Member Info for mattlilly

I didn't say THEY BID 45p...I said they PAID 45p....but they also BID for the Company. An acceptable price to the Board would have been well north of that, but NM had the power and he turned it down flat...

And how often have we reached 45p since then...one if the fund raises was at 21p...

It seems very simple to me...

No CFO for 1 year and no CEO for 10 months.

Who's blocking those appointments on the Nominations Committee?

BHP? No influence whatsoever...

The two independent Directors? That makes absolutely no sense.

Which leaves the 'old guard's.... Mather, Moller and Twigger.

So why would they want to do that unless they want to reinstate Mather, who knows NOTHING about block caving, or even developing a major mine.

Now ask yourself this question...

PFS by the end of the year...great!

But then you get the DFS/Funding programme...

And how on earth do you fund that without BHP/NCM onside...?

We have zero meaningful presence in North America where the debt has to come from, especially if BHP and NCM are so ****ed off that they organise a boycott.

CGP cant raise the funding....they just want Alpala sold, to finance their other ventures and to get them off their $60 million hook.

So if it emerges that we cant fund Alpala we are toast, despite any drilling results elsewhere...and vulnerable to just the sort of low ball bid we all fear...

This is going to be a very critical time going up to Dec 8...

My first port of call will be to read the MD&A in detail, due w/b 15 November.

Consider this...NM back as CEO...Institutional support in tatters....one or two sell out...SP plunges...what price a decent bid then.

Based on my insight into the Corporate Governance talks, all the outside 'adult'shareholders want is to complete the governance task and clear out the old guard who have held this back for almost a year since Nick got a thick ear.

Mather rejected BHPs bid in the past after they had paid 45p...where are we now...not much more than half that...?

Top posts addickt...

The independent Directors? I.e. the 'new' Board...

Smickster...are you Nick Mather...?

So in my view, the real reason why BHP were making that challenge was Nick's position.

And I KNOW that many investors asked the Chairman exactly the same question. I myself suggested to him that Nick should be put up for re-election because of his totally anomalous position.

So as it stands, you still have , potentially the 'Old' Board running the show, with NINE Directors, of whom four are Mather, Clare, Moller and Ward, plus Twigger with the casting vote...

Furthermore, the Nominations Committee is FIVE, of whom two are Mather and Moller and Twigger again has the casting vote...is it any wonder that they have failed to appoint a CEO?

They have directly referred to a 'preferred' or 'top' candidate for three months to my certain knowledge. Who is stopping them being appointed, considering the company has become a laughing stock as a result.

And WHY is there no appointment. I can think fo one obvious reason...

So in conclusion, I do not fear BHP, I fear NM and CGP forming an unholy alliance.

And it may even be that BHP/NCM and Blackrock as the 'adults in the room' (together with the independent Directors) are trying to prevent such a scenario, EXACTLY so that Cascabel can be developed.

So I am now very clear that the right thing to do is to strongly re-elect Keith Marshall, giving a vote of confidence to his interim CEO position and making clear that NM must not return in that post and so that the top candidate can be appointed.

This would also strengthen the hand of the independent Directors and quite frankly I would be very, very concerned if I saw any one of the NEW Board walking away.

Many of you fear a low ball takeover...surely there is a greater risk if the Company is destabilised...

We need a stable, empowered Board, a new CEO, a PFS and MREs for Tandayama and Porvenir and a funding programme for Alpala financed with BHP and NCM participation.

That package of news would see the SP very much higher and ensure in the very least that the starting point for any bidding war would be very much higher.

We should be very much more worried by a possible NM/CGP sellout...

AIMO as usual...

"I strongly believe that it is in interests of all Shareholders for the Board to be comprised of directors with a cross-section of views and skills who can collaborate to ensure that the interests of all Shareholders, large and small, are represented and looked after at the Board level and not just the interests of certain large and vocal shareholders seeking undue influence"

BHP have always declined a seat in the Board.

NCM withdrew their Board member as a result of the Franco Nevada deal.

Nick Mather and DGR Global together own 12.86% of Solgold. NM is Managing Director of DGR so we know which way they would vote.

Why is it wrong for BHP and NCM to have 'undue influence' and want somebody on the Board while NM has almost the same size holding to influence?

And why would it be wrong for them to challenge his position on the Board.

A proper Board of Directors is comprised of a majority of independent Directors and the rest Executive Directors.

Mather is neither. He is a complete anomaly.

So...given that this was one of the most popular questions being asked by the institutional, major and retail investors in the recent corporate governance round, why is it wrong for BHP to question that position also?

So how do you resolve that.

NM is not up for re-election, despite being an anomaly. The position put to me 2 weeks ago was:

Do we put NM up for election or do we put the whole Board?

It seems to me that the obvious compromise is to put Keith up for re-election, because as long as NM is on the Board there is a potential dichotomy....

Indeed the Chairman says in the letter

"Keith Marshall has also requested to be put forward for re-election at next month's AGM to seek confirmation and endorsement of his contribution from Shareholders."

So I frankly don't see BHP as the problem.

Consider this...

Solgold will need to raise $3/4 Billion to finance Alpala.

This is categorically NOT going to be all funded by debt.

As the Chairman said in the one to one, the biggest problem with the share price is that it does not have a proper North American listing (viz the almost non-existent volume in Toronto).

Bankers expect shareholders to have 'skin in the game' for a funding like this. In other words equity.

This can be either in the form of convertible debt or straight equity.

Given the lack of interest/visibility in North American equity markets, how on earth would you raise the necessary equity without BHP and NCM participating.

Indeed, their joint endorsement would make it very much easier to raise the debt. The only other element might be streaming/royalties, but that gives away a chunk of the future profits.

So OK, given the in my view erroneous assumption that BHP/NCM want four Directors, why on earth would they bother to do that when they can just make a straight bid for the company? Unnecessarily complicated...

Think back to last year. BHP were well p****d off by Nick's Franco Neva

Quite large...thats probably an institutional holding switching over to another buyer/fund...

No lunch I don't but just remember how disruptive 2020 was...

I think we're frustrated because of the contrast between last year and this.

Last year Nick released a blizzard of updates until some of us were punch drunk and blase...shock and awe was the pinnacle.

As you know, I pleaded with the company to stop overpromising and under delivering.

So this year we have the opposite.

As somecwiser than me have posted on here, there is no requirement to RNS anything that is not material.

I totally support the view that you should only RNScwhen you have something meaningful that has been independently assayed. And of course MREs etc.

Every quarter we get a drilling update in the MD&A, but I think we need a specific release alongside it simply listing the exact drilling progress on every prospect, followed by the juicy news when it has been assayed.

Constant speculation on ' hole this and hole that'inevitably leads to boredom and frustration.

Colonel. My comments below were about your earlier post.

People need to ask what BHP have been in touch about and, given they would have been part of the same ring round that I was, they almost certainly have expressed similar concerns.

Go back a year to the AGM and reread the questions I asked Twigger.

Its blindingly obvious what the core problem is. Why should BHP have a different view to that.

Ask yourselves how on earth Alpala can be funded without the support and participation of BHP and NCM, which was what caused the fallout last year.

And then ask yourselves which parties would be best served by stirring up another scenario like last years AGM...think laterally...

Colonel. I was wrong before and I think your first paragraph is closer to the truth.

But I dont give any credibility to the idea that BHP could persuade professional investors to sell for 45p, for the exact same reasons why we wre holding out for much higher.

Don't be daft...I have 1 million shares...why would I risk that...?

I'd rather you thought I was Andy West...

I agree with every word you said addickt, but ask yourself this question...

Are we being hoodwinked? Reread the RNS and reflect.

Cheers

RK.

504,769 at 25.90 keeping the price above long term support level...

I don't think its either rcgl....

Destabilise the Board and thereby the company, leaving it wide open to a takeover...

No rcgl....NM is not up for re-election...

Based on the last AGM, the 'old ' Board would be Moller, Mather and Clare (if you don't count Jason, who is an Exec Director).

The way I see it, we can't fail by supporting the existing Board.

I was impressed by both Twigger and Elodie on the conference call.

The corporate governance is light years ahead of where it was even a year ago.

It is now clear that they want to develop SOLG as we all would, but absolutely will not accept any bid less than what WE would regard as fair value.

If they flush out a BHP bid now, I believe it would herald a bidding war and the price could go sky high.

Finally, I believe they are sincere in their intentions to do exactly what they have been clearly stating all year and must be immensely frustrated that they have not yet landed their first choice CEO (who has been in the frame for almost 3 months).

So who or how is that process being frustrated. Is someone impeding it behind the scenes, or has the candidate got wind of what we are now talking about and does not want to accept until this has all been flushed out? Who would? You might find you only had a job for a few months before a bid succeeded and you were replaced by NM for example...?

Like all of you I am totally frustrated by the lack of information and have rationalised that it is either pending a new CEO or is being held back because of the machinations that risk disrupting the natural progress and orderly management of the company.

One way or another it will be a fascinating, exciting (?) and turbulent 6 weeks or so...

All views welcome (except Quady and those who are filtered...)