Member Info for Bozi

Good post Mwv1

There's no proxy firm this year as things stand so you should be OK just passing your votes to HSBC
That's what I'll be doing with my broker.

The Italian - Contact your broker with your voting intentio

I hear you ToS1963. I'm also not happy about their latest miss, but I think there's grounds for some separation of the issues from our emotions and what is needed to protect and enhance our investment.

Copperpot - we have invested but the issue is either one of the following:

We have interested "influences" amongst us, continually sowing negative sentiment against those officers of the company seeking to protect our interests.

OR

We have genuine investors and traders who are too easily motivated by their own targets and will stop at nothing to achieve that in the quickest time possible.

The issue for investors like us who are happy to see this play out in the fullness of time is that there is a way that these asset can be prised from us at a price lower than what we might consider fair.

The 1st step is to gain as much board influence as possible. We're seeing that now.

The next step, once step 1 is achieved, is to behave in cohorts with other similarly interested parties to be counter - productive for smaller private investors. By that I mean poor newsflow, poor comms and poor financings.

Those actions will kill off the remaining bulls who will seek to protect their capital and a certain company will sweep the rest up minimum of fuss for a song.

That is the game here, and investors wrapped up in their own egos, considering themselves hard done to by that "mean Mr Twigger" or the "useless Mr Moller", are simply handing over the keys and wasting the years they have spent holding the stock.

Turkeys just love voting for Christmas these days.

Over and over and over.

I blame it on the media and its neuro-conditioning.

Vote the directors out up for re-election and you're giving an opportunity to our suitors to get more board influence in 2022. If they succeed then you can forget any notion of 80p,60p,55p,45p.

Instead you can expect painful dilution and being crushed into the ground, maybe for somewhere in the region of 10-15p if we're lucky. Think about it.

Not at all Monte. You're the one living on this bulletin board and replying within 5 minutes.

I won't be bullied online by people like you. That's all you need to know.

No mention of real violence anywhere so put that card away. If you want to act the lad and dish it out, just be sure you can take it back.

Monte - your holier than thou act doesn't wash with me.

You give this "general view"; moaning, whining, criticism whilst telling all and sundry that you're a master trader. Nobody cares for your ego but the older boys on here who are just as tired buy into your naive rhetoric.

You get the heat because you're constantly coming for me. I won't just sit here and take it. You'll get it back with interest.

If you want a quiet life, ignore my views. It's as simple as that.

Everyone else still has their marbles Monte, lol.

I'm fine BBG and I'm not confused.

Look up the word "outlook".

I was referring to the age old argument of takeover vs production that we all like to hang our hats on here.

Quady - my understanding is that this isn't funding. It's a legal agreement whereby the Ecuadorean government are offering financial protection once SolGold reach an investment threshold. It's an investment by Ecuador into companies trying to do things in a responsible way and it should be something that holds up in court should the country see a chain of events that signify regression it it's mining policy.

So SolGold knows that once it meets it's minimum obligation then it should be protected for every £/$ that goes into the ground.

This makes us much more investable than we were anyway. It should be a big box tick for royalty companies, smelters and indeed predators. It's one hurdle to achieving Alpala debt financing flattened quite spectacularly.
SolGold were obviously a company of interest for it's mineral resources but now it's one that serious financiers can be serious about doing business with.

This is an intriguing block in the story that has drifted into picture at a really interesting time.

Don't ever back down Quady. You have taken and indeed continue to take enough shyt off certain posters on this board for having a different view and for being willing to justify them. The bullying, patronising and condescending was fine when the shoe was on the other foot and we were subject to regular mass pile ons.

For what it's worth i personally don't think this news changes the outlook too much. What it is, is a major derisking event, and admittedly one that a suitor will be very pleased to see.

I am interested to see whether any previous expenditure can be included in the $430m. There should be given the investment SOLG have made at Cascabel and Porvenir in particular, but we'll see.

But make no bones about it, this is a major derisking event providing SolGold or anyone who takes over meets the minimum expenditure condition before the expiry of the agreement. the importance of that, in a jurisdiction finding its feet and progressing, cannot be understated.

Not saying there is anything wrong with it Orthern.

Simply trying to draw attention to the fact that an investor's SolGold political view is directly correlated to their own investment strategy and time horizon and not the facts and evidence on the table.

TheItalian - fantastic summary of the last 5yrs put across very well.

Those who want to double their money and run are saying exactly that, "here you go Mr Major Miner, have it your way."

That is why they are so against the devil reincarnated Nick Mather. They don't care if it's BHP, Rio, Anglo etc. Just whatever it takes to create a run on the SP and liquidity for them to sell at a profit.

RK1 @ 10:17, and i paraphrase,

"All the other shares I'm watching are flying to the moon but I'm going to carry on holding SOLG despite the company having a limited ceiling due to that mean mean CEO we used to have and the current board who clearly don't like my best chance of a quick return in BHP. Booooooo...."

I mean, the ridiculousness of it.

Are you just too stubborn RK1 or do you not want to be proven wrong? Why not accept a dent in your pride and buy better performing shares that are going to provide a comfortable life for you and Mrs RK1? Genuine question amongst my facietousness.

You also seem to gloss over the fact that all focus on the Tandy MRE from investors on this board was removed by you and your failure to read the room during your attempt to play investor champion, and the covering of tracks that subsequently followed.

You do have your supporters RK1. People who desire the same quick return that you do, but don't insult all our intelligence.

Does anyone have any evidence of this malpractice we're talking about?

I don't mean the holdings RNS' from BlackRock. That is simply them amending their instruments (CFDs) and is not manipulation.

Ssmith - you believe there are numerous suitors but you have no evidence to substantiate this, so in reality you are hoping that by allowing a BHP foot in the door that you're going to tempt another into the open.

No certainties about that at all.

But hey, let's go for it if it gets your 50% sooner. We can all watch as you start to deramp and engineer your next entry...

I'm not sure what good that would do though Smickster.

A pre-AGM PFS would be based on the first 18 Tandy holes. Why not get the results from the other 12 holes, along with those from Aguinaga and then issue an updated Cascabel resource and integrated PFS in say Q1 22?

That would be common sense. Instead we have bulletin board members blackmailing the company over releasing news pre AGM as if it influences their vote.

We all know that brokers have their own deadlines for collecting proxy votes anyway and so for a meeting on 17/12 all votes will likely need to be in for 10/12 or maybe 11/12 at a push.

Many have decided that the time is up for this board I feel and you can't be criticised for thinking this might open the door for applicants doing the bidding of a suitor.

Woody - i don't think anything was promised in 2019. I don't know where this line come from... probably made up by a disgruntled investor.

"Shock and awe" was a throwaway comment made during a live presentation. Very easy to do when you're trying to sell the investment case. But people took it as some sort of binding promise that there's news we're not aware of. I'd be more careful about people claiming "one of the best holes drilled in South America". File it in the same tray if you want. Neither statement is to be trusted.

SolGold published the PEA in early 2019. The company was very clear all the way back then that they were looking for deposits they could get into production earlier to bootstrap onto Alpala. There was a good reason for that.

That strategy hasn't changed. The only thing that did is that it wasn't Blanca or Rio that was going to do the early ounces job, it was Tandayama and Aguinaga.

Then we saw Covid, the challenges posed by the pandemic and delays to the PFS that was anticipated in Q4 2020. Again, fairly straightforward reason for that which the company has not been shy in communicating.

So now we're 90% of the way through 2021 and all eagerly awaiting the study. The view of Crux on Alpala as a standalone fresh in everyone's mind.
Tandy is progressing and we now have a cracking follow up project in Porvenir which appears to be expanding. Unfortunately however, we have some shareholders large and small trying to influence others to disturb the status quo.

It's clear to me now that we're very close. Tandy has been brought to resource estimate status as quickly as possible with a view to incorporating this in the PFS, but instead posters are getting enraged at the prospect of this taking a few more weeks from the timeframe the company guided 12 months ago. For their own motives only I might add.

Woody. Help me out with this logic please...

Anyone invests into a company like SolGold for capital growth, as we know dividends are off the table for some time yet.

Nick Mather and his defence against hostile suitors is the reason to invest in SolGold and achieve something like real capital value. Booting Nick in favour of those who want control of this company for as cheap as possible is not the route to a successful investment here. Further, we know the main suitors want this company on the cheap. They have made it clear in the press as to their views on M&A.

BBG appears erratic on this board (sorry BBG but you do, and it's strange because you're completely rational and sensible on other mediums) but his (I'm identifying you as a he anyway) logic is correct for my money.

Those who want Nick out of the road are short term traders. RK1 is a short term trader who likes to play the role of investor champion. He has made his stance clear with historic postings. Said short term traders are happy to accept a quick 50-100% return over the potential longer term returns that come from the company not being bullied off its assets.

So what we're seeing now are shareholders railing against the company because things aren't happening quickly enough.

We also know that this board has a senior age demographic in the main, shall we say. I don't mean that disrespectfully before anyone gets tetchy, but age dictates time horizon and time horizon dictates one's political view (on all things SOLG).

To close, might I suggest that Nick Mather is NOT the cloud hanging over SolGold that you think he is. The cloud, in my humble view, is the PFS and how this is going to paint the Cascabel project given the view within the Crux report. Nick could get booted as a NED tomorrow and I'd wager good money the SP won't react. It won't react until we get a favourable PFS for Cascabel. Why? Because the feasibility of the project is the perceived risk to the conpany here, not one man in an organisation of 700+ employees. ATB