Member Info for Bozi

Add - I've seen Jerry's post and I disagree with it for the reasons mentioned.

Shareholders acting the same way doesn't mean the book wasn't diverse. It means there are other reasons why the dynamics of the register have failed under the first sign of stress.

They can be one or more of the following:

- Shareholders are facing their own financial pressures and determine that digesting from SOLG is the best solution

- There's inadequate appetite from those major shareholders to challenge Jiangxi and incur the necessary expense to do so.

- There is fatigue at a strategic level for any variety of reasons ranging from technical to geopolitical.

Also, I never said you had turned on Quady. I said it's unfair to turn the diverse book argument on him, particularly given it was widely accepted that there would be competition between strategic investors.

That's one of the learning points here for investors IMO. It doesn't matter who takes a stake. You don't know their intentions until the M&A play happens.

As things stand, and unless something changes in the coming weeks, we've been let down by our strategics.

What is your point Fort?

We all said on the day that news dropped that Jiangxi were the preferred partner going forwards.

SharketMare obtained and shared some Intel indicating that BHP were out of the picture and was chastised for it.

What has happened shouldn't be a surprise, just a disappointment.

Jiangxi will firm up over Christmas when nobody is watching and then we're in "speak now or forever hold your peace" territory.

Add - you can of course point to the fact that the main shareholders have agreed to back the proposal but that doesn't mean the book wasn't diverse.

It just didn't stand up to testing at the first opportunity. That is the disappointment here.

As much as folks will hate to acknowledge it, SOLGs register is more diverse than many explorers or junior developers. Some have a bigger percentage owned by management but virtually none I can think of have three majors at 10-12% each plus instis. Most will have the backing of one partner who will hold 15-25%.

It's rather novel but I don't think it's fair to turn this on Quady now. You know as well as I do that many commentators on this board said an offer in this region wouldn't fly because certain parties wouldn't accept it.

I know it's easy to bash Quady but we've got to be fair and reasonable about this. If Quady was wrong, everyone was wrong.

How sore do we feel though NMM if management released all that, only for 28p to be firmed up and voted through after Christmas?

Management won't really want to tell us the company is worth 50p but being sold for 28. We all know it, but they'd rather not spell it out. If someone is going to make a challenge, they need to have worked that out for themselves already.

We're going round in circles Rodney.

You know the significance of the assurances the company has given if certain conditions are met.

You know that makes the likelihood of any further significant news, slim to none.

Rodney - why would the company issue significant news when it has agreed to recommend a formal offer at 28p?

Can you please stop and think for a moment...

The point for issuing significant news was after the 26p rejection and before the 28p tentative recommendation.

* at < 20%.

Of course someone else could make a move Smick. I've never, at any point, said that nobody else can act.

I've just said I don't think anyone else will act.

Rodney seems fairly sure there will be opposition to a firm offer from Jiangxi. I rate the likelihood of it at

I hope another bidder materialises Rodney, because it one doesn't, the rinsing is going to be of astounding proportions.

Smick - I've unfiltered you because although we vehemently disagree, you are a serious poster and pro SOLG.

Of course a major with interest in SolGold wouldn't jump in before Jiangxi. I've never suggested one would or should.

Put yourself in the shoes of said major. Your target has caught a non-binding proposal. The two other major shareholders have signalled they are on board if a credible offer on those terms is made. The founder indicates the same, as do connections from the minority partner of the asset.

That is not an easy situation to get a foothold into.

This is why, IMO, Nick and Bob should not have given their LOIs. It was an admittance of defeat from them and they've only rowed back I dare say due to the fury from disgruntled retail.

You can look at Noront if you want. Wyloo were in Jiangxi's shoes but it was a much less complex structure. The price was utterly bombed out and it was easier for a rival to put an alternative up.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if someone emerges to challenge this. BHP seem more focused on their existing projects and are more interested in Africa. Newmont don't have the stomach and were in divest mode. So someone completely new is going to have to pull a seat up and that will take some doing.

😂😂😂😂😂

Monte - I'm not suddenly saying this at all.

Go back to my posts from a couple of years ago and you'll see that I said we'd get a bid in the region of 25p unless we were very focused to build value back and defend low balls. I said we had to build value back by finding a near surface feeder deposit to change the investment case at Alpala and I cited Ari Sussman's (of Collective Mining) comments to Crux as the justification for this.

I was ridiculed by Redknight and others citing the Noront transaction. I was ridiculed by Fort who told us we'd be bought based on asset value and the market was inefficient and to be disregarded.

Here we are. First bid potentially less than 25p. Second of 26p rejected.

Where are we now? Hoping someone steps forward during the first 46 days of the offer period. Hoping SOLG can pull a rabbit from the hat in that time. Hoping the competitive tension that many relied on for years is there.

Unfortunately, I don't believe it's there. That's based on my understanding of the mining landscape and my understanding of the position SOLG are in. Would be delighted to be wrong, obviously.

Sniffa - I'm not, but I've got folks falling over themselves to reach out and tell me I'm wrong here, with zero logical basis.

It sounds to me like Rodney and his group have become experts in the takeover code.

Do you think this is SOLG pulling a masterstroke?

Hi Matt

To answer a couple of your questions

"Do you seriously think Nick will make an 'Irrevocable Commitment' to sell his shares at 28p if they make a Firm bid...?"

Erm, yes. Are you suggesting he has provided a letter of intent with no designs of acting on that intent? Why submit it in the first place? Leave it to BHP, NEM and Sangha.

" If JCC do nothing by 26 December they must go away for 6 months...is that really going to happen...?"

I consider that to be unlikely. I think their bid will become binding on 23/24 December, basically with as little market time as possible before Christmas.

"If they make a bid at less than 28p the LOIs will be withdrawn and there will be no irrevocable commitments...we already know that because a bid of 26p was turned down."

Why would they return to a bid of less than 28p when 26p has been rejected? That's a nonsense suggestion. They are more likely to round it up to 30p and act like the generous good guys.

"Once they make a Firm Bid the 60 day clock starts ticking, JCC have shown their hand and all the other majors that have shown an interest in SOLG (13 ib the data room) then also have at least 46 days to decide whether to counterbid unless JCC get over 50% acceptance."

Hahaha back to the burgeoning data room are we.

Everyone knows a bid of 28p has 40.7% support so a straight majority at a shareholder vote is likely. It's quite straightforward for them. They can quite easily increase their own holdings further in the open market if they need to.

Anyone in the data room knows this. If you're a Barrick or similar, you know you have to come to the table with £1.25bn and be willing to start afresh in Ecuador. It's unlikely anyone is going to take that bait, but keep hoping. I hope that your hopes play out.

Thanks NMM.

You're still pushing these semantics Rodney?

If they're proposal becomes binding tomorrow it has more than 40% behind it straight off the bat.

What are you going to say then?

Irwin continues to discuss SOLG because shareholders and mining investors seek his opinion.

I've said since day dot the guy is a clown. It has taken until now for many to realise it.

Does that need an LOI?

I would argue it doesn't.

So why provide it PS?

Was precisely my point.

PS - I didn't say they did. I simply said the BHP LOI was non-binding, as the RNS confirmed.

An LOI is an agreement to take a specific action in a specific situation. If they haven't been qualified as non-binding then one can only assume they're firm, no?