Member Info for NotMuchMoney

Multi-billion dollar games being played / will be played over coming months.

If the Board gamble (assuming JCC makes the offer) fails, no-one else comes in, and sells for 28p, sure I'll feel "played".

From a 'management have been rubbish and focused on de-risking their exit rather than the asset' perspective.

But I'll be more disappointed in the market / western majors if they are happy for this to go cheap to the Chinese.

I've researched and been invested too long to watch this from the sidelines.

Great knowledge Bozi!

https://www.juniorminingnetwork.com/junior-miner-news/press-releases/368-tsx-venture/cgp/25780-cornerstone-capital-resources-re-commences-at-cascabel.html

Even some pics of the man portable drilling by HP Hubbard Perforaciones SA:

https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/2316W_-2017-2-7.pdf

(Above made me chuckle - Cornerstone drilling Tandayama targets in Q4 2016!)

Nice to see, but unclear if this Canadian investor is a new 1%er, or just late in filing Form 8.3?

Fjw999 - if a PI sold based on a fund buying £10k of shares (one of the RNSs) I don't have much sympathy.

The issue is lots of retail don't try to understand the information contained in common RNSs.

There are typically pretty basic stuff - dates, amounts, changes.

Just late filing of small changes for someone holding >1%.

And as Swanley says, they have increased holding - 1.33% to 1.44%.

Fort - another 2-3 years with this (or similar) management? No thanks.

It's just been a demonstration of them being out of their depth. Both in terms of progress, and managing key stakeholders (BHP) and risks (JCC low-ball).

Lots that should have been delivered by Q4, but here we are.

I'd take an enforced auction and majors paying what is 'fair' in the current hot metals market.

If it goes for 28p, then I'd ask myself why majors do not think worth more. Inertia? Possibly. Govt/politicial challenges? Probably.

Agreed addicknt. And that would include clarity on CIPA, challenges with concession fees, progress to third tranche of funds (including power supply).

And anything else going on that would make them minded to recommend a 28p offer.

Orthern - I don't understand the reason for today's DGR/NM Form 8.3 correction.

The (share) numbers match those RNSd on 10th Dec.

Just some regulatory housekeeping?

Fort - why risk blocking the Chinese? And the further (short term) chaos it would cause?

Seems like the only option now is to put a 28p+ JCC bid to shareholders, and then hope for competing bid(s).

Find out who is interested and at what price. If no-one, you've got to ask yourself why.

Do you really think SOLG can go it alone? Particularly with disinterested major shareholders?

C5,000 people at FCA

500,000+ workers in the square mile

Then all the e-traders, share platforms, forums etc.

Hi RICH3R

I don't want Dan and Co to get on wrong side of Takeover Panel. There is a clear rulebook to be mindful of.

Re: FCA 'teeth'? So much opportunity for foul play and misinformation in current markets, the cost of FCA investigating everything (and any PI grievance) would be astronomical.

Dan needs to be very careful, given City Code and what he says to some shareholders and not others.

Information needs to be made available to all shareholders at the same time.

So surely an RNS would be the starting point? Justifying why Board would be 'minded to recommend' 28p. He can't say much 'in private' to PIs?

My view is release everything you can now. At the moment we don't have a second bidder.

Get a formal PFS update out that shows how much difference TAM can make to capex/financials. That could bring others (mid-tier) to the table.

But I still feel the Protection Agreement is key. Potential bidders will surely be asking 'why is it not signed? what does the Govt not like?'

I believe Jiangxi struck when they did because they knew it would be a month of limited news.

i.e. CIPA delayed for whatever reason / incorporating TAM into PFS takes a while / ExploreCo on hold due to concession fees.

I really hope something materialises before 26th Dec. As it should do, based on all the things 'due' by the end of Q4.

But based on Board's expressed surprise/disappointment at current position, I'm not sure.

Hi Orthern

We did have the TAM MRE update less than 3 weeks ago. This was a major update, albeit felt a bit rushed.

Was expecting that to quickly lead to a revised PFS, or at least an RNS setting out revised mine design and potential to reduce required capex / increase NPV/IRR etc.

The Letters of Intent should also be on the Solgold website by now, but they are not.

https://solgold.com/investors/possible-offer-terms/

From Friday RNS:

"a copy of this announcement, the BHP Letter of Intent, the Newmont Letter of Intent, the Maxit Letter of Intent and the Nicholas Mather Letter of Intent will be available on the website of SolGold at www.solgold.com, and of JCC at https://en.jxcc.com/ promptly and by no later than 12 noon (London time) on the business day following this announcement"

Bozi - re: your 19:51...

Actually ALL on the letters of intent are Non-Binding.

They are on the JCC website if you want to read them.

https://en.jxcc.com - then INVESTOR > Possible Offer for Solgold Plc

Thanks add (I'll frame that).

Too many wannabe Corporate Finance / Takeover Panel know-it-alls here. What did they do before AI.

Mattlilly - I'm afraid your

"Meanwhile Solgold are PRECLUDED from issuing any information whatsoever that might affect the perceived value of the company or influence shareholders on whether to accept a Formal Bid when it emerges...hence why its so quiet..."

is WRONG.

Of course Solgold can announce new information during a Rule 2.6 (Put Up or Shut Up) period.

Otherwise they would be effectively gagged. Whilst doesn't allow a fair and reasonable bid defence / valuation.

Bozi - do you think the 75% approval under a Scheme of Arrangement makes any difference?