Member Info for Bozi

It'll last however long it needs to last Orthern.

The longer it goes on, the more worried we will probably all get.

Lets be honest. Company says to all interested shareholders and the rest of the market send us your best proposal and they draw a line in the sand. Anything submitted goes forward for BoD discussion.

Personally, I reckon the company will give it 30 days from the merger ratification assuming it goes ahead and then how long it takes from there will depend on the strength of what is being put to the company.

Wants in cheaper. It's as simple as that.

Pretty pathetic.

Cox - why can't you keep milking this quietly for your 10% here and there? Why do you have to be so obtuse about all the company's perceived failings? You're a trader, so what does it matter?

Wait a minute - you keep venturing back here, despite hating the company and those who lead it because you think you can trade around their PR, YouTube interviews, podcasts etc. Nobody does more of those than Turney. He doesn't owe you anything. You could probably go and find a liquid company and trade it for 2% a day and still plunder your keep but you don't, you come back to little illiquid old KAV. It makes virtually no sense.

The 30 bags was never a prediction. It was a high case suggestion of where the price could go if this company made a globally significant tier 1 discovery. There's no chance of that growth without it, but if you're telling me that you've not seen these companies do £500m market caps at times when they make great discoveries then you're only showing yourself up an an unknowledgeable market participant.

SolGold and Greatland Gold are two companies in the last 5 years that have breached £1bn market caps at times following large metal discoveries, so the precedent is there and KAV knows what it needs to do.

2023 is big for KAV and it's shareholders. If I am going to make a prediction it's that we'll make a discovery on the KCB and we'll be sitting at all time highs next December. Whether you're along for the ride or not Cox, ATB to you.

Well done for your bullishness now Fort.

I didn't see you calling it a shoo-in before DGR told you the outcome. Plank.

Add - I mean this tongue planted firmly in cheek but have a read of your own posts between 9 and 11 this morning...

I wasn't not in agreement either by the way.

The negativity is because you've got the perennially positive Novice hunter playing this weird roles reversed alter ego of his and that's about it I'd say. Everyone else is just hopeful and wanting to get it out of the way to relax at Christmas.

Are we sure a company can reappoint an individual that shareholders have voted out by proxy just a couple of years earlier?

Besides, Mather at the company is no longer as important as his shareholding. The need for him in SolGold towers has expired. It's Scott Caldwell and Dan Vujcic who are driving this now and as we know they were nominated by CGP and Co.

Yeah SM. It's conspicuous by its absence isn't it.

Has me wondering anyway.

Cox - anyone you disagree with is a bot or a troll.

I think I've been quite fair and objective as far as KAV is concerned, so much so that those more bullish have taken exception to my comments in recent weeks and months.

At the end of the day we're a pre-discovery minerals exploration company and one that had some decent goodwill baked in at 6p. So yes, we've come off a lot but that's part and parcel when KSZ B doesn't yield a discovery and then the Ditau campaign yields more questions than answers.

IMHO Cox you need to chill. You let your ego come to the party too much and with Stan and Paul, the three of you are just happy to bash in tandem rather than look objectively at this as an investment from here, reflecting on what didn't go so well in 2022 and where the company can improve in 2023.

A letter of representation for an AGM?

What a farce.

It's time to get the London Stock Exchange involved I think.

FK Capital - I'm not looking for anything with BT to be honest. I haven't subscribed to his mailing list and I don't have his ear. I actually fully agree with you that comms need to be credible and verifiable and I'm not suggesting for a moment that I want a master ramper.

But, but, that's how a lot of tiny junior resource companies are run if we're being honest. Effective communicators who can spin a story any number of which ways over time as required. Just look at how other markets trade these types of companies. Markets where investors are realistic rather than overtly critical.

Inevitably, investors flock to those more imaginative with their story telling because that tends to lend its to more short term upside.

So that means that next year has to yield some proper results from KCB. Proof of concept has run its course.

Disagree FKC.

You want your geologists in the role of... Geologist. You want your CEO to be a communicator.

We have enough boots on the ground in geologist positions that we don't need another as CEO. We have Hillary Gumbo, Mike Molee consulting, Brett Gist, etc. KAV actually has a very strong team for a company it's size and this should be seen as a positive rather than "more mouths to feed".

It's as if theis company is supposed to go out and find the next Norilsk without spending a dime!

KAV has this right in my view. It is just missing that breakthrough, a serious discovery.

Will it happen? Who knows. But one thing is for sure is that this board is barely worth reading anymore when you have folks like Coxonopolos and StanAccy treating these companies as sure things, particularly in market conditions where the whole sector is down unless the individual company has had transformational news.

These are extremely high risk bets and that's why when I was answering Kabaa the other day I spoke in bags. The reality is that many of these companies don't find what they are looking for and shareholders ultimately lose their capital.

These plays really are akin to backing that horse at 25 or 50/1 in the Grand National. We choose the companies that have the most interesting licence areas and make the most compelling geophysical arguments, but those are no guarantee of success.

We'll no doubt find out Q1 whether the KCB campaign has yielded anything of interest and what the KSZ is looking like.

That depends on one's outlook for the strategic review, Addicknt.

A cash consideration gives them surety. Who's to say they won't get a chance to buy more SOLG on the open market cheaper than the price of the SOLG stock issued?

Swings and roundabouts.

Fort - you got a source for this:

"Strategic Review well advanced and results due shortly or after merger concluded is my guess so sometime around mid Jan."

None taken Copper, but as Addicknt says, we're all ears!

I never said it was nonsense either by the way. I just thought it was standard CEO bluster that people should keep in mind but not necessarily hang their investment on.

Enjoy the break.

Copperpot - I can't believe you're still regurgitating a former CEOs snippet from a corporate presentation delivered about 3 or 4 years ago.

1. It was a throwaway comment at best and never a binding pledge or promise.
2. The moment Nick left the CEO seat the comment became null and void.

Investors are playing a very dangerous game still relying on comments like this when making their investment decisions. Or it's a desperate ramp. Which is it?

Quady - it's a shame you've pivoted to this view. You'd have been best off just saying nothing further.

Any investor holding a fund or ETF doesn't hold the shares in the underlying companies. They hold shares in the fund, operated by the service provider, in this case BlackRock.

So, BlackRock's fund manager(s) buy and sell whatever they buy and sell. The shares never belong to the holders of the fund unless the fund manager makes an in-specie distribution, which doesn't appear to have happened here.

Hopefully you won't now be able to wriggle again and your position can be pinned down and debunked.

Quady - wow.

Wow wow wow wow wow wow wow.

Quady - what led to you buying this stock in the low single digits? This mantra that you can only discuss points that have been released by RNS is absurd to say the least.

To judge SolGold as an entity we should all be working out a potential valuation under all pathways (change of control, asset sale/ farm down, production) for the company, not just the one you hope it follows. It sounds like you have done this to an extent but you don't want to have even hypothetical conversations with other investors, Why is that?

I'm not sure what the relevance of your question is? I can't account for every single BlackRock owned share. I would assume (being the key word) that the majority, if not all, are held within their various funds, ETFs, etc. However, I cannot rule out for certain that BlackRock don't own any in their own name. I'd need to do a full analysis and reconciliation to tell you that.

It's irrelevant anyway because your next play is to try and play on the meaning of your initial statement. Regardless of whether BlackRock are selling shares held in their own name (unlikely), or the various BlackRock vehicles are selling shares, the end result is BlackRock are selling shares. That is all that matters.

Quady - here you go again.

I've never said I do know how Alpala is going to be funded, but a few weeks ago I put to you a potential package on a 50/50 JV basis using a mix of debt, offtake and equity in an attempt to point out how such a deal would prove restrictive to SolGold and sub-optimal for shareholders.

But all I got back was "blah blah minimal dilution blah blah."

Anything I claim as fact should be checkable. That is something we should all expect of each other to maintain a bulletin board of high quality. But that's not where we are right now.

On the subject of BlackRock, you got all aggressive, as I suspected you would, because I said I'd reported you. It was the only way to try and cut through your repeated bluster, such as the below to DBW at 16:43

"What are you on about DBW BlackRock is not selling Solgold shares.
It's the funds that contain Solgold shares that are been altered or moved or sold."

You then tried to say I agreed with you when I absolutely didn't.

If you're going to make subjective comments like the one above to DBW then you need to provide supporting evidence to back up your view. Moreso, when you are corrected on something, instead of trying to wriggle and claim a different position all along, just hold your hands up and say "yeah you might have that right and I may be wrong". It isn't difficult. Nobody can be right all of the time - even you Quady.

Copperpot - there's nothing petty about it.

A poster who clearly does not have the required knowledge is posting clear inaccuracies and following them up with spurious claims as fact.

He has been picked up on this behaviour.

Leaving this unchecked is not beneficial for other investors reading or contributing to the board as they take this information as gospel. The same poster has offered no material response to the argument that SolGold can't fund the development of Cascabel either on a 100% basis or on a 50% JV ownership.

My patience has now expired.