Member Info for NotMuchMoney

Pbow - excellent fact-based research as usual.

The problem with that article is it emphasises potential buyers being put off by politicial and country risk.

And looking at the developments since election first round, it doesn't seem to be improving too much:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Ecuadorian_general_election#Results

Very much appears Louisa Gonzalez is going after (and making progress obtaining) the Pachakutik vote.

Lots of accusations and counter-accusations of fraud and criminal activity.

Correa "emphasized that January 2025 set a new record for criminal activity, surpassing all previous highs."

Probably lots of election mudslinging. But not a good look if Solgold are trying to sell their prized asset this year.

RR - unclear to me why DC was the moron. His 'next cab off the rank' approach seemed perfectly reasonable to me.

In fact, quoting the AFR review (link at bottom):

"Mr Cuzzubbo’s strategy was to “remain open” to a compelling offer, but not pursue a sale at all costs.

His claim suggests there was a “competing strategy” pushed by some, including SolGold director and substantial shareholder Nick Mather, to reduce investment in the project and maximise the prospect of selling Cascabel."

Remind me how the Strategic Review / reduced spending has gone? Feels like 2 years of doing nothing, only to revert back to DC's 'remain open but progress regardless' approach. But with no cash left to progress regionals.

www.afr.com/companies/mining/sacked-ceo-sues-solgold-for-breach-of-contract-20231212-p5equr

Wasn't the court case / tribunal due to be in Australia? Where DC is?

No reason they couldn't speak to lawyers remotely to settle.

My opinion is that any decent chairman would want this sorted and out the way before they join.

I think the RNS is quite clear the Board, indeed, acted improperly.

Suspect that RNS was part of the settlement agreement?

To be honest, I thought this had all been agreed months ago?

InvestorPanda - if your medication is 3 times a day then your lunchtime pill is now overdue.

Hi DG1 - not seen the 'change of control' terms, but Annual Report does highlight on change of control some STIP/LTIP could be impacted at discretion of the Board.

Would seem sneeky if they were all to be exercisable on a change of control (whatever the price). May well explain the low strike and tiered vested conditions, rather than layers at different strikes you'd normally expect.

Hmmmmm.

DG1 - a reminder, Scott's options are:

Nothing below 25p

Only 50% awarded when SP is 25p (strike of 17p)

100% awarded when SP is 35p (strike of 17p)

He is heavily incentivised to get 35p+

Redknight - you always bang on about verifiable facts, all your research and knowledge etc.

But take just one of today's 'facts':

"There are 119 million options outstanding (4% of MCap). Every single one is 'out of the money'. The average exercise price is 23p..."

There are actually 73.1 options outstanding (clearly shown in Note 11b in the recent MD&A).

Everyone makes mistakes. But you are a buffoon who preaches to others, and filters those who try to highlight your errors.

Suspect you'll say "angels on the head of a pin" or similar. My point is this is just one very quick item that was obviously wrong. There are many others.

I don't have the time, or will, to try to highlight everything you get wrong. Safer I just filter you.

Whilst 25p-30p is well below what many LTHs hope for, current leadership team have 'created' an opportunity where the market, and themselves, can buy for sub-7p.

A 300% return in 6-18months? I intend to take advantage of that opportunity.

Also, a reminder, Scott only gets 100% of his options when SP is greater than 35p. That's more indicative of the minimum Scott is working towards imho.

Hi Bozi. I'm not in the mining industry, but try to research similar projects to Cascabel to compare financials and risks.

Not much comparable given the potential Tier 1 status of Cascabel.

Can you name 3 peers, i.e. of similar scale, that would surpass Cascabel? The IRRs and NPVs from projects I've seen recently aren't any better; factor in current metals prices and Cascabel financials appear fantastic?

Sure, higher initial capex, and a riskier jurisdiction, but the project is strong. Open pit potential at Tandy or Blanca is just a 'bonus'?

Please can someone ask redknight for any evidence at all to support his statement:

"They now have several more parties in the dataroom beyond the original ten. These are Cos that have signed a NDA."

Anything. Any evidence at all. Thank you.

Hi Swanley, each to their own, but in Dec-2015 there were c820m shares in issue, rather than c3,000m now.

I don't see how Technical Analysis can use a price from then to inform a 'bottom'.

Either way, good luck, and I agree on accumulating at these levels.

Fort, re: burying on a Friday, I disagree on that one.

Today is simply the latest date it can be filed (it could be filed later today in Canada, then we would have a UK RNS on Monday morning).

Joking aside, I do wonder what the rest of the team are contributing.

What has Dan in particular done in last few years?

Steve? John? Charles?

Fort, re: Scott's slow progress, you need to be fair...

We have no idea how good the Wi-Fi is in the business lounge for his weekly flights to Florida.

Pbow - absolutely. Critical path certainly appears 'critical'.

I hope Solgold are working on some contingencies. Given previous track record, plus unpredictability in Ecuador.

Addicknt - I'm amazed at the comments about some frustrations between Nick / management.

I didn't pick up on that from initial comments following meet and greet.

We all hope Nick is the PI saviour. But he strikes me as the sort of character that will do whatever he needs to maximise his investment / protect DGR.

Sometimes it would be nice to wake up to +ve Solgold developments instead of more concerns and unanswered questions.

Bye JBCo, don't rush back. We have enough people here already pumping about imaginary 18m trades, large orders being filled etc.

DBW - "Scott mentioned that we would probably draw the second tranche “very early Q1” and was confident that all milestones needed would be met"

Scott is starting to appear a bit of a slippery fish. He could well justify "early Q1" to be Q1 of Solgold's financial year - i.e. July.

The current Corporate presentation shows Q2 25 for the 2nd trance. Given the FS has slipped from H2 25 (in corporate presentation) to Q1 26 (Redcloud) could the 2nd tranche also be slipping? July looking more likely than February.