Member Info for RodneyT

Again, without alleging any impropriety, it is notable that the Company’s update does not address several items that shareholders have reasonably been expecting further clarity on for some time, including progress on the CIPA process, the environmental licence, and the anticipated update on Hole 77. Those matters have previously been referenced as important to project understanding and valuation, yet today's announcement is silent on whether there is genuinely no new information to report, or whether updates remain pending. In that context, we may reasonably ask why a simple “no material change” statement was not provided earlier, rather than allowing uncertainty to persist.

More broadly, today's update focuses heavily on reinforcing the Scheme narrative, while leaving unaddressed the underlying sources of uncertainty that many shareholders are seeking to understand. That asymmetry naturally invites scrutiny as to whether the timing and content of the communication are designed to advance completion of the Scheme rather than to provide a balanced update on project progress.

In addition, shareholders may reasonably reflect on the fact that the Court facing Scheme documentation relies materially on a PFS that is now over two years old and applies to only a limited portion of the Company’s overall asset base, without clearly stating that it covers approximately 18% of the assets. While this does not render the Scheme documentation inaccurate, the absence of that clarification may make it more difficult for shareholders to assess how representative the referenced economics are of the wider portfolio.

We are being asked to make an irreversible decision at a time when several expected updates remain outstanding, and where the Scheme materials emphasise certainty and downside risk without equivalent engagement with those unresolved items. It is reasonable, in those circumstances, for shareholders to question whether the information environment fully reflects both what is known and what remains uncertain.

Sure, but it could be 20p, 21, 19p and so forth. In any case, we'd still own the asset and would not have sold it forever for 28p. Of course we'd need new management.

Again without alleging any impropriety, there are clear instances in which risk appears to be emphasised more heavily than strictly necessary, particularly when set against the company’s own prior disclosures and the broader governance context.

The RNS places repeated emphasis on the likelihood that failure of the Scheme would necessitate new funding on potentially dilutive terms, presenting this as an almost inevitable outcome rather than one of several plausible scenarios. That framing naturally steers shareholders toward viewing the Scheme as the only “safe” option, notwithstanding that alternative funding pathways and mitigation measures have not been ruled out in previous disclosures.

The update implicitly contrasts Scheme certainty with stand alone uncertainty, without giving equivalent weight to mitigation measures already referenced elsewhere, including cost controls, phased development, potential use of existing or future stream tranches, or asset level alternatives. This has the effect of narrowing the perceived range of choices available to shareholders at the point of decision.

While the RNS highlights delays, market volatility and the challenges facing junior miners, it does not restate ( or meaningfully engage with) the company’s more recent statements regarding liquidity runway and going concern resilience. That imbalance in emphasis contributes to a fear anchoring tone, even though the overall disclosure record is more nuanced. I have voted no and won't change my vote. I don't want to sell the assets forever at this low low price and see 'stakeholders' of JCC do nicely for decades to come.

With today's RNS in mind, if the Scheme does not proceed, there is a reasonable prospect of significant board and management change, with potential implications for existing incentive arrangements, including unvested options. This does not suggest any improper conduct, but it forms part of the broader governance backdrop against which communications during the offer period are being made, and which shareholders may reasonably take into account when assessing alignment of interests and the presentation of risk.

Needy, did you read Q126 MD&A update on funding? 15 months hence clearly stated. DGR have about faced but with a caveat to turn again. Oh Needy! You don't seem to do any homework then lash out and try to bully people who have! I have voted No and won't change. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas to they Needy? :-)

Bozi, well they would say that wouldn't they because they want the Scheme to complete. I don't want it to complete because I don't want to sell the assets forever at a fire sale price. I'd rather keep owning the assets, experience volatility and reset the business for the future. I have voted No and will not change my vote.

Agree ARO,

They seem nervy! I'm still voting No. I don't want to sell the assets for a knock down price. I am still looking at the Court facing Scheme Document to confirm whether or not it represents a full, frank and fair summary of preceding announcements such as the PFS from 2024 and only 18% of the resource being assessed. Please vote everyone because not voting is essentially a Yes for this. Please vote.

G'day Needy. Not an accusation, a fact. I have never said what you referred to. Concerning Add and DBW, their private discussions are just that and should be respected. Many people here know much more than they post. Sensible. Have you heard of libel, Needy? Also, you stating that JCC are accumulating via proxies......that is a serious allegation. Not everyone here is comfortable lashing out and running roughshod over accepted protocol and process. Risky business Needy with big sums at stake and huge multinationals involved. Still, you know best I suppose Needy 😀

Needy, a no stage did I say that. I have no idea why you made that false reference.

Needy, Just a question, please, how much work do you actually do researching Solgold as well as the current Scheme of Administration, what it says and what it doesn't say in relation to prior publicly distributed materials?

Needy, you sound desperate. What's the matter? It's a vote and I'm voting No. I don't want the assets sold at 28p - the very same assets the company's own broker targeted at 46p and the CEO targeted at 165p derisked 4 months ago since when the value of metals has soared. Simple stuff Needy. Why does it vex you so?

No, Stack, no. It's just there will be no quitting, no moaning, no apathy, no assumptions and no laziness. Oh, and I don't think there will be any 5p raises either. All to play for here - whether you like it or not Stack.

Stack, 18 days to go before the vote and slap bang in the middle of the counterbid window. Why would I be 'sweating' were 28 win the day? I'd make a good profit. No, Stack, it is to do with principles. I'm sure you've heard of those. Many of us are voting No because we do not want to sell our assets at a fire sale price. Also, the Hearing. Things are coming along nicely with the project exploring RNS announcements by the Company over the last 2 years and comparing those with the Court facing Scheme Document. What will the Court see about Solgold, Stack? There is no inevitability about the result. JCC may or may not be successful. 28p might be the price but it might not be. We small shareholders may end up having our shares exchanged for 28p or we may not. One thing for sure though is that a united group committed to voting No is making good process with its efforts. Have all shareholders been treated equally? That is the question.

Needy, Calm yourself please. Plenty of time between now and the votes and Hearing. A counterbid can indeed be announced at any moment between now and then plus there are several potential issues with information contained within the SD, what it says and does not say. These are being examined. You may have given up and quit, Needy, but large numbers of shareholders have not and don't want to sell their assets at a fire sale price. Relax! Plenty of time from here. Please vote everyone. Being against the scheme and not voting makes it easier for the Scheme to pass and thus helps the yes vote.

Needy, Calm yourself please. Plenty of time between now and the votes and Hearing. A counterbid can indeed be announced at any moment between now and then plus there are several potential issues with information contained within the SD, what it says and does

ARO, it was most odd how 'certainty' was framed yet the MD&A Q1 26 was quite clear that the company had sufficient cash for 15 months on the basis that tranche 3 was not received. The wind seemed to suddenly go out of the sail or was that sale? ;-)

Add, I think the following is correct: " The Scheme is one which an intelligent and honest shareholder, acting in respect of their own interests, might reasonably approve." This meaning fairness of process and information, and fairness of the decision-making environment i.e. NOT a merits based reassessment of price or strategy. So '28p is too low' wouldn't be a sound basis but "Shareholders were asked to vote without being clearly told that the economic framing relied on covers only a limited portion of the asset and uses specific assumptions." would be. That's my view on where fairness sits with the Scheme and Hearinfg.

Add, fairness on procedure and process, yes, 'fairness' on price, no. That's my view.

NMM, I broadly agree. Retail shareholders are being asked to vote on a sale of the entire company based on very high level statements about risk and alternative strategies, without much specificity. Most retail investors understand development risk. What’s missing is clearer information on economic scope at current metals prices and the scale of initial capital required. Unlikely to get that level of detail at this stage.

Communications to date including the shift from 26p being characterised as unacceptable to 28p being recommended have been poor, and the Scheme Document, read on a standalone basis, does not really enable retail shareholders to make an informed decision in the way a scheme is intended to. There also appears to have been little engagement with retail concerns since publication.

Given that, the only question that really matters now is how those concerns can be raised. In practice, the relevant route is the sanction hearing, where objections can be made on procedural grounds ( NB and not on valuation) that the Scheme Document is materially incomplete or framed in a way that does not fairly present the context on which shareholders were asked to vote.

My intention is to set these points out in a concise, factual way and take legal advice on whether they meet the threshold for a proper objection at the hearing. If nothing else, it seems important that the concerns of small shareholders are clearly articulated and placed on the record so the Court is aware of them when considering Sanction.

NMM, I understand the distinction you’re drawing,and agree Solg doesn’t need to publish every internal study or open the books particularly where work is incomplete. Referring back to historic market disclosures can be perfectly reasonable. The point I’m making is a bit more specific. In a scheme, the Scheme Document really matters and it’s what shareholders vote on and what the Court will mainly read. On a standalone reading, it needs to give a fair sense of the context it relies on. If the document refers to technical or economic work that only applies to part of the asset, I think it’s important that this is clear on the face of the document, rather than assumed to be picked up from earlier RNSs. Otherwise it’s easy for a shareholder to assume that analysis is more representative than it actually is.

There’s also an obvious information gap. Larger shareholders and advisers will have more technical insight into the asset and the alternatives. Retail shareholders don’t, and the Scheme Document is meant to help bridge that gap.

If nothing material has changed in terms of risk or outlook over recent months, then that’s fine. But if something has, it needs to be communicated consistently.

That’s why I think this is something the Court could reasonably be interested in , not to debate value, but to be comfortable with how the information has been framed.