Member Info for Bozi

Red - interesting to hear you no view ExploreCo as a "no brainier".

Some of us remember the strength of your feelings on this when the idea was discussed 18-24 months ago.

Glad to hear you're on board.

PBow - I don't disagree with that, but in business when aim no 1 seems to be about preserving face and sometimes massaging ego, the reality is often a bit different.

I prefer your approach.

PBow - you don't see the benefit of SOLG giving the impression they were in control and making decisions rather than kowtowing to those putting the money in?

Happy to take Scott at face value on it. Just pointing out the link and the history between FNV and GMIN.

G Mining and Franco are close because GMIN were key to the successful build of FDN.

I'd suggest Franco were instrumental in them being engaged and I can't see them stepping aside now.

That said, agree with much of what Add has said.

GGP have managed to acquire the infrastructure and they've had a right result with their latest drilling.

But let's be real. The Newcrest divestment was the best thing that could have happened to them. It gave GGP a chance to acquire it cheap.

There's billions of shares in issue now though. Watch the market cap. It will climb quickly.

Hopefully there's a way out of it for us both Highflyigman.

I get people are trying to look at these developments with optimism but I think some meat on the bones is required.

It's a good asset. Of that there's no doubt. But at no stage has anyone been interested in paying us what it's worth.

Is this pivot going to change that?

You believe all that do you Fort?

The company has had all those experienced shareholders, partners etc for 3 years + and in some cases 5 years + and only now in 2025 they're going to "invite participation"?

That RNS was truly desperate. You can paraphrase that paragraph by saying,

"We give up. Make us an offer and you can have it. Speak to Dan on reception."

TI - if that were true then why didn't Scott step into the COO role?

Do we need a finance guy to be CEO? Why can't he just be senior vice president of selling the bloody thing?

This active partner talk sounds horrendous too. The amount were indebted to Franco and Osisko for means any value for the company is going to be much reduced and I don't quite like the sound of dividing the asset back up just 3 years after consolidating it.

We're not far from hail mary time here.

... for peanuts SM??

Certainly looking that way.

The new guys?

You mean the same Dan Vujcic that was in tow with Sangha around the merger with CGP?

It's just another reshuffle at management level. Resetting the company strategy after 2 years of supposed derisking by making vague reference to ExploreCo (we'll tell you more soon, promise).

Realisation has set in with Addicknt at least.

Panda - I want I want I want.

You want to take your head for a dump is what you want.

You want Scott to hold your hand once a week with an update in the hope it pumps the SP.

Don't throw stones. Your house is made of the thinnest glass.

- Last presentation February 2025.

- Available at PDAC

- Webinar with RedCloud last month

- Pub meeting with investors.

Doesn't sound like no promotion to me. We don't all spam everywhere like some people.

What exactly do you expect Panda?

I wondered if we'd see you here today Beast after Bitcoin's fantastic week.

I'll congratulate you in advance for getting out at $105k.

Reeks of another Peel Hunt episode from last summer. One minute they're in, then they're out.

If anyone is wondering why the market doesn't trust them, this is why? Call the market wrong or unreasonable as much as you like, but this is now a company that struggles with the most basic things.

Looks ripe for a raise.

Spending about £375k every 6 months on G&A. £1m raised in October when they would have been on fumes.

Like the company and what they're trying to achieve. Alex has gone a bit too big a bit too soon in terms of his remuneration though. You simply can't be paying yourself what he is when the company is so small and capital constrained.

Yet more tripe Fort.

When SolGold discovered Cascabel markets were in much healthier shape. Stocks moved freely to reflect the progress made by companies and valuations often got ahead of themselves as market reacted to regular newsflow.

It seems that all you have to base your wafer thin argument on is the Lassonde curve and some still unqualified "industry standards".

Industries change. We're 6.5p Fort, that's the only fact you need to know rather than trying to hoodwinked people that things are only better now.

The price now reflects the agreements the company has made over it's potential product in order to secure the couple of hundred million it has squandered since the merger. The market knows, as some of us have been saying for about as long, that as SOLG strikes each deal it is reducing the portion of its resource that will benefit from these strong metal prices you speak of.

Crack on. Just don't expect Pierre to bail you out.

Panda - are you for real?

Do some research instead of regurgitating old SOLG news and peddling fantasy.

I put a YouTube video up last week between Crux and another company where this question is answered. It's all in the deal. Early ounces.

I take your point Add.

What chance do we think Scott and Co have of negotiating the following from an EV of c.£200m

£900m (28p fully diluted) - reasonable if they can work through into phase 3 of the funding agreement. Unlikely if not.

£2bn - £3.2bn (60-100p) - very unlikely unless we see the above progress and the final permits approved. 12 months away minimum maybe closer to 24.

£5bn (154p) - there's a flying pig. There's another, and another...

Fort - please provide a couple of examples of where the market has valued a company in like with asset values?

Confirm what these "industry standards" these are.

I'll give you a clue. They don't exist. That's why we have control premiums etc, because offers are provisionally agreed between acquirer and BoD relative to the prevailing SP, VWAP, etc.

These aren't based on NPV. They're based on market. Wake up man.

Fort, some absolute tripe there and quite ridiculous that you've garnered 18 recommends. People really ought to start thinking objectively here rather than subscribing to the fuzziness of group think.

1. The asset NPV might have increased with the strength in metal prices but you can't get away from the lack of correlation between that and the share price, especially in light of point 2. That has to be a concern.

4. Ecuador is at real risk of moving from a pro-business president who acknowledged mining had a significant role to play to someone who isn't as strong in that regard. That increases the risks for mining in Ecuador at a time where we need to get Cascabel permitted. Not ideal.

5. I think it's a stretch to assume Franco will stick any more funds in until SOLG have demonstrated they can complete phase 1. We're 8/9 months in from the striking of the agreement and progress to date is satisfactory at best.

100p isn't at all likely. The share price wouldn't be 6p and weak if it were. We've seen examples of companies that have been squeezed out of assets down the years and taken over at a fraction of fair value. Whilst the dynamics at SolGold have always offered some protection from that, that protection is weaker now than it has been at any point previously.

It's quite simple. During the rest of 2025 SolGold needs to snap through phase 1 and start chewing through the phase two objectives. If Scott and Co can achieve that then some investors will return, because as things stand, the market thinks there's no takeover coming, no strong operational catalysts and no exploration upside.

It's not a great recipe for an explorer developer. The best stories are the ones where the market trusts management. This SP confirms that the market doesn't trust SolGold and that plays into the hands of someone looking for a bargain.