Member Info for RodneyT

BHP have had offered kicked back so they just give up? That's real life is it Quady? If you review the scenario I sketched, it is plausible as any stage from now. Whatever a 'diverse book' means, it does not change or stop the scenario I set out. Further, an offer could come at any stage which would not only likely be accepted by PI's but also approved by the Board too. A 'diverse book' has little meaning here. Hard cash does. (or the equivalent in a blue chip business or businesses).

The 'diverse book argument'?

Just supposing BHP and NMM wanted to do (in effect, another) JV but this time at Solgold to add to Filo. Those two account for just over 20% of Solgold shares so shares they don't have to pay for because they own them already. Just supposing NM, DGR and a few connected Australians and other entities are consulted and agree to what BHP have in mind. How many shares might they have in total? My guess is another 20% so that's 40% odd in total. Just supposing there are about 46% of the shares in PI hands and the offer is, day, 0.6% of NAV so about 100p. How many of those PI's would agree? Would DV agree? SC? The Board? JCC would be overwhelmed and could do nothing. My guess is that 51% and more would easily be achieved. I've used 100p but 50p or 60p might work. In any event, where's the 'diverse book argument' in this scenario? Absolute non-starter.

Quoted by LSE, Quady? :-) Who audits that number? Stas20 based his calculations on those presented by the company's own brokers. Why do you fight that so? What's your motive?

No thanks, Quady. I'll stick with the company 's brokers and Stas20's worked through calcs. It's very sad what you are doing to yourself. Self-harm. Please stop then you can focus on the actual agenda.

Quady,

Stas has given you the current NAV based on the company's own brokers' numbers. Your idea that the current NAV is ca 5c is for the birds. I feel sorry for you Quady, I really do.

Quady,

I fully understand NAV. Stas20 showed you how to work out the current NAV. Your 'diverse book' perpetual reference is most odd.

Whilst I am aware that the majority of folk believe BHP to be disinterested in Solgold and acquiring the company, I interpret their silence differently. BHP has tried to acquire this company in the past and I believe it will do so again. If they want it, they will need to be prepared to pay 0.6 to 1.1 of NAV. That's at least 100p.

Pleased to hear the news about the second FN payment. Concerning the H1 update referred to in the RNS March 4 2025 which included all the aspects that would be covered in the update, that hasn't happened and is overdue. The company has said nothing so far about why this is and has not apologised for the delay.

I'm not at all impressed with the actions of the CEO since his appointment. A a simple reference, he's misses a deadline he set himself. I hear that he's whinging that small shareholders are querying why the deadline has been missed and why they have not had a few words to explain why. Total shame on you DV. You are not worth words.

He said 25p based on his millions of free options at 17p PBOW. Tell me what happened at Allied Nevada and Guyana Goldfields PBOW? The Class Action and allegations of Patrick Sheridan? SC resigned shortly afterwards.

Lumina is not 'comparible' with the Cascabel plus Porvenir plus the other tenements PBOW and we all know that. It's a shadow of Cascabel alone.

PBOW, following your logic, aircraft didn't exist for millions of years. Now, we can fly to Australia from the UK in 20 hours. The world looks forwards not backwards. Bidders base their bids on NAV. The Solgold share price has almost no relevance to bidders.

Sorry, just saw my typo. I meant 'their' :-)

:-) that's funny, PBOW. Newmont and BHP will sell there ca 20% of the company for 21p a share? This share price has been suppressed for about 3 years snd is now at an absurd 0.04 of NAV or thereabouts. Just because something is regarded as unprecedented does not mean it cannot happen. Bidders looking to secure multi decade resource supply base their bid on X factor of NAV not the current share price. The usual factor time and time again is between 0.8 and 1.1 x NAV.

Any Board can refer to its major shareholders at any stage as part of a process to make business decisions. M&A purchases are based on NAV. A current share price is largely irrelevant in this regard.

Nasty. And no simple statement to explain the missed deadline either. What about the Q &A? Shame on us for pointing out and asking, eh?

Agree, Stas20. The silver is important. Under SC's charge, references to silver were deleted from the headlines in company presentations yet the Ecuadorian government are clearly very keen on this asset. Why did SC allow that?

IP, bad WiFi spot for me atm. I wholly agree with what you say about the last 2 or 3 years.

You make the counter argument to the one you made earlier this week when you said that importing rock for the TSF could make Cascabel Main cost prohibitive.

Meanwhile, I've given example of versions of this method being used to support the main event. It doesn't matter if TAM is economic or not and all potential bidders know this. We all know that gold will be produced at TAM. It is there according to the company. So why count paper clips, focus on this and say nothing on key issues?

I gave the 6 names on 30 June at 1816. You can look that up. It is nothing new for mining companies to mine uneconomic ore in order to derive rock they can use for TSF and other uses. This is commonplace so why the lack of clarity from our board on this?