Member Info for RodneyT

How do we know without doubt that 'the Chinese were the only game in town' as you say when there was no public offer or similar? Also, why did Solgold agree a streaming package with Osisiko on a bilateral basis with no tender whilst being advised by Maxit from where Mr Singh came to Osisko? Mr Singh was co-founder or Maxit with Mr Sangha in 2013. These are not 'conspiracy theories', they are matters of interest.

I have not 'mined'anything. What the group does in future will depend on what it decides to do. The emphasis is on a group decision not an individual one.

And Maxit Capital at Guyana Goldfields, Fort? Zijin Mining?

Well said, Fort. Also, look at the timescale of when Mr Singh tuned up at Osisko having previously been Mr Sangha's business partner. Small world, eh?

Https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/GGP/surrender-of-director-and-employee-share-options/16998089

There's an example of leading from the front. It can be done!

Precisely. Oh what a coincidence.

The time delay is designed to portray virtue/patience. The reality (which is not even in the Annual Report and needs to be found elsewhere) confirms the reality of immediate vesting on change of control subject to certain conditions. On another matter, why did the Company not explain our dilution due to the JCC sale? Why was there not summary given including why there was no vote?

The options awarded are immediately vesting at any stage from now subject to the Change of Control conditions (as were/are) SC's. In my opinion, these facts should have been clearly stated in the same announcement when the options in question were granted.

I made my decision on that about 3 weeks ago. This week's news was therefore not at all surprising.

You are quite right to raise that, I couldn't possibly comment.

Completely agree, Fort. I read Add's comments earlier.My hope was for options to be granted at a price far closer to NAV. I mentioned 20p but 37p would have been a tremendous signal to shareholders as this was the option price for BHP long ago. Instead, we get gluttony. My hope was for principles to be displayed. Corporate types may feel entitled to cheap options that cost them nothing and think that is just what everyone does. I was expecting much more akin to the behaviour of a founder. A person willing to put his own capital at risk, have no expectation of 'free lunches' and lead from the front. Spending other people's money is easy. That doesn't mean to say it is right.

Add, I respectfully disagree with virtually everything you say there. DV is an unknown quantity. He now 'owns' 0.5% of our Company risk free. For doing what exactly? How does this news sit in relation to his duties to all shareholders? What is the message conveyed? The Company's own broker has a target price in the mid-50's. Why should a green as grass newly appointed executive be awarded so many options at such a low price? Of course we know DV and other awardees could give some excellent reasons.

Add, If, say, 40 million options had been granted at 20p, do you think news of this would have been cheered by small shareholders and seen as a bold statement of intent and prospects for ALL shareholders? A dynamic move leading from the front?

Good morning all,

Yes, many have had enough at various stages over the last 36 months or so and have gone in frustration. Over the same period, the accumulation of shares and options at lower and lower prices by directors and management are public records. Options, in particular, are moot. The headline announcement overtly focuses on timelines and performance conditions which give comfort to outsiders. Closer scrutiny of Company documents show that these options vest immediately on Change of Control subject to straightforward conditions. No capital at risk, no opportunity cost. Just a big bag of options with an exercise price at a tiny fraction of the NAV. In the past (when projects were far less advanced and commodity prices much lower) options were granted at prices such as 37p in the case of BHP. Context is everything. What is happening at our Company?

Precisely, Add. Then there is the impact of a changing cohort over the last 3 years as folk have either got frustrated or needed the money. The changing institutional base, NSWF at 3% for 6 or 7p. All that is needed is an expert analysis of the share register to assess :-)

He and his company are skilled data analysts. Skills ideally suited to share registers. Also, his wife used to work for Guyana Goldfields. His knowledge of the register was clear and impressive.

Sean Tufford. What was his expertise and what project did he oversee at Solgold? Why isn't the current shareholder register freely available? Many here have asked the Company for it; often several times.

Why would NM be required to 'come to the table' if 51% or more of the shareholders (excluding NM) indicate they would accept a bid of Xp? NM is a bystander in many ways. He cannot control the shareholder cohort. He has siginificant influence in other ways, though, such as his access to the worldwide network of contacts he has doubtless built up over many years in the mining industry.

A wee announcement covering the granting of options for certain folk in the interim, surely, Add?

When in Quito.... :-)

John Turner was involved with GG. His Firm, Fasken, where he us leader of the Global Mining Group, represented GG in its acquisition by Ziijn Mining Group. Fasken has collaborated with Maxit and Bob Sangha on various mining sector transactions including the merger between Agnico and Kirkland where Maxit acted as financial adviser to Kirkland while Fasken, with Mr Turner, provided legal counsel to Kirkland's special Committee. Maxit were financial adviser to Guyana Goldfields too.