Member Info for RodneyT

His posts over the weekend upset people I guess. Someone on here might be able to use their IT skills to retrieve this from the Web. Trouble is, post it here and that person will be cancelled too. Note that libel has to be proven in Court. Also, what if what was said by Stas is actually bang on anc correct? Who is to say that it isn't?

Mr Cotter already has all of the material presented here by Stas before he was cancelled. I would imagine Stas has Mr Cotter's email address so that all his past, present and future work can go directly to CAG's legal representative. Stas' work so far is therefore not in vain and I'm sure we will all continue to benefit, albeit circumstantially, from Sta's tireless, fearless pursuit of truth, justice and a fair outcome for all innocent shareholders.

Stas was, is and always will be free, as we all are, to state his opinion and refer to facts. The latter is, of course, quite different to 'libellous' remarks. As far as I am aware, whether what any of us say which could be potentially libellous can only be determined as such in court. It is a great shame that Stas has been cancelled here. He is a courageous poster who contributes much to the debate via his work ethic, intelligence and integrity. Gone but not forgotten, nay, never forgotten.

Absolutely spot on in my opinion, pbow. Solgold has a clear opportunity with Tandy to kick start things both on the ground and financially. Put another way, 'if they can, why would't they'? With gold at its current price and the world as it is, Solgold could move swiftly on by developing Tandy. Happening sooner rather than later and certainly before Feb 2025 would likely please Mr Noboa too.

We have got cash to develop Tandy,though, and the open pit nature of that along with the increasing price of gold makes this option a plausible one. Attractive to Mr Noboa too - something to show the Electorate.

Good question, Steve. Mr Cotter will be setting up a 'secure portal' very soon. As soon as this is available, CAG will announce this. In the meantime, it is strongly recommended that any ideas or evidence folk have is either sent directly to Mr Cotter or to the CAG email address and not posted or shared elsewhere. So important.

Good morning Lew, CAG has always been of the mindset that 'we've only just got started' and that remains the case today. The quest has always been 'a fair result for all innocent shareholders' and that will not change. Michael Cotter is an impressive person. We are very lucky to have him representing us and you will see him becoming centrestage more and more going forward. As a group, we need to keep alert, keep the work rate up, give and evidence or ideas we have straight to Michael Cotter and press on.

Meant to say 'bid' rather than 'bit'. Apologies.

Quady,

We have very different views on many things but I've always enjoyed our exchanges.

Concerning Cascabel, recent events have supported your long held view that the Company will proceed to production unless a bid comes in that is acceptable to those who can decide. Take the current position, there is nothing stopping the Company starting open pit activities ( for gold in particular) at Tandy which is part of Cascabel and therefore allowable under the recent agreement. It wouldn't cost much relative to block caving and the recent increase in the price of gold helps feasibility. Meanwhile, Cascabel can be derisked generally. Suddenly, a bit could come. This is all my opinion only but it falls into line with the sketch you have set out for years. Others have been sure that Solgold 'would never produce at Cascabel'. They forgot one or two key factors.

Did GLR receive the second payment?

There's an RNS for the first one but how about this one?

Any guidance would be appreciated. Thank you

I don't have strong views on the climate subject myself, Quady, and, in any event, I don't think we should cover the topic in detail here. As a matter of interest rather than disussion, you may wish to assess this article and consider it for reflection. It seems to be emotionally charged for many but, as I say, I don't have strong views myself. I would say that I prefer listening to talking and that I relish the chance to learn about the opinions of others as well as facts that are new to me. https://clintel.org/nobel-prize-winner-dr-john-f-clauser-signs-the-clintel-world-climate-declaration/

I share your views completely, Stas. Know this: firm steps have already been taken during the last few hours and CAG will not be doing nothing during the next few days.

Summit is a partnership and a highly successful one. Huge turnover and strong recurring income. If the partners perceive the potential for significant and enduring reputational risk (which could affect not only prospects but existing business and profits too) do we think that they would entertain the idea of 'winning a bit less' and so significantly reducing risks perceived? The 'cost' would be small in the picture of things, the benefit would be valuable - a strengthening of the Firm's foundations and recurring income.

Let's just see what happens over the next few days. Plenty to play for. Don't jump to conclusions just yet.

There are rumours that SC and Solgold will not, in fact, present today at the Hannam event. If this is true, how would we interpret this? It would suggest that the Company does not see the meeting as important at this time. Time will tell.

They are likely to lose all in COPL, yes, in COPL,........

Happy to be corrected Ad, thank you. Always pays to listen as one can learn things one does not know already. I've learned this today so thank again. I was not aware of this UK incorporation. I am now. This means that TOP rules do indeed apply in my view.

Thanks ad. I spoke directly with the Takeover Panel within the last 3 months about a separate matter. The issue of country of incorporation (not listing) was raised by them. They made it clear that there was nothing they could do unless the company in question was UK incorporated and , if it was not, the Takeover Panel rules did not apply. Unless Solgold could be deemed 'UK incorporated' via Companies House in some way or the rules have changed then I stick with my view.

Takeover Panel rules only apply to UK incorporated companies, Jack. Solgold is incorporated in Australia so the Takeover Panel rules do not apply. This is not to say that you are right or wrong in your thesis.

A good point to make, Red, and a sound one. Let's see what happens over the next few days. I think we can all be clear; Solgold has never had any problem raising funds when it has needed to. In this space, many companies do struggle to do so.