Member Info for Eloro

Typo

The Argentinians barged into the Falkland islands..

Add, I totally agree with you regarding the need for Solg provide more details on the opportunities so that we can be better informed.

Like I posted before, it's a choice of being diluted. Either by BHP, or by Solg. Hence, I voted against 10, 11 and 12.

Steady on NAL, I was never a fan of Mrs. T. Indeed, it was her pole tax which prompted my emigration to Canada. But the Argentinians barged I to the Falkland islands and Britain could not be expected to sit back and accept that. I supported her response, and her sinking of the Belgrano was the icing on the cake for me!! Can you imagine a Britain where we were beaten by Argentina?

Cheers Add, Warren, and now Willem, both mentioned the Chinese as the likely buyer of solg. With interest rates about to turn, that might well stimulate a bid.

The West will not be happy if China end up owning such a prize. Solg is a big part of Willem's portfolio and I find it interesting that he mentioned the company while discussing M&A. "Once they understand that this is one of the largest copper deposits worldwide they will buy it." That implies that Chinese are carrying out their DD to understand what solg represents. Finally, patience was mentioned as a must.

Interesting comments on solg:

https://youtu.be/gYSRF6Tw3Tc?si=78Xg4nUM-3UyRYZy

1984, I am pretty sure if we had a good, amicable relationship with BHP, we would not have an rns like the recent one.

Anyway, my post is in response to those believe that our relationship with BHP is irrelevant. It's only irrelevant if we get a bid from someone else.

For me, the fact that we still have a bad relationship with them demonstrate Scott's failure as a ceo. He has failed to build bridges with a key stakeholder. That matters. I know that in the company where I work, a manager's is assessed on his/her ability to work cooperatively with key stakeholders to get the job done as a KPI.

Don't worry folks, more powerful shareholders will demonstrate their take of our current situation and will show who they hold accountable. I know that accountability is no longer a virtue in today's society.

Hi Bozi, I read your post. It's potato, putaato re bringing BHP on board Vs them buying in. They are here, and folks initially expected that they would be the most likely buyer given their super major status. Now its clear that they are at logger head with us. So, let me clarify, they are important to us as a potential buyer, just as Jiangxi are to us as a potential buyer. It would be interested to see the reaction here if we read next week that our relationship with Jiangxi is just as bad as that which we currently have with BHP.

The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition 208 states:

"Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer."

Hi Bozi, I can see that folks are doing revisionism and are eager to downplay the importance of BHP. BHP, a major mining company all of a sudden isn't important to solg! So what should we make of NM bringing on board a major whose addition holds no significance? The revision is due to BHP being revealed to be adversarial and aren't likely to make a bid any time soon. So, rather than folks acknowledging the calamity of the situation, we have posts downplaying their importance. Yet, if tomorrow we hear that BHP is about to make a bid, I am sure that all of the experts will be pontificating re the importance of BHP.

From my perspective, it does not bode well that the relationship with BHP hasn't been repaired since the NM days, and from the recent rns, Scott has failed to repair the relationship. To paraphrase, re our relationship with BHP, better to have them onside, in the tent peeing out, rather than have them outside peeing in as an adversary. Anyway, not long to wait and more powerful shareholders will make their presence felt. I cannot imagine that they are happy to see their positions decimated by an ineffectual ceo whose only claim to fame is how quickly his non-achievement decimated the SP, under his watch. Folks pinning their last best hope on a failure of a ceo. I would laugh if I wasn't a shareholder!

Who elected you as admin for the BB Covgaz? You don't like what I write, don't read it. Join RK and filter folks. I have as much right to post here as you. I have had to endure your tripe about RK and others. Get use to it because I will continue to post. Everyone has the freedom to comment and we don't need your blessings to do so. You are not an arbiter, and nothing you have posted can be regarded as remotely insightful.

Nonsense Covgaz,

If we didn't need BHP, NM would not have brought them on board as a shareholder. If they weren't important to us we would not be reading articles pointing out that we are on opposing sides with BHP. The market clearly believes that they are important. Another shareholder which could be regarded as just another shareholder would have been Blackrock. I don't recall reading any article drawing attention to the state of the relationship between solg and them. Imagine how excited we would all be if we suddenly read that Scott is holding talks with BHP and that we are expecting a bid from them! Finally, they are important to us because most on here have been expecting them to bid, or at least folks here have been posting regarding what BHP's intentions are.

Cheers NAL,

It is so childishly predictable. Any voice that isn't mindlessly ramping, someone always pipe up, if you don't like it, sell up and go. If Scott was the second coming, he should be able to handle some criticism.

"If you don't its best get out , no post being here don't u think?" I don't need your advice on what I should do next. I was a shareholder long before Scott became ceo. If anyone should go, it should be him.

Judging from the tone of the rns, it would appear that him leaving is a distinct possibility.

We are back to square one because the enmity between solg and BHP still exist with whatever overtures made by Scott since becoming ceo has left where we were at the beginning, at odds with BHP. We had Twigger's previous letter telling us of BHP's underhanded tactics. Now we have an rns telling us pretty much the same story. No progress made in repairing relationship with BHP. I find that disappointing.

I have stated before my lack of confidence in Scott. Him making the SR open ended just diminished his standing with me. I don't take seriously anything he says. I want to see actions and outcomes, not begging rns which a manifestation of his failure as a ceo to reconciling opposing forces. I have resigned myself to another year of all talk and nothing meaningful happening.

Hi Bozi, I'm just left with this sense of no meaningful outcomes since the merger which will get us to being sold. We are basically back to square one where each key stakeholder are unwilling to budge and greed rule supreme.

Hi Bozi, because before this rns, it was mentioned that Scott met with Newmont and BHP to recover the relationship. Folks were posting like harmony was being restored which would improve the chance of a bid. Clearly that isn't the case, and any such meeting if occurred, failed to bear any fruits.

Basically, the vote begging rns confirmed that the relationship between solg and BHP is still dire. Clearly solg remains suspicious of BHP's intentions and have called them out yet again. We should give up ever expecting the 2 sides to come together at this rate. That explains why Scott kept banging on about BHP voted against him. Had the relationship improved, he would not keep reminding us of that fact.

I get the feeling that we are miles away from harmony, or a bid for that matter because both sides are entrenched and are not likely to budge. The only chance we have now is the Chinese making a bid. If not, we will still be here December 2024 with a lower SP, diluted, and having to tolerate endless guessing. The current situation is so disappointing. I am not hopeful of a Q1 bid landing. So much for "Fast and smart."

So, instead of flogging the company fast and smart, solg wants to disapply the pre-emption rights so that they can issue more shares and dilute us? Hence, we are being asked to choose between BHP dilution and the BOD's dilution! It doesn't appear that Scott is in a hurry to sell the company. They want to issue more shares. Perhaps if he had looked after shareholders value, there would have been no need to beg for our votes because they would have earned our support. We will still be here next year the way things are looking.

Hi Bozi, in a democracy, people are left to freely exercise their franchise. Lord Braggart's relentless posts haranguing people to vote his way is more of a 1 party totalitarian state approach.

Contrast his approach to that of Add's for example. Night and day. Add points out the pitfalls and respectfully leave us to vote how we want. Not this braggart. Posting like PIs are children and stupid and only he knows what's right and his way is the only way. In addition, he takes the opportunity to boast about his solg's position. Tasteless, tacky and trashy. I don't need him telling me how to vote and what is right and what isn't.

I really would wish that Lord Braggart would allow each PI to vote as each see fit. Its each PI's shares to vote as each see fit. He didn't give anyone money to buy their respective shares. So he should stop trying to coerced folks to vote his way.

Here he goes again bragging about how many shares he has and how much he spent. A braggart through and through. He can't help himself. I would say he is willy waving his share holding again, but I gather that it's all limp and not even a cold Heineken can put life back into that old dog:)

Way to go Aquinaga!

If disapplication of pre-emption rights is tying the hands of the BOD, why did they grant such rights to the select shareholders in the first place? Surely they should have anticipated the ramifications. Perhaps greed clouded their perspectives at the time those rights were bestowed.

Hi DBW, I voted via telephone last week, and then when I got home there was a letter from Halifax which I completed, signed and posted 1st class. So, they should have my votes already.

Like TI said, if our votes are that critical, they should provide more details so that we can know exactly what we are voting for. They cannot expect our blind support based on opaque statements. I voted against for 10, 11, & 12. 1 to 9, I will keep that info private.

Our votes matters. The begging email from NM last time confirmed that.