Member Info for RodneyT

Covgaz, I don't want to sell my 'house' at a fire sale price. I would rather struggle to pay the 'mortgage' and keep it. I don't want to sell at a fire sale price forever and see option holders walk away with around $ 18.2 million; mostly divided between 3 directors and a corporate adviser. I don't want these things which is why I am voting Against.

Ad,

Having looked at today's RNS's, I would say that serious money is treating this as a live event with optionality and not a done deal at 28p, but also not proof of 'insider info'. Just my opinion.

PS, I was a little perplexed :-) Fair play to you. Spoofed me! Just voted on HL, AJ Bell and Interactive Investor. All Against. 1 more to do which I will do now. None of them are the easiest to find. HL OK, AJB 2nd II Quite tricky. If anyone needs help, let me know.

Acorn, I can't think of any strategic advantage in waiting to vote, but there are practical risks. Voting early makes sure your shares are counted and avoids nominee cut offs, tech glitches, or last minute errors. Importantly, voting early does not lock you in because, on most platforms (HL, ii, AJ Bell, Barclays), you can re-submit or amend your instruction right up to the platform’s deadline. Check your platform on the latter. It will be in the smallprint somewhere.

Gardie,

Thank you so much for posting the above and I hope you don't mind me adopting it for the next 4 weeks or so. We must vote!

Needy, what does this mean, please?

'Fortunately it doesn't make a scrap of difference.'

Please explain. What is it exactly that 'doesn't make a scrap of difference'?

Needy,

Are you recommending to all shareholders and particularly those holding via nominee accounts (i.e. pretty much all of us) to make sure they vote; regardless of whether they vote For or Against? Are you making that recommendation Needy and, if not, why not - particularly in light of your last comments?

Does that mean you are strongly encouraging folk to vote then Needy? Whether that be voting Yes or No?

Sound point in my view NMM. Of course, certain parties can do 'brilliantly well or stunningly well' as we stand. Don't think that's any of us!

Needy,

Folk here holding via nominee accounts should vote and get confirmation they have voted. This is what they should do whether it is yes or no. Not voting at all helps the Scheme so helps yes. No 'fantasy' there, Needy. I know you are angry for some reason but folk have to vote. Why don't/won't you say the same i.e. 'whether you wish to vote yes or no, please lodge your vote with your nominee account provider as soon as you can and get confirmation that you have done so '. Cut and paste that as your message if you like Needy. I don't think you will do it but surprise me! :-)

Fair question PBOW and I suspect there would be turmoil for a while with people resigning and the share price falling. As shareholders we would still own the assets though; those same assets that FN/O were happy to back and I would rather that than sell forever at 28p and see ' Stakeholders' enjoy Solgold's advancement for decades hence (as per the PS letter from Wednesday. 28p is readily available now in the market to those who see things differently. Personally, I don't care for the framing of the certainty in the Christmas Eve RNS. I'd rather own a lovely house and struggle to pay the mortgage on it than have it repo'ed.

Ship,

It is possible to re-register away from nominee account and onto the Register as an indivdual but that would have to be done before the Voting Record Time. 6pm on 19 Feb. The switch is usually slow, cumbercome and can be costly. The reality is the Value Test is where the battle is and this means shareholders with nominee accounts (i.e. pretty much all of us here) must contact our providers and vote. We must vote, simple as that. Plus we must get confirmation from the provider that our vote has been received.

At the Court Meeting, a nominee account provider is one registered shareholder, no matter how many clients it has. 1,000 nomineee clients voting NO still equals one vote by number. Unless holders are individually re-registered before the record date (which isn’t realistic now), the fight is on the 75% by value test and that’s entirely about nominee turnout. The Yes side is well-organised so they will be banking on a sloppy, chaotic, divided and timid group of PIs who don't want the deal but are talked into not bothering to vote 'because it's all over anyway and you will be happy'. Are we as a group going to cave in and gift the easy win, that is the question.

Needy, I'm not going anywhere. Staying here and seeing it through. The only objective is a fair outcome for all small shareholders. I don't believe 'ego' has anything to do with that sole goal.

Needy, there is already a steady and cohesive group in place that wishes to vote No, works hard, has legal counsel and adequate financial resources. Aren't shareholders entitled to represent their own interests as best they can as they wish? Why does this reality seem the annoy and threaten you so much? We are in the counterbid window. You are a shareholder. Don't you want to sell your shares forever at a higher price than the 28p offered?

Fear, hopelessness, quitting and not bothering to work or try. Accept your lot, conform and don't question. Is your actual name Keir, Needy? You have your work cut out here. Not sure about Australia. Maybe prospects are better there. The Yes vote are well organised and the Arbs will vote yes most likely if no counterbid comes. A strong and united No vote with all no voters voting is highly concerning for the Yes team. A squabbling and chaotic group of ho bos would be far better. Divide and conquer? Old as the hills, Needy :-) :-)

Indeed ARO and the document and rationale bear no relationship to the FN/O streaming agreement which is entirely based on resource value and multi decade cash streams and not on share price 'premium' over the last few months. Paul Smith's reference to 'stakeholders' doing so well in future with Solgold's assets in his Scheme letter is totally unsavoury and would feel like a bad joke if it were not such a serious situation.

Calm yourself, Needy, focus. We have 2 votes and a Hearing ahead. Get reading all the materials and find some new ideas. It's never too late.

Red flags, Needy? If I see proof of 10 million solgold shares held by one person, I conclude that they are likely to be well off. What would you conclude Needy? We are pressing on with trying to get a fair outcome for all small shareholders. What are you doing, Needy?

You only need funding if you intend to pursue a case. Again, no allegations are being made currently. If and I repeat if this changes and there is a case, there are many ways to fund, hybrids and litigation funding being just 2. We also have some wealthy people in our group. But all that may never happen Needy. By the way, if you do wish to join, we don't do abuse over there so you might want to mull it over before making your decision.