Member Info for rcgl2

Hey Zoros... I have occasionally had a look at the GGP board but I find it hard to keep up as a non-follower, the rate of posting seems to be about 10 a minute. I didn't mean to trigger a completely OT discussion of GGP on this board, I wanted to use it as a comparison to Solgold... especially as it keeps popping up in that context. So go on, live on the edge and post it here!

GGP, not CGP!!

Haha but so many people keep saying that Solg should not try to take Alpala to production. If we don't get taken over wholesale, we can discuss alternative routes to monetisation of the asset. If you're advocating alternative routes I think it's fair to offer up examples of what it could look like, CGP seems to provide an example. Agreed there are some major differences (jurisdiction, location etc). But it's still an explorer with a valuable asset and a JV with a major. Is it a template to be followed in terms of increasing shareholder value, or a warning of how giving away too much too soon can give you a large short term gain but ultimately put a cap on your long term value?

I know this isn't the GGP board, but since GGP and Havieron keep getting mentioned as comparators for Solg and Alpala, does anyone have any ideas/targets on where GGP goes from here? They've had a huge run up on the basis of drilling results plus JV with NCM, so lots in the ground, and a clear path to extracting and processing it. By going so fast, have they jumped from the speculative frenzy point of the curve almost directly to the production/revenue point, and bypassed the orphan period or value valley or whatever it's called? Just putting aside their other targets, they will be left with 25% of Havieron is it, how does that translate into shareholder value once production gets up and running?

What I'm getting at is, has GGP shot up so fast that it's now at or near full value and there isn't much prospect of material gains from here, or is the SP likely to keep rising? How much dilution will be required. As a comparator to Solg and Alpala, what can it tell us about whether Solg is better off doing a JV or earn-in and following a similar route or trying to keep more of the future returns for itself? It might be annoying to some seeing GGP with a similar market cap to Solg today based only on 25% of a tier 1 vs Solg's 85% of one tier 1 and potentially 100% of one or two more. But they are further down the road with that asset, if Solg can get to a similar point with 2 or 3 of its assets then presumably it should be multiples of CGP's mcap. If it can keep a much bigger percentage of each...

What broker you with? That's absolutely shocking!

"Mather's strategy is so cloak and dagger that no one knows exactly what the hell he intends to do"

Really tho? He's told us a million times!!

ToS, it is the former. Ordinary resolutions need 50% of the votes cast at the meeting. Special resolutions need 75% of the votes cast at the meeting. They don't need a majority of total shares outstanding.

Punit, what are you going to do when this does eventually hit 43.90p?

Quady, if you hold through Lloyds, that's why you got the Halifax version of the letter, Halifax being owned by Lloyds they probably just provided one combined list across different platforms.

Addicknt - having just now read the letter which came through this morning, I think you are probably right. It does seem to go on quite a bit about how important it is that the directors are re-elected, how NM's interests are aligned with ours etc. Maybe he is sweating a bit after all...

addicknt I definitely agree that it's not usual for this outreach to happen over an AGM. You may well be right... I'm just hoping that things aren't as close as it may seem as I would prefer no upsets right now. The fact NM happens to be one of the directors who is up for re-election this year is an unfortunate coincidence considering the point Solg is at now and the CGP threats earlier in the year. I guess all will be revealed when we see the voting numbers in a couple of weeks time.

Addicknt - isn't that what the circular is, where it sets out all the resolutions, why they are happening and that the board recommends voting in favour of them? On top of that, the RNS and letter to shareholders explaining the resolutions relating to share issuance and dispplication of pre-emption rights?

NM being up for re-appointment is just a run of the mill event, it happens every 3 years or whatever it is the articles require. I don't think he's worried about losing his seat on the board tbh.

Obviously if ego takes over and caution is thrown out of the window and someone massively over pays for Solg, I'm hardly going to reject their offer.

I agree, not usual to get this.

Hi addickt, I don't think the first part, that NM knows that he has BHP's backing for example, and this is just an attempt at shareholder outreach, is that much of a stretch...

Although I do think these proxy firms were hired as part of the overall takeover defences NM is building, and not just for ESG box ticking purposes. Them making a big show of encouraging PIs to vote at the AGM maintains the cover that their appointment was just for good corporate governance purposes.

Perhaps Solg are not concerned about the AGM voting at all, and don't really think they need to rely on PIs to swing it. NM is probably in touch with the major holders all the time and knows full well which way they will vote. Here's what they said in their RNS from early August:

"To accelerate the development of SolGold's Corporate Governance framework, and increase the Company's strategic shareholder engagement, the Company has appointed CMi2i and Boudicca, two leading London proxy solicitation firms, ahead of SolGold's 2020 AGM. Their mandate comprises capital market intelligence, Investor Relations, Corporate Governance and policy advice, together with strategic shareholder engagement."

What if this outreach is nothing more than them attempting to be engaged with all their shareholders, and encourage shareholders to participate more generally in the running of the company (a topic that has been discussed a lot over the last few years, especially with the rise in passive funds who don't hold boards to account).

Or, for those who like a more conspiratorial explanation, what if this is all just a dry run for the main event? They've hired CMi2i and Boudicca, what if they wanted to put them to the test and see if they can do what they say? NM knows he might need to call on PI support once the fireworks begin next year and he may have the majors against him. So he wants to see if these proxy advisors can in fact reach out to ordinary PIs and materially increase the vote. Considering the number of queries on here about how to vote our shares, its clear most PIs never bother to vote at AGMs... maybe this year they want to see the figures and how much value the proxy advisors can add... Just an idea :)

Red, you're not in GGP are you? If not, can I ask why not? From what I read on here their CEO ticks all your boxes and their JV with NCM seems to give a degree of certainty to their main asset that is not apparent yet with Solg.

Not in GGP myself, btw.

And wasn't Keith Marshall running Oyu Tolgoi for Rio? Lessons learned and same mistakes being avoided here?

Under the UK code there is a 28 day "put up or shut up" rule once a potential bid announcement has been made. The potential bidder has to make their intentions clear, make their bid or go away. I assume Solg's takeover attempt on CGP was subject to the Canadian rules rather than UK.

Significant differences in approach in different jurisdictions... as was mentioned the other day, poison pill defences are common in the US for example. In fact I believe in March when share prices tanked a lot of US companies rushed to bring in such defence measures just in case.

DBW - I think what they put in the RNS is plausible. The original delay from end of Q1 was due to waiting for geotechnical data that had been held up by Covid. The RNS today says that assessment of the new geotechnical data has necessitated a redesign of the underground infrastructure and changes to mine design etc. I think that's pretty believable, if they had a particular design in mind and expected the data to bear out that decision, but in the end the data came back suggesting something different. It's a nearly $3bn underground mine they are planning here, I assume such designs are highly complex and need a lot of input and review and it's not something you want to rush through in a hurry.

Secondly they say the Alpala project committee chaired by Keith Marshall is undertaking a review of the PFS work and drafting progress. He only joined the board in October and was brought in specifically for his substantial experience running underground mining operations. Just speculating but perhaps he was not happy to be given oversight of the Alpala build and effectively have to sign off on the development plan in the PFS without having the chance to thoroughly review it and contribute his experience where possible. Again, I think that's a pretty plausible reason for them to decide to delay publication and let Keith Marshall do his review.