Member Info for mattlilly

Isn't it more likely that the Board is so fed up with Nick, who isn't even an Independent Director and doesn't own 15% of the shares that they want him out?

So he's trying to drum up support in the event of a SGM t oust him...

And with his track record could he survive a third attempt?

Just

Sorry you're right. I got it the wrong way round...

He can only have voted a maximum of 91 million shares AGAINST Scott, which is 3%...

But he cotrols 14% so he didn't vote AGAINST Scott...

Makes the same point...now he wants him out...

To be clear...

Hostile takeovers are generally initiated in two ways:

A tender offer to purchase the voting shares of another company at a premium above the current market value (CMV)

In a proxy fight, where the entity tries to persuade stockholders to vote out the current management and vote in management that would allow the takeover

A tender offer requires a majority of the shareholders to accept.

A proxy fight aims to replace a good portion of the target's uncooperative board members. An acquirer may also choose to simply buy enough company stock in the open market to take control.

So whichever way you look at it:

The predator would have to acquire 50%; who's going to sell at 20p?

Or persuade 51% of shareholders to vote the Board out.

Of course the Board could approve the bid but even in Noront's czase where the Board approved BHPs 55c bid, Wyloo succeeded at 110c...

The Independent Directors are required to act in the shareholders best interests. Would they seriously recommend a 20p bid?

So all this worry about a 20p bid and how it might succeed is hype.

I'm in no doubt Nick sees Scott as barring the way to a sale of his shares at 50p or more...

But it was Nick who cicked it all up in the first place 6 years ago by overhyping, failing to deliver the PFS and alienating the shareholders of 30% of the shares...

And even then it isn't compulsory for PIs to sell their shares until 90%

And if the bidder raises their bid, anyone who hasn't sold their shares in the market must then get the higher bid...

Even those who have 'sold' to the bidder get the higher price...

So it is in everyone's interests to:

Not panic and sell in the market on the first bid

Hold out for a higher bid even until 75%...

Thats irrelevant addickt...it doesn't become mandatory until 75%...

Surely its plain as a pikestaff that despite Nick's failings as CEO and his support for the appointment of both Darryl and Scott, he wants Scott gone (and presumably himself reinstated as CEO...)

And yet only 10 weeks ago he must have voted some of his shares for Scott because he controls 14% and Scott got 93.4%

Bizarre behaviour...

Correction DG1...they all immediately vest on a successful takeover.

The only way they would vest before that would be if the beneficiaries opted to exercise them...at losses of 7p up to over 24p...who would take that risk...?

Scott owns or has an interest in 1% or c300 million shares including options...why would he exercise and accept at 20p if he said he'd take a buck?

Just to be absolutely clear addickt...

Under the Takeover Code, 51% only gives a bidder to pass an ordinary resolution.

What resolution would we worry about? Surely one to accept a bid of 20p from Jiangxi would have to be put by them once they had the 51% but the Board still has a decision whether to support or not.

So then you're going to say Jiangxi could sack the Board. But what happens to the SP while all this is happening?

And they still need 75% of shares to effect a takeover and delist the company.

All very messy...

Which is why I think a counterbid is far more likely even before we get to that stage...

Remember Jiangxi would have to ACQUIRE the shares to get to 75%; getting shareholders to vote for an ordinary resolution doesn't mean they would then sell their shares at 20p...

And in any case, once Jiangxi got to 30% shares they have obligations:

Any acquisition taking the purchaser's shareholding to 30% or more may trigger an obligation to make a mandatory bid for the whole of the company.

A holder of 30% or more of a premium listed company's voting rights must enter into a relationship with that company intended to safeguard the company's independence.

So given the likely hostilty of most parties to a takeover by the Chinese State, how on earth would Jiangxi get to 15% without somebody selling out

And how would they even get to 10% without massive bid speculation and a surge in the SP once it was made public.

Finally, Canada has banned Chinese companies from buying Canadian mining companies, so why would Canadian shareholders of SOLG shares sell in the first place...?

CGP is wholly owned by SOLG

Why would Newmont sell for a low ball bid?

When they acquired NCM they divested all 'non strateguc' investments and kept SOLG

Who would Jiangxi acquire 51% from?

The Board would not sell them the CGP 5% at a lowball price...

Why would BHP, Newmont, Norge, Sprott, Middelkoop etc sell their shares for a low ball bid.

How would the Canadians persuade the Board to accept such a bid when, by entering into the FNV deal they have committed to building the mine...?

And if there is so much angst about a low ball bid, how many PIs would sell at 20p

To be clear...51% of shares would have to be sold...not voted...for a lowball bid...

Its pretty obvious to me that it is the PIs who are heavily underwater who worry most about a low ball bid.

I'm not...I would be disappointed if we only made £300,000 profit but hey...life goes on...

So its people like me you should worry about...if the underwater guys were going to accept a bid wouldn't they have dumped long ago...

Currently £560m...316...

No 250 is £437.1m...

So I think we're a \slam dunk...there are 15 companies under £500 million...

DG1 you've still not validated why you think Solgold could go for 20p...there may well be "many investors who would walk away at that level...."

But their total holdings don't amount to much.

As the Feb presentation shows the major holders own 54% but BHP, Newmont, DGR, Tenstar and Mather hold between them hold 34% and the CGP shares in Treasury cannot be voted so thats 39%.

So how could anyone get 75% support, especially with Nick desperately leading the charge against a low ball takeover.

And do you think the Telegram group or Rodneys group would sell at 20p...or 25 or 30p...

So please take a reality check.

A LOW BALL TAKEOVER CANNOT HAPPEN...

Precisely the opposite...

You have directly implied that you have the DD experience to pick Franco Nevada's apart.

I have given my detailed relevant experience over the years.

And I don't need your credentials for you to tell us why what your strategy is and why you are still holding when you constantly talk the shares down...

And then accuse me of being a trader as if thats a crime.

In my current holding I've paid as much as 30p but by actively managing my holding I've got my average down to c8p which is why I'm chilled...

I am indeed

As I said DG1 I have no intention of joining the Whatsapp group.

And I only suggested you post on ADVN one message so that we can be in direct contact as you suggest. You won't ever have to post again.

So I repeat Bozi. To retain my respect please answer the questions I posed:

What is your specific DD experience

What is your Mining experience and exoertise

What is your exoeruence of being a Board Member of a plc and

Why are you still holding Solgold shares when even recently you have suggested they could fall to 6p, 5p or even zero.../

I also find the Colonek's opinions extreme but at least I constructively and factually respond to opinions on here rather than demean people (and thereby yourself) the way you do...

hi dg1 thanks for your considered response.

please check back on my posts and you will see that the vast majority either post facts/research or are direct factually based refutations of baseless opinions.

do you think "your still the pompous old fool who fails to consider any one else's opinion..." wins you any friends, or indeed my respect?

instead of ****ging me off why not consider the facts in my posts and constructively point out where i am factually incorrect?

and when did i last post an opinion on the value of solgold? indeed i think the only opinion that i have consistently posted recently on the value of solg is that a 'lowball' bid would result in a bidding war; and my still firm conviction that jiangxi (i.e. the chinese state) will end up with solg...but not at 25/30p or anywhere near.

i totally respect the right of people to have their own views of solg's prospects and prospective ultimate value here.

what i fail to understand is why 'investors' like bozi who constantly post negative opinions here haven't sold up completely or at the very least cashed in with the hope of getting back in lower:

6s...5s...or even 1p...as some have suggested.

then i get pasted by bozi for being transparent in my share dealings.

i am not a trader but i have sold some shares higher in the expectation of buying back in lower as indeed i did last week at 6.73, resulting in my average now being close to 8p...

finally i am not and have no intention of being a member of either the telegram or whatsapp groups. i have had the terrifying experience of having my and my family's life threatened in the past by an 'investor' who was angry at my (correctly) predicting the bankruptcy of a quoted plc.

so although i am happily a member if rodney'spi group and am in direct contact with trusted and respected members of this board, this and the advfn board are more than enough to handle.

and for those who think i'm constantly talking up solgold, i have been frank and objective in my criticisms in the past, have sent thousands of words by email or otherwise to sean, scott, chris and christina in the last six months; and will continue to challenge unsubstantiated opinion that threatens to undermine the share price...

if you still want to communicate with me direct, please post an obvious message to me on advfn and we can establish an exchange through advfn's private mail.

cheers

So the simple fact is Bozi

You CANNOT refute the factual statements I have posted and

You still cannot give a sane justification for continuing to hold shares that you believe could even go to zero while posting wall to wall negativity every day.

Let me be clear. I do not wear rose tinted specs but...

I will continue to counter unsubstantiated OPINION presented as facts, with actual facts especially where I can post the iofficial source for the justification.

So I do not propose to filter you because you present as a voice of authority and that makes you a danger to every objective shareholder here with so many of your unsubstantiated opinions.

If you don't like it, don't rubbish me...theres no credit in that, just sell up and go away.

Nick may be trying to get the best price for Solgold. You're hellbent on destroying it and our investments with it...

Bozi..."DG1 offered a summary that was pretty damn accurate..."

He actually offered a summary that was easily refuted opinionated tosh...

Aye Adie and the 'Canucks' only own 10%...with no Director on the Board...

Rodney...I have total respect for you but don't you realise how laughable this statement is:

"A review of the most recent AR and RNSs and the share price over the last 36 months give clear reason based on fact why to be concerned about the management of Solgold."

Don't you get it?

EVERY ONE of the key decisions in the history of SOLG has had to be approved by the Board. Nick had far too much power when he was CEO and his mates packed the Board.

They've all gone.....even the idiot that HE APPROVED as CEO who, in the words of Sangha "would have bust the company".

We now have a CEO, a non Independent NED (Nick) and FIVE independent Directors responsible for Directing a UK quoted plc subject to LSE, FCA and Takeover Panel regulation.