Member Info for Bozi

Agree Hemo.

It's pretty well known that EVs going forward will contain less and less copper than ever before.

It's also pretty widely estimated that copper demand is set to increase by 280% of the next 6 years.

So, demand is going parabolic but copper usage per unit is reducing.

Betamax indeed.

So Anon, if nothing is likely to be on the table in the foreseeable, should we be asking Jiangxi why they've invested in a company that is going broke later this year without further funding?

It's really very easy to see what has happened here.

The CGP boys hammered Nick and Co for years for perceived bad management of the company. They thought they could do a better job.

They engineered the merger and clearly fancied selling the company when the merger completed. Scott took the reins and Bob made his bullish comments.

They then got their feet under the table and realised this wasn't going to be as straightforward as they thought. Scott, Bob and Warren all had to taper down their outlook for the company.

Here we are.

I expect that all three names known that a robust PFS update and an amended IPA open the doors back up on this thing. That's what Scott has to get done. It's that simple.

With those two questions answered Cascabel moves closer to turnkey project status and the book is then open for best proposals. All of the big boys will have a decision to make. Hold em or fold em.

The first of those questions is due to be answered in the next 4 weeks. Time is now ticking on and any read that nothing is going to happen only holds water if the company is thwarted by a government putting other fires out

On what basis Anon?

The new study is going to show how Cascabel can be developed in stages. The focus will therefore be on getting early production to fund later stages and then move into pure profit.

This, with an amended IPA is a major catalyst for the stock in 2024. A cooperative market will be required and an easing of political tensions in-country and those are admittedly in the balance.

There wasn't much hope for us at the last PFS, but if there's no hope for us now at 7/8p with $2000 gold and $3.60 copper then when will there be?

Quite right 5085. The company will learn from today, as it will need to, about how it communicates key information in the future.

I must admit I initially read the to date figures as total sales but I certainly can't fault Dug or anyone else who believed they were post year end sales because they were detailed in that section.

The whole point about it being fantastic science but a poor business isn't totally true, not where the business is concerned anyway.

My only real concern is further financing. The SP will be played with by those interested and it's important management delivers something fair for all shareholders.

Fort - there's a difference between being happy with our current position and price and being happy to re-elect a new CEO who clearly has a longer term job to do than to walk in and sell the business.

I think the simple mind in the room may be yours my friend.

As for my position, which you still seem infatuated with, I called out issues when I saw them and yes I didn't sell stock despite my reservations. I could have done but that was never my motivation. All the while you were extremely bullish on all timeframes. Looks like you were wrong short term. Hopefully for all our sakes you'll be right eventually.

Well Fort, you could have voted against him, like you were crowing for weeks before the AGM. You could have chosen the other sh*t sandwich like you were urging everyone else to post after post after post.

Yes, I may have a simple view of things. I'm a simple mind. Either that or I just don't think yours and a few other PIs discontent is worth considering to any great extent.

Eloro - he is there to run the business and execute the current strategy. The share price is out of his control.

Where Scott is concerned, I'm saying give him a few months to deliver this phased development plan and potentially update the IPA. If the former doesn't happen by end of March and the latter by end of June, by all means pile on him.

I don't think Warren named any of the companies he was talking about did he? He certainly didn't in the first half of the interview. He was deliberately holding all the names back. You'd have to ask him why he did that but it suggests it wasn't SolGold specific.

I suppose it's a timely reminder to not hang our hats on a hotshot fund manager and man of the people. We have to plough our own furrow. I do love his bookcase though....

Nobody said you had to laud him Eloro.

But maybe you could show an understanding for how things have changed outside of his control since the merger has completed.

If you had walked in to be CEO in Feb22 to a shifting political landscape and various hoops to jump through, what would you do differently?

The thing with this company is that nobody has managed it perfectly at any stage. But as investors we should probably expect that of any company. Temper expectations and then anything better is a bonus.

The consensus is that everyone is happy with Scott. The AGM vote bears that out, so maybe it's time for us to get back on the fence rather than be at him for these perceived failings?

In terms of what I think will happen, I think the relationship with Jiangxi will further solidify over the course of the year.

What that may lead to, who knows? I certainly don't.

Jezzoo - SOLG might not be in the driving seat today but if they get an amended IPA, shows a development plan that is higher margin and then we get the macro to suit then we could easily assume the box seat.

There's no reason why we have to kowtow to majors just because they have deep pockets. Someone will want a tier 1 before long. They can't continue to wait each other out.

You're by all means not the only holder in that boat Eloro, but you're the only one beating up the CEO in every post you make now.

Jezzoo - that's one of the funniest comments I've read on this BB.

You're saying Mather should have flipped the asset for a song to the majors?

You simply don't do that with such a major tier 1 discovery. Mather, IMO, had every right to stand his ground.

Life isn't all about the grift to nick a nickel or a dime. You have to hold on to finds like these and make them pay. It's the culmination of a lifetime of work, prospecting etc and I completely understand that it wasn't just a flip so Bozi and Jezzoo could walk away with a few quid profit.

Eloro - I don't think you're at liberty to ask that question given your recent response to a poster who asked the same of you.

My position is unchanged. I'm not as desperate for a corporate event as most on this BB. I have to concede that it offers the best chance of a short term return but it won't be an attractive return, merely an average one.

Ideally, I think SOLG needs to hold this into the teeth of the next copper supply crunch. Will it come in time? I'm not sure it will.

You say you don't expect anything to be delivered in early Q1. That feeds into the investment case

Be careful about falling into the trap Fort did before Christmas.

Judging a whole investment case in the bluster of one person is shoddy to say the least.

I don't know how many times this needs to be said.

Eloro - OK, you can admit it now. Which of Scott's previous companies were you burned on?

Or to put it another way, how many shirts did you lose betting on a takeover last year?

Just say thank you in future for having your illogical logic corrected.

I didn't make a mistake 404x. I said and i quote,

"Vote against his re-election and he likely ceases to be a PDMR and can therefore trade his stock more freely."

Nobody need take any notice of what you say, particulsrly if you're invested in ARB as your posting history suggests...

Nice one for also missing the point 404x.

The fact remains. If he's on the board and a PDMR then he has to announce every single trade whereas if he has no PDMR then he could sell up to 2m shares (being 1%) without having to notify. There are also circumstances in which a shareholder can cross above or below a %point but doesn't need to notify, such as where they are filling a larger order.

So, if Diggle decided to iceberg his whole position then he could get away without notifying until he crossed below 3%. Shady yes and eyebrows would be raised but it has happened before enough times on AIM.

You think your view is logical? Give it a rest. It has been followed up on by numerous people because it is flawed. Vulpes' shareholding dictates that they can nominate a director and they have done so. If you wanted a director sacking because they sold a few shares there would be companies up and down the land regularly looking for board members. What about Bed&ISA. Do those sales count?

Where he is based couldn't be any less relevant and logical. You're still allowed to be a director is you live in Monaco, Malta or wherever.

Of course Lincolnite. That's separate to the PDMR requirements and no different to what any notifiable investor is obliged to do.