Member Info for mistermeister

Also keen to know why AS left, Red...
It's not like (m)any of the directors are still around now so its water under the bridge...

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0Wppuf7d8oitU56NKTXpy2xi9yvTTuCzmNtc6Dk1i8fVBDypnmwSSQx9ieT8JpfV3l&id=100063705940234

Can anyone copy paste the MJ article here please?

Anyone got access to the article?

Quady - correction on your post. It is royalty not off take. Offtakes will tend to be settled after dfs.

Add - understand the RNS - my feeling is was this done as a verbal deal in the background with NM and CGP,? We will never know although I suspect so.

Add - I see DCs departure as per of the deal - get SC in place before the merger is official. Not necessarily unhappy ship but part of the process of agreement between CGP and SOLG

How on earth a company is supposed to conduct a strategic review with no permanent CFO or CEO is beyond me- so agree with RK this has Nicks and CGP fingerprints over it.
What will happen I am not sure although my guess is the review is well advanced and the outcome is known.

Sorry posted wrong link use this one - relevant text "Unlike streaming agreements which contemplate the sale and purchase of precious metals, offtake deals are typically used in connection with base metals, which have a more complex and lengthy supply chain involving bulk transport and refining."
https://www.canadianminingjournal.com/featured-article/offtake-agreements-and-financing-mine-projects/#:~:text=Unlike%20streaming%20agreements%20which%20contemplate,involving%20bulk%20transport%20and%20refining.

Fort / SM - sorry to split hairs, but offtake and streaming are considered different. I spoke to IR some time back and they informed that BHP and others also do offtake deals and are not adverse to them. These are generally done after DFS (Such as Bolinden). They are more against royalty deals. Please see a good article...
https://seekingalpha.com/article/2561245-royalties-vs-streams

Q, which is why I said delete as applicable. Thanks for raising your view interested in all other views also. If they tested the market and it was not suitable (for BHP and NC). Why would this be suitable for BHP and NC? It wouldn’t.

Begs the question as to what was the funding package which as “failed/tested the market” (delete as applicable). Must have been different if they have gone ahead now regardless with streaming?

Does anyone know based on this royalty deal what is the implied valuation per share? Is this what DC was getting at at his 78p per share?

Orthen correct - although this looks like it is a bunch of Sanghas mates!

Add - 100% agree. He is certainly it getting my votes at AGM. On a different topic Twiggers reason for not putting directors up for re-election last year was that he did not want to destabilise the board. Ironically the bird is very different now to then anyway…

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6987926918599757824?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios

Nick posted this.
Mr Mather commented,

"DGR Global is strongly supportive and welcomes the normalising of the Cascabel ownership and Board representation in SoGold.

DGR Global looks forward to the restoration of shareholder value as a result of the merger and outcomes pursuant to the strategic review process".
Nice :-)

I am not positive on the board - I still think lack of exploration is a strategic miss.
Communications have been terrible.
The [failed] funding episode.
And quite simply the low share price.
Nick M gets my vote - simply as he is aligned and has skin in the game.

And the presentation on page 3 talks about
"Strategy : Applying the Cascabel blueprint for further discoveries in Ecuador" - yet they have stopped exploring.

100% agree Add

If the failed (not failed for some on here) fundraise did not please NCM and BHP, I dont understand why they could not have done a cash box style raise and added the likes of Wyloo to the shareholder register. After all if we offered and they did not participate then what is the issue?