about asset quality - it says more about process and timing, in my view.

Once a board recommends a scheme, serious bidders usually step back. Engaging before the vote risks forced disclosure, hostile optics, or simply being used to validate an undervalued price. Many will wait to see whether the scheme passes or fails before showing their hand.

Add to that the fact this offer landed ahead of a broader re-rating across metals and comparable explorers, and patience - not silence - is the rational strategy.

In short, a recommended scheme creates a pause. Silence reflects discipline and timing, not a lack of interest or underlying value - imo of course.

I believe if we vote NO and block it, trading continues normally. Suspension only happens when the scheme passes

Most likely, revised higher bid (30-35p range) to win over retail, imo.

Back-of-the-envelope analysis - not a prediction, just the numbers as I see them.

Total shares: about 3,014m

Locked / committed YES: about 48% (around 1,447m)

Uncommitted / retail pool: about 52% (around 1,567m)

Committed YES (around 1,447m shares):

Jiangxi Copper: around 368m (not in vote)

BHP: around 314m

Newmont: around 311m

DGR: around 205m

Maxit: around 154m

Bell Potter: around 178m

Nick Mather: around 84m

Barclays: around 130m

Tenstar: around 108m

Remaining pool (around 1,567m shares):

Retail: around 543m (about 18%)

Uncommitted institutions: around 1,024m (about 34%)

Uncommitted Institutions:

Hargreaves: 4.3%

Aberdeen: 3.7%

UBS: 3.2%

Norges: 2.4%

HBOS: 2.4%

Global X: 3.2% +

Samson: 2.1% +

Sand Grove: 1.8% +

Qube: 1.2% +

+ dozens more

Illustrative scenarios (more than 25% voting NO by value blocks the Scheme):

Scenario 1

Around 50% of retail voting NO (about 272m / 9%)

Plus around 17% of uncommitted institutions (about 513m)

= about 785m NO votes (roughly 26%) - Scheme FAILS.

Scenario 2

Around 60% of retail voting NO (about 326m / 11%)

Plus around 15% of uncommitted institutions (about 464m)

= about 790m NO votes (roughly 26%) - Scheme FAILS.

That’s retail unity plus modest institutional support - nothing heroic required.

Reminder: shares held via nominee accounts usually default to YES unless you actively vote.

P.S. It doesn’t hurt to politely email Hargreaves / Aberdeen / Norges / Global X either…

For anyone holding SolGold shares through Barclays (Execution-Only):

To cast your vote on the takeover, you’ll need to contact Barclays directly - either by secure message or phone - and instruct them how you’d like to vote. They’ll then arrange the vote to be registered via proxy on your behalf. Don’t wait until the last minute just in case the processing takes time.

GLA

Interesting take, NMM. But, from where we sit, it’s not about strategy - it’s about process and alignment. The Board’s moves in 2025 - milestone-based funding, slowed exploration, senior appointments, HQ relocation, TSX delisting - all happened before shareholders saw the Scheme.

Whether it was meant to encourage competing bids or not, shareholders were left with limited visibility while the 28p recommendation was being shaped. Waiting to see if others “think 28p is fair” isn’t really my point - we’re entitled to know the full picture before irrevocably voting.

We’re on the same page - it’s all about full transparency and timing, not hindsight guesses. And sadly, that’s been years of it - fed up of guessing!

Just a quick refresher from my notes - our board decided to voluntarily delisted from the TSX a few months before the 28p Scheme. That move reduced external oversight and seems relevant when thinking about the timelines and process scrutiny the Court might look at.

It’s hard not to notice that the timing isn’t exactly reassuring.

Agreed - the mechanics are clear. Voting NO doesn’t destroy shareholder value; it reopens options.

A counteroffer is ideal, but even if it doesn’t materialise, JCC would still need to make a higher mandatory offer above the 12-month high (32.65p), which protects shareholders relative to the 28p Scheme.

In that sense, NO seems the safer choice, while keeping upside potential intact.

Thanks RT et al - really appreciate your work keeping this front and centre. The FN/O streaming agreement shows it’s long-term resource value, not short-term “premium,” that matters - use whatever is useful for the cause.

ATB

A Closer Look at the Recommendation.

The Scheme Document leans on deal certainty and funding risk for its 28p recommendation, calling it a “premium” versus historical prices. But it does not reconcile this with underlying asset value or market momentum - momentum that stopped once the bid emerged.

The PFS used long-term prices of $1,750/oz gold and $3.85/lb copper, well below prevailing spot and consensus at the time (SolGold PFS, 2024), materially affecting NPV and perceptions of “fair value."

Meanwhile, TAM’s open feed had started generating momentum, which abruptly halted when the bid landed. Add corporate moves made ahead of the bid - milestone-based funding, slowed exploration, senior management appointments with financing experience, and HQ relocation - and it’s understandable that we, the shareholders, are asking questions about process fairness and alignment.

In an irreversible scheme, shareholders are fully entitled to scrutinise whether the recommendation reflects intrinsic value versus deal certainty. These are process and disclosure questions, not allegations.

#EnglishHighCourt

This post is a couple of days old, but worth sharing.

Dan Vujcic commented on a LinkedIn post by Alamos Gold (advertising an IR Director role): “Dynamic - love it!”

Someone replied: “SolGold shareholders don’t like the company being given away for peanuts and were expecting better communication on the transformational news promised.”

Too many disgruntled investors by the looks of it - as Churchill said: never surrender.

By the way, 28p for tens of billions in contained metals… someone check my calculator, I think we’re being very polite.

The board’s move to Switzerland (28 Aug 2025) pre-dates any takeover approaches. JCC only appeared in late November, with the 28p offer in December. No other formal bidders are on record. The timeline strongly suggests this was a deliberately plotted path with JCC.

Food for thought.

It all feels neatly choreographed - price driven to single digits, exploration effectively paused, a fresh CEO parachuted in with an investment banking background, options at an incredibly low price - generous to themselves, meagre to us, a few positive RNSs thrown in. Momentum was quietly building; the share price had the potential to soar - a runaway train held back. Concerns were raised to SolGold, and acknowledgment was minimal at best. As noted previously, let’s hope another bid emerges; timing is perfect now that the Scheme is published - otherwise, it’s down to the vote.