Member Info for Bozi

Red - I never said it was a streaming deal.

Here is the extract from the announcement,

"The Board of Directors of SolGold (LSE & TSX: SOLG) is pleased to announce that SolGold has entered into a binding agreement with Osisko Gold Royalties Ltd ("Osisko") for a US$50 million royalty financing ("Royalty Financing") with reference to the Company's Cascabel copper-gold project in northern Ecuador."

It explicitly refers to Cascabel.

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here.

Red - I'm well aware you're referring to the agreement with Osisko struck alongside the merger.

Those funds were still in relation to spending at Cascabel and in relation to future profits at Cascabel.

You'd be hard pushed to find a streamer who wants to put money up with no clear path to being repaid, which begs the question as to whether SOLG would want to attach a further borrow against future Cascabel profits.

It reduces the upside in production bit by bit.

Red - the rather key difference is the Franco and Osisko royalties were for Cascabel, an asset that had already been delineated to a significant extent providing a large enough resource on which to collateralise.

What you're suggesting is a royalty to drill virgin ground that only had geophysics and soils carried out on it. No GFD would pursue that strategy. Do you secure that on ore mined from Cascabel too?

At what point do we reach royalty saturation?

Red - are you really extrapolating the pre-discovery/early stage discovery Filo share price to suit your argument?

Nobody is ever going to lend money to drill because we have no way to repay the loan without refinancing. It's just not feasible.

Fort - I can say that and I am. I think it's pretty evident that Filo Del Sol has more exploration potential than Cascabel in the short term given we haven't drilled any of the satellite targets since Aquinaga disappointed. BHP and Lundin however will be aggressively going at the Filo del Sol licence.

Just to add to this as well Red. Lets look at the Filo transaction and say you're on the right lines.

They have a PFS but appear to have much more exploration upside on their licence given the alteration zone not explored.

BHP and Lundin have put in £2.5bn.

How much of that is pricing the metals in the ground (non measured just indicated and inferred) and how much is taking a view of what resources may be added with further updates?

It lends itself to the fact that SOLG really needs to market the regionals well in 2025. We appear to have batted off anyone that was interested in partnering up a couple of years ago.

Why have we done that, during a period where the cadastre has been closed, only to leave the portfolio with very little progress other than a couple of Blanca updates?

If we're going to get 80p p/s then we need to do the following in 2025:

1. Show that developing Tandy gives early stage ounces at Cascabel, improving the economics further.

2. Promote the regional portfolio and get drilling on the top prospect (as it stands).

There has to be an element of exploration to accompany the derisking if we're going to see interest in the shares return, and that's imperative if we are to attract an offer of substance.

Red - let me turn that question around to you.

Why do you want to continually argue for an exit price that might never be achievable, potentially raising the hopes of people who have held a long time?

As someone who is interested in the stock and has admitted to "trading at the margins", surely you're capable of adding 1+1 and seeing how 2 could be frowned upon?

For clarity, I'm not saying 80p absolutely cannot be achieved. Nobody knows. I'm simply making the point that in my view, it's unlikely. I'm also making the point that if Nick isn't re-elected it may become even less likely.

I have provided arguments to support my beliefs just as you have but the bottom line is that I do sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong - I just won't idly participate in chat of 173p or 250p without sharing my views.

We'd struggle to find someone who isn't joyous at 173p JerrySpaniel.

Redknight - Noront isn't an apple either. If SOLG is an apple, Noront is a grape.

The companies I mention may have been mature miners but at least we're talking about the same commodity in jurisdictions with a similar risk profile to Ecuador.

Can't you at least acknowledge with Noront that there was a certain dynamic in play there? Wyloo had the box seat and it suited BHP to make them chase the rest of the stock. It's pretty obvious.

You keep talking about 80p at SOLG but you give no insight on the path that needs to be trodden to get there.

What impact have we had from Liu and Jose land yet? Very little it would seem.

Something has to turn by Q1, otherwise 80p will be a light year away.

What about it BBG?

Did less than 200% from its 2019 low right up to take out.

It's like SOLG getting taken out at 18p.

You've just proven the point that a 900% increase from here to 80p is not achievable if we're basing it against historic precedents.

Redknight - now please can I have your research on Shanta Gold and Centamin - two acquisitions that have happened since Noront and may be more prescriptive of current market conditions.

Fort - for every instance you can apparently recall where an offer has resulted in 5x or 6x the SP low I can name you one where shareholders were stiffed. That's how it works.

It's a case of realising who you're talking to here. There may be plenty on this board hanging on for any crumb of positivity but others like JerrySpaniel know this space, know these markets and will no doubt be well aware of the challenges that face us.

If we're to achieve 80p, the figure you indicated yesterday, the SP will need to return to that 40-50p level prior to any bid being made. You might not think that is too difficult a feat, but you've got to remember there's no exploration story behind us now. Any move back to that level will need to be driven by hitting milestones and no doubt a healthy dollop of M&A rumour too. This will likely play out over 6-12 months rather than 6-12 weeks.

If it is to happen in 2025 we'll need to be showing signs of reversing the trend by end of Q1.

I struggle to rationalise what has gone wrong with this company.

It has never performed well SP wise (a 5 year chart will tell you that) but AIM biotechs rarely do over the long term, particularly when conducting clinical trials or seeking drug approvals.

With OBD, despite having come off a fair way in 2022/23, the company did appear to have the right idea. Placings were well supported by management and carried out at premiums where possible.

Since the PSE launch this has all gone drastically south and I for one am struggling to justify it. I don't just mean the lack of traction with sales either. For me, the biggest thing is that management seems to be unwilling to arrest the slide. Any good news (and it has been scarce) has been countered with bad. Trading updates have been awful and attempts to conserve cash have come far too late.

That behaviour alone raises questions about who is still holding what. For example, how are Vulpes just sitting and allowing this to happen?

It looks like an obliteration for shareholders in the new year. They can't delist as things stand because they've got no cash. So they'll either blow the current share structure up for the sake of 6 months more funding or they'll push ahead with administration. No doubt there will be a vehicle waiting for scoop up the technology.

I expected much better.

I'm not susprised by this. AGMs aren't usually broadcast to shareholders.

I think there's a point to be made about a regular presentation to investors (the company was asking for the trouble they got re the last strategy), but AGMs are essentially box ticking events.

I can only imagine which BB member started this thread.

Yes, 173p for each SOLG share that you can buy for 7.6p today.

Cloud cuckoo land doesn't quite cover it.

What does acquiring SOLG achieve for anybody that needs copper now?

If you want to look for potential acquirers of SOLG you're looking for a company that has a supply for the next 5/6 years and is looking to 2030+.

As Fort says, you're looking for rich (development costs) and you're looking for a stomach for geopolitical risk.

Anglo don't lack the latter, but they do appear to have rolled the dice in Zambia for now at least. This is their continent of choice.

Personally, I think you've got to look the other way. Look at Franco's network and look at relationships with GMIN as well.

Ditto Jerry.

Rich3r - with all due respect, you shouldn't be comparing the management of any mining company with your earnings unless you were also in exec management of a mining explorer/developer.

The main consideration is whether our management is paid correctly relatively to those companies that are bigger and smaller than us. Without doing a peer analysis, I would suspect they are.

Don't disagree Jerry.

It's not what I want but he careful - you'll have the quid plussers coming after you with pitchforks.

Red - why would I sell now at a valuation just north of £200m?

I'm not interested in wheeling and dealing for a few % here and there because ultimately I think those trades go wrong more than they go right.

So I'm here until SOLG returns to something that might resemble being overvalued, at which point I'll gladly sell, bid or no bid.

If folks want this to play out as quickly as possible and they want to minimise the chances of being fleeced upon a change of control then they should be voting for Scott and Nick.

Scott will get done what needs to be done in the next 12 months. Nick offers an alignment with PIs which he can exercise via his board seat.

If we change Scott and Nick then the board of independents have to find a new CEO and there's no guarantee of them being on the same page as PIs. That would spell disaster at this juncture to everyone who doesn't have their head in the clouds concerning the company's value.

If the vote for Nick is carried but the vote for Scott not then we'd need a new CEO who can continue with the current strategy. Add 6-12 months on whilst they go and select one.

If the vote for Scott is carried but Nick not then you can expect the current strategy unchecked. For me, that only turns out one way, and that's a sub-par change of control at a price the Canadians make a few quid but the majority disappointed.

That's the dynamic. That has always been the dynamic. Yes there has been ego and arrogance and everything else, but you have to consider that such an asset remains in the hands of a junior. The chances of that without said ego and arrogance are slim to none.