Member Info for RodneyT

Needy, Due process, due process. And if one believes and can prove that due process has not taken place then there will be an opportunity to present that to the Court in due course. A Judge is not interested in 'it's being sold too cheaply' and so on. Due process. This is why I am keeping a close record of day to day events. A dossier may be needed. We will get to the topic of the votes shortly and what we all need to do to make sure our votes count; particularly for those using nominee accounts which is most of us here.

Needy, Perhaps have a good look at what happened at Hurricane and learn how schemes get rejected and why. This is why I am keeping a chronological file of events since 24 Dec, day 0. Whether you like it or not, Needy, the situation at Solgold is far from over. 2 votes and a Judge's review plus a counterbid is plausible at any stage between now and then. You seem to be irritated with these simple realities Needy. The inevitability you seem to be after just isn't there. It can't be, the whole period is codified by the Takeover Panel which features due process.

PBOW, Wonder if that is the same journalist who wrote a piece for The Times the day before the S of A Hearing at Hurricane Energy saying that shareholders were about to be toast. (More power than Mr Zacaroli in his own Court apparently). The Share price rallied over 800% shortly thereafter. If what this journalist says about financing at Solgold were accurate, the latest MD &A would have to be fraudulent. I have no reason to believe that it is anything but. According to the Company itself, it had plenty of cash even if tranche 3 was not forthcoming. As for BHP paying over the odds, again, the Company's owner papers via its brokers do not corroborate that sweeping statement. The simple truth now is that we are in a perfectly credible counterbid window for the next 6 or 7 weeks. Anything could happen between now and the votes/Hearing whether the journalist in question likes that or not.

Thanks Mathers. Not sure yet. Don't miss what you have until it's gone, eh, buddy? :-) Still not convinced this just walks down the asile to the Chinese for 28p. Doesn't fit with the world we live in.

Just been looking at the MD& A

As at 30 September 2025, SolGold reported cash and cash equivalents of US$34.1m, up from US$11.8m at 30 June 2025, reflecting receipt of the US$33.3m second tranche of the Franco-Nevada/Osisko gold stream in July 2025. Net working capital at quarter-end was US$19.2m.

In the Going Concern statement, the Board confirms that this cash position funds forecast activities for at least 15 months from approval of the interim accounts, covering Cascabel permitting, feasibility work and corporate costs. The base case assumes continued progress at Cascabel sufficient to access the remaining US$33.3m tranche 3 under the gold stream, but the Directors also assess a severe downside case that assumes delays and no new external funding outside Cascabel. Even under that downside scenario, they conclude the Group has adequate resources to continue as a going concern.

In short: tranche 3 is assumed for progress in the base case but not for the business to continue as a going concern. I don't think the Company was short of cash and the MD&A backs this up. Still no news updates on all the statements made in Oct and Nov 2025. I am now finding the lack of news and perplexing shuddering to a halt following lively Q2 and Q3 activity a bit odd.

Thanks for the comments, MS. Believe it or not, I'm absolutely fine about things. Facts are facts an we can't change what has been awarded. I am keeping a close eye on the various factors connected with all this as we approach the Court hearing. Procedure and Process are extremely important and I am checking these all the time.

I’ve been having a good look at the options situation in order to estimate what these are likely to be worth should the JCC 28p offer go through as intended. Based on just under 97 million options outstanding, the'in the money' proceeds are about £13.65 million or $18.2 million (US).

Of this total, Scott Caldwell’s share is due to be £3.3 million or $4.42 million, Slobodan Vujcic’s portion of the pie is due to be £3.15 million or $4.22 million, Chris Stackhouse is due to receive £1.97 million or $ 2.64 million and other management/employee option holders £5.23 million or $7 million. NB, of that management total, £2.1 million or $2.81 million are Maxit Capital options.

The 20 March 2023 RNS announcing the appointment of Mr Caldwell and Mr Stackhouse (Both ex Guyana Goldfields) stated that ‘To secure his appointment and for retention purposes, Mr. Caldwell has been granted an exceptional award of 30,000,000 options over ordinary shares in the Company at an exercise price of £0.17 per share that are tied to specific performance criteria which will be assessed at the end of the vesting period. SolGold is committed to ensuring executive compensation is aligned with the best interests of all shareholders.’

The share price at that time was 17p. As of today (at just under 28p) this would be a 64% increase over the period. Over the same period, the Van Eck Junior Gold Miners ETF (SEDOL BQQP999) has increased in value by 227%.

The options granted come with various caveats about vesting periods and so on but page 94-96 of the latest Annual Report says that ‘on a change of control, including a Scheme of Arrangement or recommended takeover, all unvested options and LTIP awards vest in full, subject only to limited Remuneration Committee discretion.

Bear in mind that option holders have not risked their capital over the period in order to secure this opportunity and have similarly not had to factor in opportunity cost of their capital.

Of the $18.2 million that would crystallise on completion, 77.1% of this is due to be paid to Maxit Capital, Scott Caldwell, Slobodan Vujcic and Chris Stackhouse.

Stack, I seem to recall there was also 'a simpleton' here urging folk to hold off and wait for ' the raise at 5p'. Don't know what happened to the fella. Do you?

No deadline all fhe way until the vote as things stand. Most counters come before the S o A is published but not all do.

NMM,

I think the US-manager point is fair, but the conclusion doesn’t follow. Under DTR 5, if JPM had crossed back below 5%, the TR-1 would have had to disclose a disposal and state the resulting less than 5%. Today's RNS does neither. “Below minimum threshold” in the template just means no new band was crossed — not that they fell below the last one. Also, the suggestion that JPM could now be at 4.99% or lower doesn’t work under DTR 5. A move from above 5% to below 5% is itself a notifiable threshold crossing and would require the TR-1 to disclose a disposal and state the resulting percentage - less than 5%. Today's RNS does neither, so it can’t be read as implying 4.99% or less. My opinion is that today was a technical follow on and that JPM are unchanged in their position.

NMM,

Today's RNS does neither. “Below minimum threshold” in the template just means no new band was crossed — not that they fell below the last one. Also, the suggestion that JPM could now be at 4.99% or lower doesn’t work under DTR 5. A move from above 5% to below 5% is itself a notifiable threshold crossing and would require the TR-1 to disclose a disposal and state the resulting percentage (

NMM,

Messaging problems this end, sorry.

I think the US-manager point is fair, but the conclusion doesn’t follow. Under DTR 5, if JPM had crossed back below 5%, the TR-1 would have had to disclose a disposal and state the resulting % (

NMM,

I think the US-manager point is fair, but the conclusion doesn’t follow. Under DTR 5, if JPM had crossed back below 5%, the TR-1 would have had to disclose a disposal and state the resulting % (

NMM,

I think the US-manager point is fair, but the conclusion doesn’t follow. Under DTR 5, if JPM had crossed back below 5%, the TR-1 would have had to disclose a disposal and state the resulting % (

I think the US-manager point is fair, but the conclusion doesn’t follow. Under DTR 5, if JPM had crossed back below 5%, the TR-1 would have had to disclose a disposal and state the resulting % (

NMM, I think your US manager point is fair, but the conclusion doesn’t follow. Under DTR 5, if JPM had crossed back below 5%, the TR-1 would have had to disclose a disposal and state the resulting % (

I apologise SF, please see my other note on this.

Sorry I have messed this up and apologies for that and for any annoyance caused. I was wrong to say the holdings have increased. First of all, I think 'Below Minimum Threshold” is a TR-1 (DTR 5) concept and that, under those, disclosures are triggered at 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7% and that ‘Below Minimum Threshold’ means below the next notifiable band. In JPM’s case, they had already crossed 5% and the next band is 6% so ‘below minimum threshold’ is still between 5% and 6%. I do not believe it means ‘sub 1%’ as the 1% is a Takeover Code Form 8.3 concept rather than DTR 5. I think NMM is referring to the UK Takeover Code rather than TR-1s. I think today’s RNS says that is a TR-1 notification that no new voting-rights threshold were crossed since the previous notification. That is why the tables show ‘Below Minimum Threshold’ meaning below the next reporting band, not below 1%.It does not state that voting rights increased to 6%, or fell back below 5%. It does not report any disposal of voting rights. It references the previous notification where JPM crossed 5%. In short, I think today’s RNS is a technical follow-on filing. It confirms that JPM remains in the same voting-rights band (between 5% and 6%) and that nothing has changed that requires a new percentage to be disclosed.

? I just checked both RNSs again, 9th and 12th. Increased holdings but see remark on voting %. Not restated as no new threshold was crossed.

Just to say this also, neither TR1 says the voting rights have reduced. The second filing doesn't restate the exact voting % because no new threshold was crossed.