Member Info for NotMuchMoney

The 'former Cornerstone' options were already disclosed in the Financial Statements (Note 23) a few weeks ago.

Nothing new. They are separate to Scott's options.

In fact, they have reduced from 23.4m last year to 17.1m currently.

As DJG says, no big deal - c100m of options which are immaterial. Plus, if exercised, Solgold generates some cash - the shares have to be bought by option holder initially.

DBW - to be fair, Jack and needalife have hardly helped the Australian cause here!

I understand you have regular contact with Jack but I struggle to understand why. You surely see how much of a disruptor and how rude he is here. Perhaps his real-life persona is completely different?

In terms of his daily speculation and contradicting ideas, there is usually no justification or evidence. Often contradicting what the company has explicitly stated.

No doubt one guess will eventually be correct though, and we'll never hear the end of it.

Hi Bozi. I initially thought the same - that CFO would have needed to be mentioned upon purchase of shares.

So I dug a little deeper...

Note 23 in the Financial statements shows 30m of share options granted during 2025 (on 11th April). From 11th April RNS, 15m are Dan's at 7p, 5m are Stackhouse at 6.58p. But Note 23 shows 15m at 6.58p, i.e. another 10m to that in RNS.

The 'unreported' 10m appears to have been awarded to "Other members of management". So Ryan Wilson (Legal)? Christina Robinson (Comms)? Christina Weber (Solgold Finance AG) etc?

So I'll have to correct my earlier comment - more likely to be one of management team. Hopefully we'll get clarity when options are exercised.

Immaterial in the grand scheme of things. But always interesting to know if still in a closed period or not.

Addicknt; I suspect Chris Stackhouse, from his April 2025 award.

He was awarded 5m, one slice of these vested in April 2025 - 1,666,667 at 6.578p.

https://solgold.com.au/solgold-plc-announces-director-pdmr-shareholding-13

Timing would make sense, given just published annual report / accounts.

Surprised he has not been named (as CFO), but presume he would be named when he sells.

Jack - how many geopolitical (Trump, Putin, Xi... now Milei) and corporate events (Zijin, BHP, Dundee...loads more...) have you now said a Solgold takeover depends on?

You're crackers.

Agreed addicknt.

If you've been meeting with Govt / MEM Dan, give us an update!

This is the #1 item - as it impacts big investment from II and is likely holding up ExploreCo plans.

I would argue that only mentioning the Supervision and Control Fee challenges within a MD&A is a bit disingenuous. Given MD&A says Solgold consider the levy "unconsititutional" and "has filed legal challenges" (consistent with rest of industry).

Equally - get on with it Ecuador. If you want a successful mining industry, employment and tax take, you need to clearly show you really support it.

ProfitSniffer, fair play.

Did you use Dan's @solgold email, or via LinkedIn / Twitter etc?

ProfitSniffer - on Wednesday night you posted...

"Is there an RNS lodged this week on TAM? Yes there is

Is it tomorrow? I couldn't possibly comment or I will be accused of all sorts. But take your pick."

You seem to have been very unlucky with your inside scoop on RNSs recently. Are you sure you are looking at the correct database?

Rodney - I completely disagree with your understanding.

CIPA is the Contruction Investment Protection Agreement. (An extension of IPA and AIPA already granted; see 1st May 2025 RNS).

Consulta y Participación Ambiental is completely different - this is Ecuador's Environmental Consultation and Participation process. ESIA is submitted as part of this.

You've made some pretty strong statements about expectations around CIPA without actually knowing what it is.

Rodney - please see my 10:14 post.

I believe you are confusing CIPA with permitting. Which is quite fundamental.

Hi Fort, 2 quick thoughts:

CPs for tranche 3 are clearly set out in the PSA. The question is, I think, how many of these will be waived in Q4.

A full-year MD&A was produced (much to my surprise). And docs added to SEDAR. Perhaps this was a 'continue to produce reports to the end of the company's financial year once delisted from TSX' requirement. Will be interesting to see what Solgold produce for any Q325 filing.

Thank you Damers, that is good to know.

Hi Damers

(Fairly) recent attempts to contact the company have been met with no reponse.

As Rodney suggests, I don't believe Dan would be able to give an update on CIPA personally without updating the market. And MD&A would have been a very recent opportunity.

I know you've been clear on your confidence on CIPA arriving soon. Have you had confirmation firsthand? (and feel free to not reveal your source or say not willing to answer).

Anyhow Rodney, would be interested to know why, in your opinion, the CIPA is the same as permit applications?

Not at all Rodney.

There are some who may want more information than others. I put myself in that camp.

Others may feel less is acceptable. And imply that querying why some info has not been mentioned is somehow scaremongering.

To be asked by multiple posters if I'm happy with recent progress and my investment suggests a challenge.

You don't think I've been challenged as a de-ramper over the last week???

And the change in message is always the same. Recent progress is good, DV has been excellent etc. etc. I know, and have not disagreed.

Morning addicknt.

Re: your 7:36, on CIPA not being mentioned in Dan's LinkedIn, yes I raised that specific point on Monday evening.

But I was challenged on making that point.

As a key milestone I would like Solgold to provide more clarity. Others on here don't feel that is required and all is well.

Morning Rodney, I think you are getting permitting and CIPA confused in your 9:21 post. They are not the same item.

" submission of final permit applications (in other words the CIPA package) targeted for late 2025"

"with CIPA filing expected around the same time"

Permits relate to construction (e.g. site infrastructure, tailings, pipeline). They can be applied for, and approved, without any IPA.

CIPA is simply the protection agreement with Govt, covering full construction costs for project.

Of course, in practice a company (and its investors) would not want to spend $bns on a project where there was a risk of a Govt U-turn. Hence obtaining assurance, potentially special terms (e.g. tax) and opportunity for international arbitration on any dispute. Via the CIPA.

... but this is all separate to permitting, and timelines can be very different.

Hi DBW.

Yes, I'm happy with the change in direction and very decent progress over last 3 months. Noting I agree with Dan (the other Dan...) we're significantly undervalued at this stage.

I still believe the company could do a bit more in terms of comms and clarity of timescales. But that just reflects the type of investor I am - I prefer to base expectations around what the company has committed to, and updates progress on.

In terms if CIPA, all I did earlier was ask a question why Dan didn't mention this in his LinkedIn post. He is surely aware of shareholder interest in CIPA from messages to him.

It is a key near-term event that will likely encourage significant investment.

I have noticed a few on here call me out when I ask questions. My positive posts and examples are welcomed, but anything around the 'unknowns' or questions is frowned upon?

It does feel like the atmosphere on the board has changed.

RodneyT - perhaps. But ExploreCo is quite a significant change in messaging - 1 year difference - whether a 'typo' or not.

That's fine. I'm not going to re-open the 'why wasn't it mentioned in MD&A' debate. We simply don't know, but appeared a reasonable opportunity to mention something.

Christina Robinson was mentioned earler (Director - Operations and Comms).

Has anyone had replies from the Solgold Investor Relations mailbox recently? Are they starting to use that again?