We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Solgold have dropped a few bombshells on fatigued PIs this year in a very offhand manner. We had hoped for some stability, milestones being reached this year and at least some light at the end of the tunnel. The RNS today, without any form of context, rational or offsetting market supportive comment seems like a kick in the teeth. With the earlier tweet at least I thought maybe at last uncertainty can be put to bed. They canât go on treating PIs like this.
Wonder what weâd all be feeling like with this news IF we hadnât had the tweet? The lack of communication whether it be supportive, clarification or correction over the past year is astounding when you consider the personnel changes.
If itâs not an opinion, then it has to be fact and where that fact is derived from is concerning as it may allude to knowledge of other information not privy to the rest of us.
? â SolGold announces that Ayten Saridas, Group Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), has resigned effective immediately. The Company has appointed Keith Pollocks as Interim CFO until a permanent replacement is appointedâ.
I would like to believe that we are at the end of the beginning. Both strategic outcomes (BHP) & solgolds are achievable. BHP gain potential control of a vast region, solgold get their name as a miner in a partnership. A few more pieces need to get moved around the chessboard before the âhandshakeâ. For us PIs though, itâs still fraught with danger & we need too ensure no tactical missteps. Or just press the red button and be done with.
Itâs difficult to fathom why after a selection process (both parties establishing their respective âfitâ) & the short tenure to the âfailed placingâ, that blame could be apportioned to the new CFO. It (the placingâ) would have been in the pipeline. A new strategy (not disclosed at time of appointment) with dynamic repercussions on your future role though may influence your decision to resign.
Yes trying not to make +âs out of what is unsettling news, but looking at breadcrumbs maybe there was an internal pathway the parties are following, options present themselves & are pursued or discounted until both parties strategic objectives are in sight. It could explain all the issues here - going to production, alternative financing arrangements, no bid, no movement by senior stakeholders. Check & countrrcheck. No news on southern exploration JVs, cabs off the ranks, focus on deliverables. No desire to get into an eventual bidding war, multiple exit points. Just quietly move one set at a time.
Or maybe Iâm just a delusional optimist.
RNS back in dec mentioned three rigs, four holes pending & âuntested extentsâ. They filed a report with sedar but Iâve not read it.
So a half decent bid in the next 12 months & the directors are rolling in it? ??
Iâd like to think itâs defensive.. turn over the 1st card, 4 options for way ahead. 1. Work with us on this 2. Bid for it because I want to sell to someone 3. Take us out completely 4. Do nothing
Any current partner taking option 3 or 4 opens the doors for externals. Also after pfs is public, start turning over the other cards with the words âdonât forget about theseâ which hopefully are significantly more defined than last year which gets everyoneâs attention on the future potential.
Dropped off this board sometime ago, invested years ago & built up a small but important holding that could influence my lifestyle. It (the investment) was based on a maverick CEO who was prepared to stand his ground, take on all comers but also to invest in the people, the principles of responsibility to the environment & the future generations. Thatâs what made me invest, a desire and a vision. I stopped commenting in part due to current world situation and the endless arguments/ debates on here. To be honest itâs all been very depressing & disappointing. Yes on a personal level we all want a positive financial outcome, the added bonus of solgolds ESG credentials gave me some inner satisfaction along with the vision of NM. Now I think we should look at this as a âwilling buyer and a willing sellerâ situation. We need to trade- one, some or all. The latter wonât happen but the vision of a new major miner died in January unfortunately.
Maybe we could have seen something coming but ... torpedos are hard to spot. Weâre holed on the waterline & knee deep under water. The bridge is not responding. A simple statement Responding to the situation...we understand the concerns & frustrations of investors, particularly so after your fantastic response on the AGM result, but alpala is still economically viable, itâs just that weâre working on improving every facet of design deliver & consequentially return that will require a few more months of drilling & iteration. Might have been a bit better than âifâ . I need this to pay for my divorce- get some message out or were drifting taking in water.
Not sure I follow any of the logic suggested for the lack of news particularly drilling updates. Silence promotes speculation, If in confidential discussions the longer it takes increases risk of (potentially) leaks/fosters speculation/creates retrospective analysis of what the parties did or did not do during that âperiodâ. Rightly or wrongly the bod fostered expectations regarding ânewsâ drilling/general progress & strategy. The apparent drawdown of the curtain is perplexing & with the board changes/citi advisors etc I think the market (us) deserve to be treated better.
Maybe AGM delayed as he needed time to address governance issues & get people in place together with adding support in terms of drill results. With his stated policy of going to production, Covid throwing a curve ball etc & extension to frequency of AGM timelines dec was the limit he could push it to.
1. Alpala - expectation was/is larger mineral deposits & a PSF.
2. Pornivir - expectation was/is perhaps larger than alpala & more cost effective recovery, 2nd tier 1.
3. Hueca - drilling commenced.
4. Blanca - drilling commenced.
5. Rio Amarillo - drilling commenced? But too early for indicative?
If solgold were using terminology like âshock & aweâ & âits comingâ then 1&2?were largely already built in so my âshock & aweâ comes on +news on 3or4 with 4 being a v high grade gold find. Amarillo may well turn out to be the sleeping giant but itâs too early to raise my hopes on that one.
They did say quite recently opportunities have arisen as a result of further exploration to incorporate additional aspects to increase the payload. Also Iâm pretty sure Jason or similar commented that sighting of infrastructure had to be planned in order not to prohibit future mining in specific areas. My words, my interpretation but plausible (possible hydro plant, tailings etc) so Iâm happy to take that at face value.
If taken literally- weâll publish a PFS, additional optimisation work continues, then weâll publish an updated PFS.
CGP may just have evaluated the the finalised PFS wasnât going to be ready til Q1, Solgold might just be warming us up to PFS going out (like we said Q4) but itâs not end of story.
If thatâs true then he does need to open news taps with regionals (clarification updates on sites stated would be good) and or drop the PFS (as is in the knowledge that itâs still going to be tweaked
issuing of permits (is that aspect covered & in which version)
I guess heâs running through the âchecklist to defend against a takeoverâ that citi bank have cited. The lack of news may change but as you say votes are being cast. Letâs just hope (me anyway) that heâs got the vote covered with BHP in the bag (for which heâs arranged a payback??)
Yes thanks I got focussed on the ordinary resolutions in a coup dâetat sense, still need to vote on the specials as a defence option. Regards
If to pass a resolution requires > 50% of the shareholders agreement, does it work that to defeat a resolution requires >50%. So in the case of suboptimal voting anyone wanting to defeat the resolution has to muster greater than 50% as the resolution can still be passed by the board regardless of whether or not over 50% have said yes to the resolution?
Very clumsily put but if there is something like 39% of the shares not in public hands (& didnât vote against the BoD re-election of NM) the BoD & DGR would carry the day on their own %(?)