Member Info for RodneyT

NMM, As you know, expect the CIPA to be filed by the end of Q4. What I suspect is that it will actually be filed within the next 30 days or so. End of October give or take.

Agree, DBW.

In 6 short months, DV has transformed momentum at Solgold. Apart from an outstanding work rate, he shows a genuine passion for shareholders and their interests. Sure, he has his 15 options, sure. But that's absolutely fine as far as I am concerned and I hope he makes a fortune from them. DV is proactively marketing the company and constantly trying to press on and enhance shareholder value. As I have said many times, what more could he have done for us since becoming CEO? Last week's lottery numbers 'would have, could have, should have' count for nothing at all. The future looks very bright at Solgold. The surging prices of gold and the other metals only help this. Out of control money printing only helps gold. DT's 'Big Beautiful Bill' prints money the US doesn't have as is just an extension of Joe Biden's absurdly named Inflation Reduction Act. Long shareholders here obviously want the share price to do well. Holders who are short obviously do not. The foundations of the actual business and well as prospects are increasingly strong. Longs and shorts are both along for the ride. The momentum has been against the shorts since DV has been in charge. My opinion is that I expect this to continue. Assay results due this week, I think DV will make sure the RNS is more clear cut this time. He may even include far reaching comment on TAM and fast track production there.

I have no reason to question the competence or integrity of CS. My preference is purely to have as few associations with GG (and all that happened there) as possible. Fort makes a good point about further options were CJ or someone else take the role which I accept.

NMM,

I think the JC/ Bennett Jones matter could be traced back to Maxit/Osisko. Check out Pine Point, O3 Mining and Cariboo. All the names keep coming back over and over again. And then there is Solgold of course.

:-) Needy! Did you see my 12.12 post supporting NMM? Ramping? Not at all. Supporting his query about Clare's remuneration. If you prefer ale to shandy, at least go easy on those chasers!

Stop the ale and go to shandy instead Needy. That will help you calm yourself.

Add, bang on. Solgold has a firm financial foundation. That is so vital. Any City financier will tell you how tough it is to raise finance in the small-cap sector currently. Solgold's credentials and existing business partners are telling. This is excellent news for small shareholders.

NMM, I would like to see CJ become CFO. Nothing against CS but CJ would be my preference.

Add, so important even in a private, non-listed business, for a CEO to be able to end a Board Meeting with confirmation from the FD and the Auditors that the accounts are fine and have been/ can be signed off. So important let alone for listed companies. You are exactly right in what you say. For the auditors too. This is why they so often come up with findings when auditing companies. Their job is to be picky and so preserve/enhance their reputation as auditors.

IP is spot on with that comment. NM referred to the importance of small shareholders' interests at the pub. DV has referred to small shareholders' interests many times already during his tenure as CEO. Small shareholders 'matter' to Solgold's Board.

as a shareholder, i'm pleased to see this news and hope the share price goes from strength to strength. some observations though:

galileo’s share price has risen about 33% since september 2020, which equates to roughly 6% a year. that is a positive result in simple terms, but fairly modest when set against the risks involved in backing a small, speculative mining company.

trading has been difficult. volumes are often thin, which means relatively small orders can move the price sharply. the free float is narrow, bid/offer spreads are wide, and the shareholder base is heavily retail driven. all of this makes building or exiting a position in size awkward and adds to volatility.

most of the share price action has come around specific announcements. examples include the star zinc marketing deal in late 2020 and its sale in early 2021, the staged proceeds from the glenover disposal between 2022 and 2024, the ka****u mining licence granted in march 2025, the ferber joint venture soon after, and equity placings in 2021 and 2025. in between these events, news flow has been thin and the shares have often drifted.

the optics are not helped by the fact that the last investor presentation on the company’s website dates back to may 2020. five years without an updated deck gives the impression of stalled progress and makes it harder for investors to gauge the current strategy or benchmarks. this lack of fresh material sends a poor signal to the market.

while the glenover proceeds provided tangible value, the absence of regular jorc-compliant exploration updates or refreshed investor materials has left institutions disengaged and kept liquidity low. the lack of ii's is a really poor consequence in my view.

the 33% gain over five years disguises the reality of a difficult trading profile: episodic liquidity, high volatility, and an investor relations posture that does little to reassure the market. not pleased with how the company has handled communications and do not believe it is reasonable that the last investor presentation on glr's website is from 2020.

NMM,

An excellent observation in my opinion, first class.

Of course, we still have CS around from the old SC/GG days as CFO although we now have CJ on board who has much experience as a Chartered Accountant. Some reasonable questions for the Board:

1. Why are James Clare’s director fees being billed through Bennett Jones rather than being disclosed in the standard Director Remuneration tables?

2. What exact period does the disclosed US$339,000 cover, and how does this reconcile with the US$32,606 per year shown in earlier remuneration disclosures?

3. Why have these director fees and related balances remained outstanding for more than a year despite being noted in both the 2024 and 2025 Annual Reports?

4. What proportion of the total US$1.16 million balance owed to Bennett Jones relates to director fees versus legal services?

5. Does the company consider this treatment to be fully compliant with IAS 24 on Related Party Disclosures and with the UK Corporate Governance Code requirements on director pay transparency?

6. What steps will the Board take to ensure that future director remuneration is reported transparently and settled on a timely basis?

I think the Company should clarify the position on these topics. What NMM has said reminds me a little of 'the old order'. DV style is more straightforward and direct.

I'd like to see these questions dealt with. Some type of public clarification would be best. Not saying there is anything untoward but I think it would enhance investor relations were the above to be addressed by the Board.

Sure. Last week's TAM RNS was strong for the company but was interpreted by some as 'mediocre'. Not by the CEO though as DV posted on LinkedIn that the company was pleased with near surface results at TAM. He also restated how undervalued the company is and gave some indicators of what future values should be. With the quarter coming to an end, it seems that an investor has been taking profits this week which would make sense were the seller to be a general investment fund that has made a lot of money for clients in this quarter. Sum up: last week's RNS was strong as far as the company is concerned but some outsiders were not as happy. Likely profit taking but still buyers around who get the picture into Q4 and beyond. Yesterday's RNS confirmed sound financial footing and an excellent foundation for the future. All good, share price remains well over 100% up year to date. Assay results due at any stage. Good chance it will be next week. I suspect DV will ensure that any RNS on this is reviewed carefully so that it will be not be necessary for him to jump onto LinkedIn to clarify this time.

Apology accepted NMM, we press on. Add is right about signing off being no formality, been there, done that. PwC signing off is good, a good foundation for us all round. What is the view here about those huge trades yesterday? £2 million worth. Have we an idea now if they were buy, sell?

NMM 'suggested'? 'puzzled'? You sound like Tony Blair framing things. Next thing you'll be starting sentences with 'Look'. PwC signed off the accounts. The company is in increasingly good shape both financially and otherwise. That's far more important than any opinions here. Delighted with progress under DV's leadership. Also believe that SC did more good things for the company than he is given credit for here although it is good he is no longer CEO.

NMM, I still have all my shares. I am happy with the way the company is being run now. I think the other members of the group are too. We all have eachother's contact details and know the total number of shares we own.

Needy,

:-) what a funny fellow you are!

NMM, so? What's your point?

MF, :-). You'll have thought all shareholders would want to see a great company pressing on, wouldn't you? I mean, why not just sell up if not. Also, they're all just opinions aren't they? Same for all of us. We don't manage the business. We are not party to vital confidential information. All we have is publicly available information and opinions. That's it. Nobody's opinion here is worth more than that of anybody else. Revealing new information/facts is interesting. Opinions less so.

Ha, what a funny fellow you are Needy.

I referred to my conversation with SC a couple of years ago last evening regarding TAM and it being included within Cascabel from FN's viewpoint. Have a look at your reply to me stating that fact. Can't please some people in this world, eh?