Member Info for Bozi

Maybe a positive that both have taken their leave here Add.

Smickster - unlikely. The board are recommending it to shareholders and the top 2 holdings have both confirmed their intention to accept.

Bit of a Merry Christmas (not) for Shanta PIs.

The Shanta 52w low is just a smidgen under 9p though Roxi, so it's the equivalent of SOLG getting a bid of 12p whilst the SP is 10p.

Hardly a case of being in rampant bull mode and being taken out at ATH. Besides, it should always be about valuation rather than SP and I'm not convinced the valuation is a fair one for SHG shareholders.

Eloro - it's not just PIs that get wiped out, it's anyone. That's because there is usually significant dilution with the reverse split. Otherwise, with a reverse split and no dilution, the valuation stays the same, it's the share count and share price that changes.

I can't see it happening here. Some shareholders are known to rue the lack of liquidity in SOLGs stock and a reverse split only reduces that further. The only time i think one would be considered would be if SOLG raised a large amount of equity to build Alpala.

In other news Shanta takeover proposal today. Look at the shocking premium. I look forward to everyone supply reasons why that one isn't comparable with Noront but SOLG is.

At £3.2m the valuation of this one is pretty ludicrous.

I've put together a small holding lately and plan to hold for the forseesble. The CEO is pretty impressive and I think a very good 2024 is in store for this fledgling company.

Fort - it's monday AM and you're close to filling this weeks BS quota.

"If BHP got hold of Newmonts stock, they could call a special meeting and table motions to remove the BoD's or so on."

There's nothing to stop them calling a meeting now if they wanted to. But they haven't. Have a look at s.303 of Companies Act 2006. You only need 5%.

Why don't you create a shareholder action group if it matters so much to you?

You think they're "brazenly wandering into the AGM..."

Deary me Fort, open your eyes. They're doing anything but.

At least you've nailed your colours to the mast. There will be no claiming you told us what is about to happen, when it has happened. We've got the receipts and there will be no bluffing.

1984 - it's no different to those that believed Maggie was a good prime minister. We can all believe what we like but it doesn't make it right.

So, if no workable proposal emerges following the phased PFS, what else do we do? Don't forget there's still this dynamic where many investors are expecting proposals based on the asset value.

I'm not suggesting it's the way forward at all, but you've got to have moves and counter-moves. For me, that involves being prepared for any eventuality, if that means we have to push on ourselves, so be it.

I'm sure many would take their leave and that's their prerogative.

It isn't potato putaato at all. The facts are important unless you're intentionally obfuscating to fuel your agenda.

We don't need a good relationship with anyone. It's clear some investors wanted us to slide right up to any majors that wanted to listen from day 1 and we all know what that would have preceeded.

All that matters is we get the permits and IPA squared off and we show the market this is capable of being developed in phases. We're off to the races at that point.

Scott hasn't failed because he hasn't repaired relationships. The only way to repair the relationship with BHP would have been to make your first action as CEO a bit dirty cheap placing that BHP would have been asked to cornerstone, subject to a disapplication of pre-emption rights. That was never going to get past Bob, Warren and Nick, was it?

It's quite straightforward when you look at the corporate side of it. We create the triple threat I mentioned earlier and if they all back out then we go it alone-Quady style.

Eloro - did you read my post from earlier on? Nick didn't bring them on board. They were in board through an off market purchase of existing stock and then Nick decided to pursue that relationship.

Everyone thought that was a good decision at the time and I stand by that. It was more dangerous to have one major on the register with free reign.

You only have to look at Filo Mining. BHP have done the same there. It's not that they aren't important. Ultimately, they're a potential buyer of our project/company but that's about it.

It's clear from reading between the lines. If BHP were as important as you're trying to make them sound then our investments would have been doomed. Why? Because BHP would own about 25% of the company and most of that stake would have been acquired at cheap equity prices. That much is clear from the commentary in recent years about BHP favouring new share issues over a royalty and also Twigger's subsequent comments.

One of the things that SOLG has going for it is that next year, we could conceivably see BHP, Newmont and Jiangxi all in the region of 10-12% holdings. That puts three super heavyweights around a table with the company and good luck to us all.

Eloro - Nick didn't bring them on board as a shareholder. All the articles are wrong, history is being rewritten.

If you think back, BHPs proposal was rejected in favour of Newcrest's. BHP appeared later when they subsequently purchased Guyana Goldfields' stake off Scott, who was their CEO at the time.

Nick did then let BHP in on a couple of placings. One at 45p and then one at 22p. It made sense to do this at the time because BHP were supportive and pledging technical expertise. It's all in the RNS releases.

It was the Franco deal that changed everything.

We're not back to square one Eloro, not at all.

But the problem is that too many are absolutely desperate for the company to be sold. Like they wanted a sale 3 years ago and each passing week draws the same criticisms of board members.

We shouldn't be looking further than the Q1 deliverables. Forget the SR. It will find a conclusion when it's ready and not before.

Management needs time to execute the IPA and show how Cascabel can be developed over 5-8 years. In 12 months time everyone has a beter picture of the state of play.

We need to chill and let this work it's way out in the wash.

Ah sorry Eloro. I must have missed that.

It is an old line from the company. Nick tried it in the aftermath of the Franco deal. He failed.

There's no way BHP will ever come back on board IMO, not unless we promised them cheap stock and in any event I think they'd tell us they'd rather buy on the market.

They've just been scorned too much. Franco, Osisko, Bob and his bat, Twigger and his public condemnation. It's done.

Eloro-why would the relationship with BHP improve?

What motivation does BHP have to come back on board? None.

The moment they bought their first shares, which was at the hands of our very own Scott Caldwell by the way (be wary of that when Bob blames previous management for it) it was always going to be an amicable relationship that went south.

The only alternative was for us to sign the company over for a relative pittance. Not happening.

So we are where we are, but we always were going to be here. It was just a question of which straw was going to break the camel's back.

TheItalian - how are you blaming Mather for you not selling in 2017? It was a simple case of riding the discovery euphoria or believing in the long term strategy.

It just so happens that the long term strategy has become unfeasible due to funding challenges and also a lack of shareholder appetite to become a Latam major mining company.

I didn't sell either by the way but that's nobody's fault but my own.

You can't very well go retrospectively analysing any decision that you did or didn't make. Shares go up and shares go down. We'd all love the power of hindsight or better still an almanac of major metal discoveries between now and 2050.

Similarly, we can't guarantee that the company will sell the asset for a higher valuation.

But you can't go through life worrying about ruffling feathers or pushing our luck. It's a lack of ambition in recent years that has helped put us in this position, a lack of appetite from investors and other stakeholders to see the job through.

The Italian - please can you elaborate on your point at 12:08. I just don't get it.

It's Mather's fault for wanting a fair value from the project? Really? That's ridonkulous.

So your view is that everyone should be a trader, just nicking that bit in the middle and moving on? I simply find that staggering.

These folks put decades of their lives, their whole careers, into a discover like Cascabel, and yet you expect them just to flip it to the first major they come to?

Nick Mather has every right to demand fair payment and as an investor you should be supportive of that. Creeping takeovers can happen in any situation where one investor funds the company in a situation that another can't or won't or buys stock on the market quicker than another.

After all, there's a special resolution to allow the SolGold Canada shares to be allocated to a single investor to allow them to do just that.

The point is a warning to shareholders to be careful who you are trusting. We know who wants to squash PIs and smaller IIs into the dirt and we must do what we can to ensure control isn't conceded to them.

Eloro - everyone's own shares are for them to vote as they wish but at the end of the day it's a democratic vote.

All the discussions around the vote are just company politics. Investors are making their feelings known and pointing out the perceived pitfalls of voting a certain way.

I agree with Add that we are now reaching a binary choice. For me, one choice presents much more threat and much less opportunity than the other, and I state my case accordingly.

That's all Redknight is doing too, so I'm not quite sure what the agenda is all about.

Phased development plan progressing well and on track for Q1 2024.

Take no notice of Fort and the other dissenters trying to damage sentiment towards current management in the hope of kicking off a firesale.

Good to see you catching up Fort. Trust it needing a friend to help.

However, how do you square the 1%/ 30m shares they bought in the low teens?

Scott said this at the time,

"I am very pleased to have Jiangxi become an investor in SolGold. They are a highly accomplished mining company and more importantly, 100% aligned with SolGold in ensuring all stakeholders are treated respectfully and fairly..."

It stands to reason then that their support may have carried a condition or two.

You also have to consider that when Mather went out and pegged this ground with the help of Ward, Garwin, Wheeler and Co, we'd just discovered a mammoth tier one. Apparently, securing other similarly prospective ground was a questionable strategy, so why was drilling regionals all of a sudden the way forward?

This is devil's advocate on my behalf. I'd like to have seen a regional drilled. I'd probably have favoured Helipuerto given the noise surrounding the adjacent Warintza.