Member Info for NotMuchMoney

ProfitSniffer - Friday was NOT a deadline...

o Day 53 is from publication of the SCHEME DOCUMENT, not the original bid, so that is still ages away

o Under a Scheme of Arrangement, any potential bidder must clarify any intention to bid 7 days prior to Solgold's shareholder meeting.

(Very clear in Section 4 Appendix 7 of Takeover Code)

So 5pm Monday is the 'soft' deadline.

But as I have posted before, under a Scheme of Arrangement, offers can arrive up to, and even after, the general meeting and Court date.

ProfitSniffer - I believe the 'deadline' is actually Monday at 5pm. i.e. after-hours:

The usual Day 53 PUSU is from publication of Scheme document, not the Board's recommendation. So Day 53 is not relevant as it is after the general meeting / Court scheme.

Instead any potential bidder must clarify intention to bid 7 days prior to Solgold's shareholder meeting.

(Section 4 Appendix 7 of Takeover Code)

It has also been suggested to me that any undeclared bidder could bid up to, and even after, the general meeting and Court date. This is considered 'rare' but theoretically possible, with Board and Takeover Panel approval.

So there is still some time for this to play out.

Quady - best of luck with your future endeavours.

Just to ask about ORIT and NESF as had seen them as high dividend payers...

They are both about 50% down over last 5 years. Are they both not sacrificing capital growth to retain the high dividends?

AROK - how often do you think fund platforms (ii, HL, AJ Bell etc.) provide proxy voting details to the Intermediary / Registrar?

Rodney, it's a 2 minute job to read section 5.2 of the Gold Stream agreement with Franco/Osisko. That shows the CPs for the third installment.

Probably also reading section 5.1 for the incomplete items (that Franco waived) from second installment.

Rodney - some are not here for the research or debate but simply to wind up and waste genuine investors' time.

Re: your "what happened to tranche 3" comment... you know what the tranche 3 CPs are from the Franco scheme document.

You remember the debate late last year where some posters said it looked likely they would be missed, but you said you believed they would arrive in Q4?

We're clearly a while away from those milestones, and it doesn't appear (from yesterday's RNS) that Franco are keen on issuing more waivers to advance that payment before the milestones are met.

Rodney, why do you clog up the board, and take up your valuable time, replying to the idiot?

If you've got key items to prepare for the Court hearing, better to focus on them than an Aussie troll?

Rodney - hole 77 was covered in today's update (bottom of RNS).

Much more material items we need clarity on progress towards tranche 3 milestones, CIPA, regional spin-out etc.

Apologies, in my final sentence below I put "Or"; I probably should have written "And".

Rodney - appears the end-Sep MD&A can go in the shredder. The Going Concern statement said sufficient funding for 15 months, including permitting and study activities. The going concern statement also considered a downside scenario (cough cough, i.e. reality...) where there were delays meeting the Franco conditions precedent. 15 months funding / going concern still fine.

But now the Board say they need cash by end-June.

The Board say the need is the 'ongoing development' of Cascabel. It's not - it is study activities that should have already been considered as part of the end-Sep forecast.

The Board's ability to go from marketing mode to doom-and-gloom mode is shocking. Or they simply lack competence.

Agreed Damers - the upside outweighs the downside.

There could (and should given the fundamentals and metals market) be a counter-bid in the next week.

If not, JCC may be successful with 28p and investors get money back at these levels.

If Scheme fails, there is some uncertainty. JCC could go hostile, get to 50%, but to do that they would need to buy out BHP/NEM/Maxit etc. And when crossing the 30% holding level would be obliged to make another offer at the highest price paid over last 12 months. I can't see BHP/NEM/Maxit selling for less that 28p, so that locks-in the 28+p in my view.

The riskiest option is Scheme fails, JCC walk away (however likely) and Solgold need to find a new Board (and likely cornerstone investors) who want to take it forward. It SHOULD be worth more as it derisks, studies and contruction are progressed. But depends on a number of (unknown to retail) factors.

I'd much rather a quick and slightly higher takeout now.

Thanks addicknt. I've joined the Solgold Chat on Telegram if you can drop me a private message (same moniker as here), many thanks.

Apols, trying to multi-task...

addicknt, no I'm not on Telegram. Have been tempted in the past, but appreciate the anonymity of these boards, and not sure it is the same with Telegram.

Worried I'd muck up the privacy settings and then be targetted by some of the 'more vocal' posters!

I'll see if I can set it up this weekend...

A

Thanks addicknt.

Good luck with your other shares. I have a holding in OMI from the last time it was up at 35p; I don't post over there as frankly SOLG has been enough!

A few more weeks here and I'm either much richer or incredibly disappointed; it appears that binary.

Morning addicknt.

Any regrets about cashing-in and moving to alternative investments?

Re: your post, is there anything you have discovered recently that would impact the ability of SOLG to go it alone should the vote be a 'No'?

I agree a rival offer is looking less likely, but after all the time invested I can suffer another week or two wait.

At risk of sounding like Mad Jack, Rio Tinto abandoning their merger with Glencore means they have just over a week to get a bid in for Solgold!

Rio were one of my favourites to get involved, moreso now they know BHP and NEM would be happy to step aside for 28p.

Adieuk - where is the RNS saying Maxit have increased please?

Of course, could be another signal to market to say a competitive bid would be supported.

But we've known that for a while now.

Swanley, if DGR are playing nice, why not avoid the previous statements about undervaluing?

The last week has made DGR appear they don't know what they're doing. An ongoing trend.