Member Info for RodneyT

How many share options do you have at 7p a share, Bob?

Great find Jez

Mathers,

I understand the logic, but I’m not convinced a Yes vote actually “flushes out” a counterbid. If a serious rival bidder exists, they already know the timetable, the price and the sanction date. They don’t need a Yes vote to alert them. In fact, a strong Yes vote could signal institutional support and make it harder and not easier for someone else to intervene, because it raises the bar for disruption. Also, the absence of a counterbid wouldn’t necessarily imply hidden problems. It may simply mean other parties don’t see sufficient return at 28p+ given capital constraints, risk appetite or competing priorities. So I don’t think a Yes vote increases the probability of a higher offer. If a counter is coming, it will come regardless of how individuals vote. If it isn’t, a Yes won’t summon it.Just my view and doesn't change my No vote. Others will weigh certainty versus optionality differently.

IP, are you able to elaborate on what you mean with your 46p comment or is that not possible here?

With you on that ARO. If the vote is No, it is not all doom and gloom. The company has cash as a going concern for many months and csn assess options for developing Cascabel and how to move the other tenements forward. A scheme of arrangement frames things by definition and creates a focus for completion at the bid price. It is a version of Stockholm Syndrome. Perhaps we would be far better off with no framework, JCC gone for 12 months and then refocus on the course we were on before we were put on this railroad? Again, why is Porvenir not referred to in the Court facing Scbeme Document when it featured so prominently in the Company's May Presentation? You are right to be open-minded ARO. You are right to base your case on where we are right now as far as the law is concerned. Some here have fanned flames about us' running out of cash and needing to do a raise to keep going ' if the deal fails. That is utterly untrue. Going concern and development of Cascabel are different things. The share price was into the 30s with fabulous momentum up just prior to this JCC bid and S oA framework to completion. Perhaps we need to revert to a momentum situation based on the business and its potential rather than having completion at 28p as the focus point. We are prepared to work hard in order to be really successful, right?

Quady,

And you call folk here 'liars'? You are famous here for your evangelical adherence to 'Green Energy' how marvellous it is and how cheap it will be. Anyone who questions you about that is chastised.

What do you say about this?

https://newsletter.doomberg.com/p/grid-socialism

Hope so Novice, what makes you think that?

Agree, NMM. Another interesting observation although not Court facing is Cannacord Genuity's price target of 46p from Nov 2025. CG is the company's own broker! What happened?

Oh please, Mathers! This is not life or death, it's money and principles. I'm asking questions and will continue to do so. It is not a life or death choice to do so. Actually, it's fun! I have presented the Court facing SD in context. Which documents do the TP review as they consider all the bids coming through, the Court facing one perhaps? I'm asking the question, Mathers..

Serious question ,does anyone have evidence, not rumour, that JCC had access to updated Porvenir PEA work or internal economic modelling that has not been reflected in public disclosures?

Given JCC’s historic technical involvement and its position as bidder, that point would be materially relevant to how shareholders assess the offer. I am not suggesting impropriety, but if any such information exists it would clearly be important context.

If anyone has verifiable detail, it would be useful to bring it forward by sending to solgsmallshareholders@gmail.com

Before everyone assumes 28p is the only narrative, it’s worth reading SolGold’s own Corporate Presentation dated 13 May 2025.

This presents Porvenir as an advanced stage project, central to the ExploreCo strategy, with an “updated PEA underway” incorporating new drilling and economics aligned to current metal prices. It also frames SolGold as a district scale portfolio, not a single asset story.

Fast forward to the Court facing Scheme Document and Porvenir is not referenced by name, nor is there any explanation of how that updated PEA work factored into the Board’s recommendation.

This isn’t an allegation of wrongdoing. It’s a simple question of context. When shareholders are being asked to approve an irreversible sale, it’s reasonable to ask how the broader asset base presented less than a year ago has been reflected in the decision to recommend 28p.

It's worth reading the Company’s own May 2025 presentation alongside the Court facing Scheme materials!

Thank you Zoros. I've done well out of Solgold as it happens but, like so many here. not as well as I expected given the value of the assets and the views of our CEO late last year. If the Scheme passes as it stands, we sell all our assets forever at 28p. In the Court facing Scheme Document, no mention that the PFS referred to is 2 years old or that it refers to only 18% of Cascabel or that the projected metals prices are 25% lower than those used in PFSs now. No reference to Porvenir or the PEA - the list goes on.The chances of a counterbid naturally reduce as the days go by but can occur as late as 4 March. I am not against the JCC bid in principle but I have voted No because I don't want to sell the assets at this price. I would be minded to change my vote were this consideration to be higher. Still time to vote everyone so please vote (For or Against) if you have not already done so. SP volatility is a minor concern compared to selling forever at this price. The company has plenty of cash as a going concern but would have to raise funds to develop Cascabel. Why not talk to FNO? What about a copper stream to match the gold stream? Plenty of options given the resources the company owns. These are my views. Readers do not have to agree with me. This is a discussion board after all!

Just to confirm, I cut and pasted Stas20's calcs from June 2025 covering NAV. The figures were not mine but I agree with them and the metals prices he used have all increased markedly since then. There are also the topics of only 18% of the resource being accounted for and Dan Vujcic's reference to 165p derisked NAV per share in his October 2025 LinkedIn post. The assets are careering towards being sold forever at 28p a share. I have voted No to this Scheme as I would rather experience share price volatility than sell forever at this fire sale price. Please vote everyone.

Is there any reason why when discussing the takeover prices against current SOLG NAV that no one is picking up on (or at least I haven't seen so apologies if you have), or at least discussing the premium that should be added due to the huge undervaluation of the PFS against current spot. By my reckoning the official NAV is undervalued by approx. 54% relative to today's spot prices and assuming I have the rough correct mix of metals - happy to be corrected?

Undervaluation Analysis

Verified Spot Prices (12 June 2025)

Gold: $3,373.09/oz

Copper: $4.79/lb

Silver $36.33/oz

Step-by-Step Undervaluation Analysis

Premium over PFS Inputs

- Gold: (3373 – 1750) ÷ 1750 = +93%

- Copper: (4.79 – 3.85) ÷ 3.85 = +24.5%

- Silver: (36.33 – 25) ÷ 25 = +45% (if PFS used $25/oz)

2. Blended NAV Uplift

Assuming a metal VALUE mix of 50% copper and 50% gold/silver:

Average uplift = (93% + 24.5% + 45%) ÷ 3 = +54%

thus if we take purely the NAV associated with the various assets:

Full Asset Base NAV (Including Cascabel, Porvenir, and other concessions):

Cascabel (Alpala): - $3.2bn NPV (post-tax, 8%)

Porvenir (Tandayama - America system): - $1.2bn est. NPV

Other tenements (Blanca, Cisne Loja, etc.): - $300–500m optionality

Total Implied NAV: approx. $4.8 billion based on old pricing, thus at NAV this would have a value of $4.8 / 3 billion shares = $1.60 per share or £1.18 a share

Now, I am not suggesting that SOLG would sell at NAV, although many assets have in the past (e.g. Filo Mining – $4 bn deal, Metals Acquisition (MAC) - CSA Mine, Greatland Gold -Telfer & Havieron Projects, Rio Tinto & Turquoise Hill, Osisko (Windfall, Quebec) etc)

- SolGold, by contrast, remains an early stage project with capital execution and sovereign risk, however if you assumed even a 50% discount for this, then you get around 59p a share but interestingly that is based on old pricing and not the above uplift that should rightly be applied - thus I am not here to say what a sale WILL achieve - however I am just working through the numbers as an aid to demonstrate why such number are not nuts but can at least be justified in analysis context.

Happy for this to be pulled apart, indeed I welcome it.

Needy, What do you think about MD&AQ2026, SD 21 21 Jan 2026 and the RNS from 9 Jan 2026? Is there anything there that could help the cause of small shareholders?

Quady,

Yes it does. 12 June 2025 at 0959 and on from there. I'm not doing your work for you Quady. Too busy.

Too many drinks again Needy? Dear oh dear.

Trolling around calling people liars is sad to see.

I've dealt with those questions previously so read those replies Needy.

In the meantime, not much time left now for a counterbid but not at the finishing line just yet. Please vote everyone whether that be For or Against. As things stand, your assets are to be sold forever via a S o A for 28p. Please vote whether you want that or not.

Quady, You called me a liar yesterday.

Please see link below which you will take you back to Stas20's calcuations and your subsequent arguments with him which are worth looking at. Please note the metal price assumptions back in June 2025. His figures align with DV's de-risked 165p per share NAV much more than your 5c per share estimate at the time. https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.html?ShareTicker=SOLG&share=SolGold&page=232

Only me and because the sender requested confidentiality, the email and contents will not be shared.

To the solgsmallshareholders email with an express instruction not to share.