Member Info for SharketMare

Do any of the wiser heads have a view on my 15.17 post? DinnerMoney?

"In addition, under the BHP Subscription Agreement, BHP is also contractually entitled to restrict the number of Ordinary Shares the Company may issue in a rolling 12 month period. Accordingly, if such restrictions are enforced by the relevant counterparty ahead of the closing of the Acquisition, the Company may be restricted in its current and future ability to issue Ordinary Shares and raise funding, including in relation to the Acquisition. Any such actions by Shareholders will have a material adverse impact on the Group’s business, results of operations, financial condition or prospects."

My understanding is that BHP could have blocked this through imposing limits on the number of Ordinary Shares we issue?

Ah Jan '24. Forgive me. We are cashed up for the year.

"The Group’s ability to fund its exploration and drilling activities, generate revenue from the Cascabel project and
effectively implement its business strategy over time depends in part on its ability to raise additional funds.
The Board expects to recommend its future funding strategy in H1 2023 in connection with the Company’s
ongoing strategic review. While the Company is confident that the strategic review can unlock near-term financing options, there is no assurance that the Company would be successful in raising the required capital
pursuant to this strategy on commercially reasonable terms, or at all."

Interesting para on page 10 (as per PDF) or 7 (as per the doc page numbers) under "RISKS RELATED TO THE GROUP’S BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY". We apparently have a working capital shortfall of $4m at end of Jan.

"Therefore, at the end of January 2024, the Company will face an immediate shortfall of working capital. In
order to meet this working capital shortfall, and to fund the exploration and drilling activities of the Group
thereafter, the Company has commenced a strategic review to evaluate a wide range of financing and
strategic options to secure additional funding, including, but not limited to, selling a direct or indirect stake
in the Cascabel project, selling other assets of the Company, selling Ordinary Shares currently owned by
Cornerstone (being approximately $26 million based on the closing price of the Ordinary Shares as at the
Latest Practicable Date) or any other transaction, which may, or may not, dilute existing shareholders"

Perhaps already mentioned on this board, but were Newmont to make a revised offer for Newcrest following access to the non-public data, and said data related to Havieron were a factor in them offering more money, would it not be in Newmont's interest to talk up the asset, in order to convince the market that it had nabbed a bargain?

Might be missing something, and of course Newmont might then want to take all of Hav, in which case they might remain neutral and quiet.

go_ly_dow - a downward slip isn't really language I'd use. I'd recommend having a look at slide 8 of this presentation to get a better understanding of the timelines we're looking at here:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/61711d27ed0db12cacbcfb5a/t/63dc0c14aaf0ad0c969c9456/1675365409720/Atlantic+Lithium+Investor+Presentation+-+Feb+23+Indaba+Final.pdf

I will be there - keen to hear directly from Shaun his thoughts on everything that has transpired over the last few weeks, and to what extent his thoughts, outlook and plans have changed since I last attended one of these in September. There were some great questions from the room on that occasion and he answered most of them candidly.

DinnerMoney, I doubt you'll get a reply.

I'm also wondering how someone who has been doing this for 40 odd years can read that and think it comes even close to explaining the recent fall in share price.

FTF, glad you pointed it out... SimplyWallStreet is a nonsense website.

add, I think the RNS confirmed what many of us had thought for some time, that this company has been appallingly run for some time now. Caldwell admitting this is a welcome and long overdue sign of humility, and it's good that our senior management team are now shareholders 'proper'. I think we're all suffering from a hefty dose of fatigue, having spent years second guessing what strategy is of the company we've decided to trust with our investments, and failing to deliver on what they have set out to shareholders (i.e. the countless missed deadlines, delaying or not publishing of studies etc.).

I agree with you that we need to give new management some time and the benefit of the doubt - it's just hard when the share price is languishing at lows and a few months into the gig they're already markedly late on completing the merger. A lot rests on the outcome of the strategic review and then their ability to actually execute whichever path we end up taking.

Red, how do you square us searching for a new CFO (when are we not!) with your view that we are looking to sell the whole company?

This minimal info we've had from the company of late - today's RNS and the MD&A - point to SOLG existing in some shape of form beyond whatever the outcome of the SR is. It looks like we're going to go back to being a leaner organisation focused on exploration. If we find a way to sell Cascabel and return proceeds to shareholders (and get a good price for it) then the SOLG investment case becomes an interesting one again in my eyes, albeit one that would then come with the risk of being invested in a junior explorer.

I might be wrong, but one of the issues with the "rinse and repeat" strategy is that they would essentially be asking investors to buy into a company that never intends to generate regular cashflow. It might make sense to go down the JV route on some of the other licenses should there be potential to actually build a mine. But hopefully not at Cascabel. We've suffered long enough and need some sort of reward.

I'm fascinated to see what Bob Sangha and co manage to deliver in terms of a return to shareholders here, but also slightly wary of the fact that that whoever is sitting on the other side of the table will know we are desperate to get Cascabel off our hands. Vujcic's "adequately studied" comment in today's RNS is very cryptic.

I think given their current situation it's fair to say that NCM are not going to be pursuing ownership of Cascabel. BHP - who knows. Their strategy of sitting back and doing nothing isn't working out too badly so far. I imagine they read this morning's RNS with a wry smile given the bravado of Bob Sangha a few months back.

It's in the RNS Quady.

"As previously disclosed, the Strategic Review includes, among other things, evaluating and pursuing value-enhancing opportunities for the Company, such as:

· evaluating financing alternatives for the Company;

· a spin-out of assets, other than the Cascabel project, to all shareholders;

· the direct or indirect sale of an interest in the Cascabel project howsoever effected; or

· any other transaction or series of related transactions."

As of yet there isn't anything to announce. The MIIF have jumped the gun, whether it's a negotiation tactic or just unprofessionalism we will likely never know. ALL will make an announcement as and when the deal is done.

Bozi @ 07.38 - bang on the money. I put the chances of a takeover at 5% at best at this point. We are gearing up towards the solution Bozi mentioned some time ago and again this morning, a spin off an sale of Cascabel, allowing SOLG to continue exploring across the rest of its portfolio. How the company decides to do this and reward shareholders remains to be seen. I hope it isn't through a joint venture.

It's nice to read some humility in today's RNS, a long overdue recognition that the company has been run appallingly from CHQ. Our interim CFO has been thrown well and truly under the bus today which I don't really have much of an issue about.

Good to see a firm timeline put in place for completion of the merger - I will (slightly reluctantly) add a few more here when I get paid on the 21st to for a 10/20% trade on news of completion.

"As a person with a degree in psychology"

Ah, that explains it.

@notrader

There are 100% day traders who post opinions based upon whether they are long or short. It's the idea that there are people who are paid to come onto message boards to try and nudge PIs into selling a few thousand shares (particularly in highly liquid stocks such as GGP) that is total garbage.

Isn't performing as well*

MidasMac, no they don't, that is the same rubbish trotted out on every other AIM share that is performing as well as disgruntled investors would like. Particularly on stocks like GGP which are very liquid in comparison to many on AIM. It's conspiratorial nonsense. There share price is where it is because there are buyers and sellers on the bid and ask at the current price.

A question, does anyone on here personally know someone who has been employed to post negative comments on ONE share message board of the many that exist out there? Where are these jobs advertised?

MMs make money regardless of whether the share price goes up or down.

And a listing on the Ghana Stock Exchange? This isn't the first time the MIIF have gone to the press for some good PR and caught ALL on the hop. Must be a bloody nightmare for the company to have to deal with.