Member Info for Bozi

Not going to work Fort? It's working a treat. 6s will soon become 5s and maybe 4s as well if Noboa gets dumped at the run-off.

All your other stuff he been debunked for the pure fantasy it is numerous times.

Jonny - just look at the figures out there. Ask why nobody serious stake building is happening at this level. Ask who else has built a block cave with a 5 year lead time without an early ounce strategy.

All will become obvious.

Add - it's also your choice if you want to base the security of your investment on the DD of others who hold a different security to you.

Sorry Add, but I'm not interested in your attempts at trying to finesse an argument that doesn't have much relevance to the point I was making.

I'd be confident that I could put together a package of due diligence that would be fairly close to what Franco carried out. This is because whilst I don't work in mining, I have experience of pretty rigorous DD and understand its importance.

For example, Franco will likely capture a data pack on all exploration and technical work carried out, not limited to metallurgical test results, concept TSF and decline plans. They'll have modelled their own FS based on these plans. They'll have carried out analysis of the company, the key individuals and they'll have factored that into their outlook and forecast metal prices (which we've all heard Lassonde talk about).

The relevance of me holding stock longer than these companies or debt with these companies is because I believe SolGold offered the returns potential and was within my accepted risk range. More recent evens have reduced that growth potential so much so that the top of the range is now only moderately acceptable.

In fact, you could argue that the returns potential no longer matches the risk levels, and that itself can be a factor in explaining why investors aren't returning in their numbers yet.

If anything, it brings in the dynamic that NMM mentions this morning. That's pretty much the game here now.

So for me, the likes of FNV and Co have validated their own investment on their own terms relative to their own portfolio. You hang your hat on it if you want - I won't be adding mine.

That's the point Metooooo. Fewer and fewer would say no, and it's not because 25-30p represents fair value. It's because we've been starved of any meaningful progress towards turnkey and we've got an exciting regional portfolio we're paying to upkeep but doing zero work on.

It's all part of the conditioning of investors that I wrote of in the aftermath of Mather being pushed aside and again following the merger.

I'm pretty sure that's the ballpark Scott has in mind - whether he gets us there is another matter entirely.

Smickster - you're another one that needs English lessons.

I quite clearly said "I'd stop short of saying it's uneconomical..."

Do you need help with that?

Add - I've been pretty clear about this.

Any DD Franco carry out is with a specific view to a contract that FNV holds with SOLG.

That's the long and short of it.

I've been here long before FNV, Osisko, BHP, Newmont and Newcrest, Irwin.

Ultimately the performance of my investment isn't linked in any way with how any of the above parties view the project. It's linked with how management executes strategy.

We have been pursuing this path to turnkey. We've agreed this was the only real option in the aftermath of the strategic review.

Things are moving slowly, more slowly than anyone hopes or expects. The meeting in the pub has provided more questions than answers.

Until we're told otherwise, we're drifting like Chuck Noland, waiting for that larger vessel to save us before we perish.

You're missing the point again Fort. You're assuming that Franco being successful means you will.

That's not the case.

Lets say for example, we are all forced to relinquish our shares at 25-30p because a bid comes in that Scott and the Canadians are in favour of and it gets through a vote.

Does that impact FNV? No it doesn't. They retain their agreements with the acquirer until the acquirer buys them out if it.

This notion that we're joined at the hip with FNV is flawed.

It's time to think hard about the work Rodney is doing and why.

Add - it's hard to know what people assume sometimes, but when people are taking comfort from investment or DD by Franco, it's not a huge reach to assume the may not be fully grasping the situation.

I take no comfort from Franco investing for the reasons mentioned. Just like I take no comfort from BHP or Newmont continuing to hold. The reasons for that should be quite obvious.

We're seeing our SP remain weak and operational progress is fairly tepid during a 12-18 month period that saw the winds blow in our favour.

Those winds may be about to change, and that's the root of my concern.

NMM - there's a few projects to keep an eye on. Most of them are detailed in the SOLG presentation.

You've got some others in LatAm such as Altar, Filo Del San Juan etc.

I'm not sure I'd call Tandy or Blanca a bonus. They're highly desirable and bordering on essential if Cascabel is to get off the ground. That is why we're having to show them some love once again.

I never said they did Add, but you can't deny the simple fact that we shareholders are bottom of the pile.

Now when you combine that with the Franco business model, i.e. the practice of making a vast portfolio of loans across metals, jurisdictions and projects are various stages of the cycle, you come to realise they can bung a few hundred million on a bet like Cascabel and be fairly derisked.

It's important to make these points in the face of the "Franco did their DD so everything is fine" patter.

Fort - it wasn't me that said it wasn't economic.

But what you're missing is that Franco have us for debt. In a situation where SOLG was ran into the ground, their claim as a creditor would be ahead of ours.

That's the point that you and others neglect to mention when you say Franco this and Franco that.

Roge - you're insane for asking whoever posted previously whether they're insane.

The fact of the matter is that various iterations of the PFS give us post tax IRRs of between 18-24% which need to be adjusted for further royalty finance.

If anyone is in any doubt as to why bids haven't landed, that is your reason.

If anyone is in any doubt as to why a Tandy/Blanca resource is important, there is your reason.

I'd stop short of using the word 'uneconomical' but it's certainly an asset that someone can sink a couple of billion dollars into before understanding it.

Monte

1. Poor investment case vs peers

2. Poor setup with the stock (seller and other issues).

All this talk of needing a chairman to get the share price moving are utter rubbish.

Franco and Osisko signed up for a $750m finance package without a chairman.

There are two clear reasons why the SP is down here and weak. Until one or both are resolved, expect no change.

Interesting to see your view has changed Redknight.

It wasn't so long ago you incrediously berated others for suggesting similar.

SolGold is cheap, of that there is no doubt. We just don't know if it will get cheaper.

Yes Panda, we were over valued then under vastly different market conditions.

Why insist on comparing apples to oranges all the time?

Fort, you can't wait for the AGM for Scott to get a 70/30 vote as retail rally against him and the big boys push him through?

Do you expect Scott will step down in the same way Mather did? Clue - he won't because there's a difference between dissenting retail and a dissenting major. It's $.

Not being funny Add but I take absolutely no comfort from someone at SolGold saying that.

They're not going to say anything else.

... renegotiate the IPA?

How delighted will you be if that puts anyone off from bidding, because our Cascabel project economics get cramped further by increasing royalties?

We're all different shades of desperate here but you don't have to continuously lie through your teeth all the time.

Panda - you'll literally say anything won't you?

How delighted will you be if Luisa wins and wants to renegotiate the I