Member Info for Bozi

RK1 - your 11:06 post is pure obfuscation, and is regularly reproduced to dilute reasonable conversation.

Please desist.

Nobody is talking about BHP appointing their own people to the board. We are talking about people that appear to have no prejudice or agenda actually operating in line with BHP strategy.

Redknight - please can you provide a source for Mather promising a PFS in 2019? I don't mean stage bravado at Diggers either. I mean hard copy text in an RNS or presentation or annual report or MD&A.

The problem with this perception of overpromising and undelivering is thst people are taking things that aren't promises as promises, and when those things don't happen the **** hits the fan.

You can apply it to many comments down the years. Blind freddy, shock and awe etc have all been needlessly hung on to by investors with little to no reasonable basis.

Ssmith_trader

Can you offer some of the logic behind your 10:27 post? I'm really struggling here and I'd be staggered if I'm alone.

My take - if you were BHP you would not want to requisition most of the current board at an AGM if you were not confident of being influential in the selection of their replacements. Why? Because there's nothing to suggest those that lose their seats have to leave the company. They just step off the board. They still have an impact in all of the management functions of the business, they just don't have the final vote.

As soon as anyone paying lip service to BHP gets on the board I'll speculate that we'll quickly become desperate to see 25/26 again as we find a home somewhere ridiculous in the mid to high teens.

Unlucky that Rich3r.

My buys were between 25 and 25.2p. Ask was 25.2p and they were available at best for a slight discount to that.

25p bid seems to be the floor until now, and those who like to watch the trading patterns will attest that there's been two or three clear bounces off that level.

The question is what happens next... each test of support in theory weakens it and you wouldn't want to buy next time only for it to not hold and then have it run down to its next support, which could be in the 23.8p region.

Good luck. I still believe the story but do believe SOLG need to box clever from here to really end up with the big cheese. I'm backing them to do it.

I don't really like delving into details but yes Rich3r. I've increased my shareholding by c. 25% in the last month.

I'd like to see the PFS before I decide what to do next, because believe it or not I am as unhappy as the majority here where the patchy news is concerned. I'm just trying to play a forward defence and a straight bat in terms of giving the company some rope in the hope they get this right in the coming weeks and not slating them on a forum whilst filling my boots in the background. I don't believe in that sort of play.

Completely agree TheItalian.

I'm really struggling with this notion that Nick has let shareholders down. Why? Because a few people on a BB believe he has blocked any appointment of a new CEO despite having zero evidence to substanciate those claims?

Consider where SOLG would be now without Nick's historic input and his access to capital markets. We'd likely have been predated by BHP in 2017 long before the share price started with a 3 let alone a 4.

What Nick has done is build a business that has the potential to be sold for 80p, £1 or even more. That simply was not on the table when SOLG were just the Cascabel project and a few claims in the Solomon Islands.

I appreciate we're in the teeth of a headwind right now but holding shares isn't always as easy as lying on the beach, drink in hand, watching the price go in one direction.

I'm not giving investment advice here but I see far too much from people saying shareholder value has been destroyed or decimated and "shareholders want the price higher". There's one solution to that... Buy some shares if you think they're cheap.

In reality not enough people think they're cheap based on the information available and that is why we are where we are. You can either exploit that position or you can sit looking for someone to point the finger at or blame.

Yes Smickster, despite claiming he was away for 6 days.

There's no way on gods green earth that he has led FTSE100 companies and enjoyed a distinguished career in senior management of large listed enterprises.

I'm just not having it.

Solgold has a CEO, albeit an interim one.

Let's not be so disparaging towards Keith and his current role within the business.

Aside from providing operation updates on the next permanent CEO, drilling updates, resource estimate and study updates etc, the letter tells shareholders what they need to know right now in my view.

A view from BHP would no doubt be enlightening, but continually laying blame at the company's door is a bit misplaced in my opinion.

RedKnight1 - that post by TheItalian at 9:08... thst is all that needs to be said on the matter.

Print out the post and stick it next to your computer, or save it to your phone.

No conspiracy theories, no reaching assumptions. Just cold hard verifiable facts.

How many companies do you know with SOLG's opportunity Lancs?

Not many companies can boast 85% of the largest undeveloped asset not in the hands of a major plus a 100% owned land package in country that could yield multiple deposits of the same size and scale.

Yeah there's other companies out there but there isn't another SOLG. Don't wish it away.

Fair enough CD. That is your prerogative.

Just don't be coming on here giving it the big one if half the board gets booted and filled with BHP honchos because what I have described will happen and we'll all be looking at a deeply disappointing change of control event. Investors will only have themselves to blame in my view.

Lancs-nobody is saying the current board is "good". We're saying they're infinitely less bad than what the alternative would be.

Those are two very different things.

As for your point about free shares, I don't understand. I don't hold shares in SOLG to be given free shares. That would be unnecessary dilution and loosening of the register which would allow interested parties to manoeuvre within the shadows.

Anyone who participates in a placing is buying shares. When the BoD exercise options they are buying ordinary shares. There's no free handout here.

It's completely reasonable that company employees and management should be given the option to buy more shares. Yes the company could box cleverer about how they issue options and how they can be tied to material achievements for example, but this notion of free shares and snouts in troughs is wildly wrong and peddled by those looking to disrupt.

CD - you don't seem to be listening.

The company is now of a size where it ony publishes hole by hole updates, visuals, assays etc within a periodic update. It no longer gets assays, reviews them and sticks the figures in an RNS a couple of days later.

They were quite clear about this change in reporting over 12 months ago. The company's size now dictates a change of strategy.

If we haven't heard news from Sharug there are two conclusions:

1) The company has made a discovery and is very close to it's announcement of such, or
2) Drill results to date have not turned up anything of significance (see reporting of early drills at La Hueca).

The same applies to Rio Amarillo. As much as SOLG talks these assets up the drill bit is a completely different monster, as you know.

The Tandy MDE was dropped in October for the first 18 holes. You might say it wasn't necessary but the fact it was released suggests your thinking is out on this. There's a very viable reason why this might be, but I'll not be disclosing it here.

I fear you're getting far too emotional about this. Your last paragraph suggests this. There's no need to hold the SOLG to ransom now unless you're desperate to get out before the end of the year, and the funny thing about it is that anyone voting against the officers in question is locking themselves in for the real long term. Turfing Miller doesn't get us out of SOLG in January for example, not by a long chalk.

Look CD, I can't argue that we've seen a lack of material deliverables this year. Some have been slated for Q4 but others, like the CEO announcement and news on the lower priority regionals could have reasonably been expected by now.

But yes, I would give this board another year. For me, SOLG is one investment in a portfolio, and I'm in favour of the gains we deserve rather than the quickest route to some sort of value appreciation.

I believe sticking with this board is the best way to do that but they must get back on track and deliver without failure in 2022.

If you vote this board out then you're rolling a dice with 6 of the same sides. You're flipping a coin with two of the same sides.

BHP could probably buy SolGold for a fair price with their December FCF and they could fund Alpala to production with their Q1 2022 FCF, so a takeover certainly has merits in terms of asset development. But, BHP are showing they have no intention of going things the right way. If they were they'd bid 60-80p and meet most people in the middle.

They have shown their cards, and those cards involve forging a board influence by removing those who stand in their way. After gaining an influence they put that to good use, and that inevitably leads to issuing equity to BHP, and there's no guarantee that would be at a price we deem to be fair.

That may not bother you. You'll no doubt try and trade your way around it, but there's long term investors who could quite realistically be staring down the barrel at BHP fundraisers at a chunky discount. That isn't an assumption by the way, it's a stick on guarantee. It's the way a BHP influenced board engineers a 30% stake for BHP which then kicks off the mandated offer. The problem is that it would take 12-18 months for all that to come about and by that time the 52w high could be sub 20p.

I suspect you realise what happens from there.

That's a shame CD.

You're falling right into BHP's trap. They've waited and waited and now they've baited their trap for little SOLG shareholders to take that fatal step.

Where do you think a 'BHP lowball' is going to take us?

Have you even considered that it might not be a low ball at all. It might well be a no ball if they can destroy shareholder value so much (and there's no reason to doubt it if they get control).

I can't see any other alternative to backing the current directors and allow them to deliver the milestones over the next 8-12 weeks.

Spot on LunchMoney

It's not a case of rescuing Nick Mather. He isn't up for re-election.

A question for anyone considering voting against the re-election of the 3 directors and CEO anticipated to retire at this year's AGM...

Will you be selling your shares after the AGM to protect capital and take any profits where they exist?

Voting against this board is a destabilisation event and will lead to more disruption. It's skin to destroying the company you own shares in.

I'm not even getting started on part two.

I'm really struggling to understand how you have reached this conclusion.

I respectfully think you've tied yourself up in knots.

RK - it isn't wrong for BHP to want to have an influence.

But you say yourself that BHP declined to elect an officer to the SOLG board. Do you know whose fault that is? BHP's. Not Mather's, Twigger*s or anyone elses.

There is nothing wrong whatsoever with a company having a couple of Non-Exec Directors. The board doesn't have to be made up just of Execs and independents. I feel that is just you engineering because you perceive Nick to be the 'elephant in the room'.

It just so happens that Mather is a NED. It doesn't really matter how you reach that position, i.e whether you view it as a sweetener for stepping aside or a reciprocal concession to DGR as being a shareholder of c. 10%.

The fact is that BHP are going about this in a very underhand way. Why didn't they publish a letter to SOLG shareholders instead of getting Berry Capital to do their dirty work? Shareholders might have appreciated that more.

I'm glad the board has taken the stance it has in not forcing Nick's NED retirement and not forcing a full board retirement. The latter in particular isn't appropriate given these directors tend to retire in rotation exactly in the manner that Twiggers suggested.

I'm flabbergasted that you don't see BHP as the 'problem' and would have to ask you to consider this;

If SOLG shareholders lobbied for a full board retirement at the AGM how do you think there is a route for yours and Mrs RK's shareholding to continue to further profitability?

And I don't think having BHP's name to drop into any applications for finance is the be all and end all here. I really don't.

CD - rather than just assuming that everything negative is due to Mather, it could be worth considering that SOLG has independent directors who are not required to comment on whether the company is undervalued or overvalued.

My assumption would be that it is those who have been contacted, or maybe the fella who has previously worked with BHP.