Member Info for AROK1975

Nothing like confetti options to get the blood boiling.

I get the anger, IP - 28p feels grim after all these years. I’m frustrated too, but I’m still hoping value can be extracted from here.

ATB

The board is now legitimately hiding behind the Takeover Code - no new value-driving updates can be released. I’m hoping serious bidders with deep pockets and local knowledge already understand the asset’s value or have Ecuador contacts; otherwise, JCC, with board presence, would have had an unfair advantage over other potential suitors.

As shareholders, our main power is the vote. We can approve the scheme or reject it - that’s it. Pushing for a higher price without risking the offer is tricky. The only real levers are to vote “no” to signal you want more, or coordinate pressure to show collective discontent.

That said, this is still a Tier-1 asset. Serious players know what this is, and the clock is ticking. If value is going to be recognised properly, it will be because someone with conviction decides it’s worth paying for.

If not, then 15 years of promises becomes a lesson, not a legacy.

IMHO - GLA

Assuming the deal is approved by shareholders and sanctioned by the court, the 4 March date marks the expected Effective Date. Until then, nothing is set in stone, and the Scheme Document clarifies timing and valuation - and shows SolGold’s assets and permits in a de-risked, fully documented light. Exactly when competing interest could emerge.

So, uncertainty gone. Serious bidders now know exactly what must be beaten. I’ll be honest - 28p recommendation? Very painful. There’s a Tier‑1 copper-gold monster, and while Jiangxi leads the bid, the door is wide open for anyone who truly sees the value.

Those with big pockets, the clock is ticking!

Fair comment, RT - I’m not alleging wrongdoing either. My point is really about incentives, timing and process rather than intent.

Agreed today matters. Once the scheme document is out, the focus shifts from speculation to the actual terms and the vote mechanics. Let’s see what it contains.

Understanding the process doesn’t mean endorsing it. I’m disappointed with the board’s handling and the extended silence - frustrating.

Let’s step back and look at this rationally.

The board’s recommendation doesn’t mean the process is over. It reflects their risk tolerance and personal incentives. Years of options, long-term incentive plans and deferred awards mean certainty from a completed deal today can outweigh uncertain, long-dated optionality - even for an exceptional asset.

The ongoing news blackout, despite repeated shareholder requests for routine updates, reinforces that the board has fully committed to this path and is avoiding anything that could complicate its own recommendation.

"Going to production" appears to have been more of a negotiating position than an endgame. Delays and market fatigue reduced leverage and may have discouraged some potential suitors or JV partners rather than drawing them in.

The last positive RNS clearly restored momentum. A bidder (JCC) already close to the company - with board visibility and advisers engaged - would naturally seek to act before valuation expectations shifted further. That’s rational deal timing, not coincidence.

Alpala remains one of the largest untapped copper-gold assets globally, and the process isn’t closed until the vote passes. Deals can and do move late, and shareholder decisions ultimately determine the outcome.

Hope here isn’t fantasy - it reflects the normal dynamics of a large, strategic asset still in play.

ATB

TAM 3–4 Moz

Alpala’s 27 Moz gold - equates to well over $100bn of metal in the ground at today’s prices, before copper or silver.

TAM's

Good find. In that context, quality South American deposits like Alpala should matter to Western miners. Alpala hasn’t shrunk, metals haven’t fallen, geology hasn’t changed, and metal prices are rocketing - hard to see why this wouldn’t already be on a few radars!

Couldn’t agree more - we were flying, and the bid handed out the biggest stock speeding fine ever. LTHs felt every mile of it.

Exactly - Alpala’s too big to ignore. Someone’s going to crunch the numbers soon.

On a serious note, and as a reminder - the PFS values Alpala at $3.2 bn NPV using:

Copper at $3.85/lb,

Gold at $1,750/oz,

Silver at $22.50/oz.

Today’s spot:

Copper $5.9/lb,

Gold $4,670/oz,

Silver has rocketed to $94/oz.

Value has clearly left the PFS in the dust.

Perfect monster asset for a mid-tier miner or a consortium (including a private equity fund) looking to make the leap to top-tier.

Food for thought - SolGold’s board in Switzerland. Banner for Trump or megaphone: ‘Tier‑1 Alpala in Ecuador going cheap to the Chinese… dig, baby, dig!’ Happy to chip in for the banner!

Cheers.

Wasn’t expecting much in the way of a substantive response from Solgold - we largely know what we know at this stage. Once the board makes a recommended offer, their hands are effectively tied. Releasing new positive information would undermine that recommendation and raise obvious litigation questions around why 28p was endorsed in the first place. That, to my mind, best explains the current silence - it’s procedural, not a statement of confidence in 28p.

Importantly, silence doesn’t mean the asset has stopped improving. The underlying value continues to mature, and a third party isn’t constrained by the same rules. If the asset is simply too good to let go at 28p, the only clean way for that view to be expressed is through a competing bid. In the end, fair value will be set either by shareholders at the vote - or by the arrival of a better offer.

AtB

For what it’s worth, I’ve never surrendered - others, including some respected and prolific posters, have chosen to sell, and that’s entirely their call and good luck.

If it helps anyone who wishes to engage constructively, below is the short note I rifled to IR, which others may wish to copy or adapt:

Dear Investor Relations,

Thank you for your previous response. I understand that the Company is constrained by the Takeover Code and UK MAR in what can be discussed at this time.

As a long-term shareholder, I would be grateful if you could confirm when any further disclosures regarding the 28p offer, including valuation rationale and factors such as recent drill results and the Tandayama open pit starter, are expected to be made available to all shareholders. Clear timing on these disclosures will help shareholders make informed decisions and understand the context of the offer.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kind regards,

GLA

I don’t blame the Chinese - or anyone else - for trying to buy SolGold cheaply. That’s exactly what buyers do.

What’s harder to judge, in my view, is whether the board genuinely ran a robust, competitive process, or whether the situation simply grew beyond their ability to manage it.

Years of talking up a full-scale production story may have sounded bold at the time, but in hindsight it arguably narrowed the company’s strategic options rather than expanding them. “Production” is easy to say; delivering it is another matter entirely.

What I struggle with most is the opacity around how we arrived at a recommended 28p. The lack of clear disclosure on the alternatives considered, the competitive tension (if any), and the valuation framework used is what has led me to write this.

That lack of transparency - rather than the bid itself - is the real issue for me.

GLA

Early trades are pulling the price back after moving above the bid. Market's giving off doubt - some participants, probably institutional, clearly think 28p isn’t the final price.

Shareholders still deserve a clear explanation, and being ready to vote NO if none is given is just common sense.

If 28p is the full story, the market clearly hasn’t read the script.

ATB

Worth noting - trades nudging above the 28p bid suggest the market isn’t pricing this as fully settled yet. Just an observation, IMO

GLA

I have my hopes and worries - there may be another bid, and I’m hoping it might happen. But if it comes to a vote, shareholders still need clarity on why the board shifted from rejecting 26p to calling 28p “fair.” Moving from 24p to 28p isn’t value defence in itself - in fact, given the number of positive RNSs on drill results and the potential Tandayama (“TAM”) open pit starter, it could reasonably be questioned.

We are where we are, but for the record, the board’s missteps and ineptitude have contributed to this situation and cannot be left without scrutiny. Pushing a full-scale production narrative likely narrowed the buyer pool and reduced competition. A staged or earlier approach might have supported a more competitive process and potentially higher returns.

There may yet be further interest, but regardless, shareholders deserve transparency on valuation, IMO - leaving this to a postmortem would be far too late.

Here's to a good outcome.

GLA