Member Info for RodneyT

Since 2016. You? Speak for yourself PBOW. You don't speak for me in the same way that I don't speak for you.

30 June 1816 PBOW. So many games being played here. Most of all, the game is 'dumb down the asset and wear down LTSHs'. Ain't happening.

Define 'Dud' please PBOW? We already know from the company that there is significant AU there. IP highlighted this yesterday. A mining enterprise with sundry rock to build the TSF is the sweet spot. This is what so many mines do and I gave you 6 examples previously. Why is the company yet again projecting away from this and dumming down the asset?

Dumming down the assets makes so much sense for a certain cohort of people. It makes no sense at all for LTSHs and people who want a fair outcome for all shareholders. TAM doesn't need to be economic. That it needs to be is part of the spoof right now.

My, my what an angry person you are Eloro. Surely you know all that pent up venom can't be good for your health. Calm yourself and remember that just because things are not broadcast doesn't mean they don't happen. Sit down and have a cup of tea.

Needagain and Stas20 did good work. NAV is what bidders base their purchase price on. Our current NAV is about 164p based on current spot. The company has done its very best not to emphasise the true value of our core asset. It hasn't even commented on the huge gap between the current SP and the out of date and conservative prices referred to by the company's own broker. DV's redacted reply to Stas20's request lacked the gusto expected for one in his role. Why is stating current NAV when the share price is on its knees such an issue for this company? Once again, I refer back to GG.

Good morning Eloro, how would you know about any action I may have taken over the last few months? You wouldn't. Enjoy your day |(try it, it's fun!)

Thanks Add, I have to say that I am deeply shocked by the missed deadline and, in particular, the way in which this failure by the company was casually dismissed by DV (which showed contempt for small shareholders in my view). I am pleased that your discussions with PS have gone well. Too many games in this company. I would like to see our main corporate adviser dismissed and PS empowered via a change to make him an executive chairman.

I take your point. Yes, the path to full value is through proper derisking of Cascabel. That means drilling Tandy, updating the study, securing permits, and moving toward FID. No disagreement there.

But to say a NAV statement is of no use misses the point. It is not about triggering a rerate. It is about setting a clear reference for value in a market that is being deliberately kept in the dark. Without it, control can be taken quietly and cheaply. A credible NAV gives shareholders something to anchor to and something to defend. It is a basic step toward transparency.

This is not theory. We are watching what happens when there is no disclosure. It suits those accumulating stock under the radar and those negotiating from inside. So yes, progress on the ground is vital. But pretending that governance and price discovery do not matter is how shareholders get walked over. Just as it appears we are being walked over right now, in fact!

I fear you could be right, Fort. So much projecting away whilst huge things going on hiding in plain sight. Guyana Goldfields comes to mind as I have remarked many times. Why does Solgold post-Maxit involvement seem so joined at the hip to the Chinese? Guyana Goldfields comes to mind. I have referred to the conditions for creeping control to be ideal currently. I have also mentioned nominee accounts and offshore companies in tax havens using them to own shares and buy them at this mad price. Why won't the company make a clear statement about current NAV and give its view about why the current share price is so low? Missing deadlines doesn't help, DV, it doesn't help.

Totally agree with you based on 'Queensberry Rules', Add. Too much experience of tax havens, etc to be sure these always apply. As for not wanting JCC too influential and so on?:-) :-) well they would say that woundn't they? Too many games at present in this company. We've had big talk already. Where's the big walk? Can't do that? Have a short walk.. out of the company.

I hope you are right on your last point, Add. That's not the way I am seeing it based on where we are now and reference to GG and...you know the rest.

I have a different view about nominee accounts/offshore companies but that's fine. This is a debate board.

Add, thanks for that. As for DV being 'fed up', good! He is CEO, the company missed a deadline it set itself approved to be announced by him and it has failed to deliver. If DV had made a brief annoucement to say there would be a delay then folk would not be asking him why there is a delay. Let's hope he learns something from this and that he can move on from this 'Diva-like' attitude.

Add,

Now we've left TSX, I don't believe there is a need for an MD&A but I think a half yearly update is due in compliance with LSE rules. What is your view?

Meanwhile, the DV Q&A penned for W/C 23June didn't happen as was the case for the EC update by end Q2. No word as to why the latter, in particular, didn't take place. No word about updated NAV and the huge variance between this and the SP The conditions to hoover up shares at these prices are ideal. What happens in nominee accounts alongside companies registered in offshore tax havens is a dark art. I wonder when we are going to put all this sludge behind us and make a fresh start? Isn't that why DV was appointed? I suppose it is wise to recall that he and SC were Cornerstone/Maxit appointments. We've got a great story to tell the market. When is our board going to tell it?

You have a right to your opinion, PBOW, which I respect. I won't be joining a press gang though and I'll stick with what I said. 7p is clearly the result of some very odd stuff over a long time. Strangely, it all reminds me of Guyana Goldfields. No idea why, have you?

Panda, we have been dragged up hill and down dale since Maxit and its acolytes became involved in this share. But the objective remains the same: price discovery and a fair outcome for all shareholders, based on NAV.

You were one of the first to say it, and for a long time you stood alone. That is never easy. But the numbers now support your view, regardless of the remarks aimed at Stas20 and others who recognised this.

As a normal shareholder with no ulterior motive, I cannot see what is wrong with a NAV of 164p per share. What matters is that we focus on this and proper price discovery, not creeping control behind closed doors.

Right now, conditions make creeping control plausible. The company must end the silence and issue a clear and direct statement addressing the current share price and how it relates to NAV. The latest NAV must be published (via RNS not an email to Joe Bloggs).

The board also needs to explain why the Q2 deadline for outlining a definitive plan was missed without acknowledgement or update. That silence adds to the unease.

We need leadership that acts clearly and in the interests of all shareholders. There should be no further delay. The board must now take visible steps to make that priority clear to the market.

CMG, all the delay and mystery about everything along with all the worry it causes is so cool for folk wishing to hoover up cheap shares isn't it? A delay of a few months would be grand! Let's make it end Q4!....2026 :'l

TAM will be a mine. Economic or not for the reasons given. The company should get on and clarify that this is the case without delay since this would provide support to our key asset and help emphasise its true value.That it has not so far will be added to my list

of magical mystery events at Solgold.

Add, the 4 months have allowed creeping control. That may or may not have happened. Based on the Share Register, it is entirely plausible but I am not saying it has indeed taken place. Thank you for asking for clarification. A quick look at the share price action and reference to the AR short over the last 4 months shows this has been a low volatility share over the period, day in, day out.

It's an excellent point, Panda. The current geotechnical work is assessing whether local rock is suitable for construction, including the TSF embankments. If mineralisation is found, samples will be tested. This suggests the company is evaluating areas like TAM both for ore and for rock quality to support the overall Cascabel mine plan. As I said last night, the key is that TAM must be mined. Whether it is economic or not is secondary. It needs to be mined to provide material for the TSF and other supporting infrastructure. The company should be much more transparent about this and place far greater emphasis on the current NAV of the main asset. I do not understand why this is being downplayed. The last four months have allowed creeping control via nominee holdings. It is extremely disappointing that the Q2 deadline was missed and that the company has made no clear statement via RNS to address the absurd share price compared to NAV (or even its brokers' own forecasts!) Why the silence DV? We need a clear RNS not an email to Joe Bloggs.