Member Info for RodneyT

Not a fiasco, Mather, chosen course of action now framed by the S o A timetable. I don't want any of this. I disagree with this course of action. I don't want or like the scheme which is why I have voted No. I don't want to agree to selling our assets forever at the 28p firesale price. No, no,no!

Mather, Folk have been interpreting yesterday's RNS as a need for cash to continue as a going concern. This is wrong as per MDA Q1 26 and confirmed in SD 21 01 26. Any cash raised would be for development so a want not a need. No Q2 raise is needed to 'keep the lights on'. Framing matters in this way is tantamount to scaremongering. It is certainly not fact as per the company's own statements. Keeping going and development are clearly distinguished in MDA Q1 2026.

Well you can move on if you wish to C and good luck to you. Meanwhile here at Solgold we have 12 days of the counterbid window still to go. That prospect is way more than nothing and worthy of consideration.

IP, exactly the point I have been making these last 36 hours or so! There is no question about it. Any raise is for development and not to continue being a going concern. Let's be clear. That is the company's stated position. Any scaremongering is just that and should be set aside. The company is clear and is lawful.

Well said Damers. Brilliant!

Needy, all posters have a right to their opinion and also to refer to company documents as evidence. Your abuse is so silly Needy. So silly. Cancel culture is on the way out! :-)

Not my point NMM. I want clarity from the Board on a variety of points. They are duty bound via their roles and we are being asked to sell our assets forever at 28p. Have we been provided with a full and complete picture for all shareholders to see on which to base our vote? What choices were considered and made so that the Scheme railroad was pursued? There are many other questions too.

Agree DBW.

Needy, I a shareholder who, ideally, wishes not to be involved with the current S o A which was the Board's choice to pursue. Shareholders did not vote on this course of action and were not required to of course. The Scheme is the focus point now and a distraction away from price discovery of our assets. I don't want the Scheme to complete at 28p. This is why I have voted No. I am not worried about going concern or funding matters as/when the Scheme fails because I believe the company acts lawfully and would have had to announce were there an issue. They have not. Instead, they reconfirmed their MDA statement via the SD.

A fair point NMM. I have few questions relating to that for the company and those are work in progress currently being reviewed by a third party. A clear statement on tranche 3 from the company would be helpful. I accept this is unlikely. Tranche 3 was dependent on technical progress as well as other matters. Who provided the technical materials I wonder? G Mining? Solgold? JCC? It would be good to have this clarified.

Ha ha Needy! I know I annoy you by bringing you back to the Company's own documents and providing references therein. I am sorry this does not suit your agenda but company documents are extremely important in any event but now in particular. We don't have a going concern liquidity problem Needy and we don't need JCC to be successful in order 'to keep the lights on'. I know it annoys you but what can I say?

Needy, I referred to the MD&A and Scheme document along with MAR requirements. The company is a legal going concern for many months hence with or without the scheme completing. Work harder projecting away, Needy!

Monte, the market has not 'spoken' until the counterbid deadline is reached. That is in just under 2 weeks' time. We don't know whether we wil 'get another round in' but we are not close to 'last orders' yet let alone calling time.

Thanks NMM, it's great to have a debate with fellow members here and it is fine that we have different views. I think we've all learned from others here. I reply to posters such as Needy primarily to bring them back to the facts as they are, whether we like them or not. The facts are tangibles. Also, I have not blocked anyone and won't. This is not a hopeless situation and Solgold is not a hopeless company. We are on a track decided on by this Board and I don't want to be on it which is why I have voted No. I'd rather the Scheme fails and go on from there. Again, the RNS from yesterday should be read carefully! It was not 'going concern' related. According to company documents, we have cash as a going concern for many months hence. As a company, we could also have many other options with the scheme gone and new management - I can't see how current management could stay even though I am not accusing them of wrongdoing. No idea what would happen to all the options. There is scope for them all to be cancelled as/when parties leave the company in certain circumstances. I enjoyed reading DBW's post earlier.

Let me be absolutely clear with readers based on the company's own published statements backed by the applicable law (MAR). Those who interpreted yesterday's RNS as a need for the company to raise cash in Q2 2026 so that Solgold can remain a going concern were wrong to do so.The MD&A states SolGold has at least 15 months of funding on a going-concern basis, and the Scheme Document (21 Jan) confirms no significant change since 30 Sept. If that were no longer true, UK MAR Article 17 would require immediate disclosure.Yesterday’s RNS addresses development funding for Cascabel — what Franco-Nevada tranche 3 was for — not solvency. On the Company’s own disclosures, the going concern position still stands. The reference to JCC money to develop Cascabel further is a WANT not a NEED. As a related point, what do we think happened to tranche 3 from FN? It would be useful to receive a statement from the company on this matter.

OK Needy, MD&A doc, yesterday's RNS. Both documents. I have shown you with references why Solgold has got cash for many months as a going concern and does not need a raise in Q2 to stay in business. The raise is to further develop Cascabel. The company has therefore acted in accordance with MAR 17. Yesterday's RNS was not an announcement that cash was low for going concern purposes. Do you want me to prove that to you with references again?

Needy, yesterday's RNS does not say that at all. Page 12 MD&A going concern statement. Document carefully covers going concern financials and then cascabel development financials. Tranche 3 FN monies were for latter. Company has not secured those hence the statement yesterday that further cash would be needed to develop Cascabel. SD issued 21 Jan clearly states no financial material changes since MD&A was published so no MAR 17 breach and company acting lawfully. I was actually born at night Needy but not last night and I can read. Why is it that you cannot stand the idea of the scheme failing and then the company moving on as a going concern successfully? It is similar to you saying over and over that 'there is no counterbid' when there were and are weeks to go when one or more counterbids can be made at any stage. You've paddled hopelessness, inevitability and apathy for weeks Needy. The problem for you is that there are so many small shareholders who fully able to assess where we are and why. We are all able to vote, most have and it seems to me that most have voted No.

Mathers, of course we would all like a counterbid. The difference between your view and mine is that if it doesn't come and the Scheme fails, I'm happy to take what's coming and press on from there. The SP could well be volatile, sure, but the company has cash for many months hence without a raise. The raise referred to yesterday was NOT to keep the lights on, it was to further develop Cascabel, the money tranche 3 would have been used for. SP volatility? Could well be but off the railroad, new management and get back to work. No sudden mad rush to complete selling our assets forever at 28p.

Nothing at all illegal about that were it to happen as/when JCC own all Solgold's assets - they've already said things will all transfer to HK if they are successful. There would be wrongdoing were that to have been agreed already but there is absolutely no evidence of that which I have seen.

Monte, those can come at any stage between now and the 23rd so 13 days to go. It is clear that the Board want completion of this Scheme of Arrangement because they are recommending it.