Member Info for Strider4

And another thing I thought of regarding this Chris Temple's article:

He gives credit to Cornerstone for the discovery of Cascabel, and takes pains to point at that it was not NM who made the decision to enter Ecuador. Now, ref his comment about NM, I actually agree - NM does give the impression that it is his baby - it's interesting to note that very little about it is in fact "his baby". Can't of course fault subsequent management and expansion of the consessions (apart from my bug bear with the options etc). But I digress...

So, let's say we do give full credit to Cornerstone for the discovery of this fabulous deposit...are they not then imbeciles for giving 85% of it away?! Or in actual fact, the reason they gave it away for a song was that they had NO IDEA how good it was and how much potential was there. Either way they come out of it looking extremely stupid - no wonder they are so acrimonious.

Tipsa, yes it's about a year and a half I think. So, they've been discussing it with SOLG for at least 6 months I would imagine, during which time SOLG have continued to state 100% owned for the new consessions in the vicinity of Cascabel, in numerous presentations and RNS. Frankly, either the agreement explicitly states a radius or it doesn't? Given the lack of detail provided I would suggest that Cornerstone is trying to push some vague line in the agreement to its limit. Good luck to them - let's see it settled in court nice and quickly and be done with them. Instead what do we see - a rather unprofessional and hurried statement about it on their website.

Tipsa, I did mention, barring fine print - as we don't have access to it we can't know for sure one way or the other. I'd say the likelihood at this stage is that it is just Cascabel - it would be a pretty generous buffer that would also include a 5km radius beyond it. And why wait all this time to raise the issue?! Suspicious to say the least.

Doesn't really matter if the guy is a lawyer or not - whe they release this kind of statement I would imagine they get the lawyers to have a quick once-over anyway.

Good point Scrat. Plenty of free air time now.

Schlem - where's the inconsistency? You seriously can't see it?

Yeah I might filter you. Can do without the pathetic panicy posts every time the share price drops by 1 pence.

An interesting read, but heavily biased towards Cornerstone. It's quite clear where this guy holds shares. Mention of egos at play, but subsequent snide remarks directed only at Nick. Some inaccuracies as well - perhaps SOLG is illiquid in Canada but it isn't illiquid on AIM. He states that while SOLG will be diluted in the 2 years to BFS, Cornerstone won't - that is inaccurate - it will be accruing debt at a frightening rate which will have to be converted into massive dilution on D-day. He states that SOLG will likely be doing a placing mid-year...how so? Has he not done his basic calcs on burn rate? Nick tends to raise the amount he needs for a year's worth of budget on top of about a $50 million buffer.

A big question I have is if Cornerstone is such a fabulous entry to a stake in Cascabel, why on earth did BHP not snap it up in the first instance? Instead the world's biggest miner came to SOLG, paid a 30% premium and agreed not to buy Cornerstone for at least 2 years! Go figure.

Jekyll and Hyde at all Schlem? Thursday it was:

"....nowt's gonna extract value here except a takeover!"

A day on and it "in play" again.

"My question was; what happens to the SOLG shares held by CGP?"

Hopefully, they will just be absorbed and be no more. What we absolutely don't want to see is them being held in the treasury, available for issue as rewards for the SOLG "employees" or more specifically top management and directors...

Eish - take a look at some of my comments on that earlier on in the day.

I did some research into past RNS's and came to the conclusion that both aspects of what Cornerstone is saying there is highly likely to be BS. Remember that both Newcrest and BHP have had their lawyers do due diligence on this and ensuring that SOLG has rightful ownership/correct compliance both with Cornerstone and the Ecuadorian government will have been at the top of their list.

SH, ref your point (1) - and?

Ref your point (2) - you've been on this board a long time have you? Again and? Yes, you've been pretty straight in that you said you were out yesterday and now you're back in. But you only said you were back in after you were questioned. Nothing wrong with trading whatsoever - what is wrong however is taking the side of the fundamental argument that suits your position. If you can't see that talking a share down one day and then talking the same share up the next lacks integrity somewhat then that's a shame.

"My negative comments were about how the market might react to a drawn out battle for Cornerstone, and that's why I sold up. y today it was clear that 35.6p was about as bad as it was going to get and I bought back in. WTF is wrong with that?"

I'll tell you WTF is wrong with that. Most people have the courtesy to other holders to STFup if they are playing that game. Instead, what did you do? You came on here and tried to sow seeds of doubt to suit your agenda.

GB - your posts betray you as an amateur. Caveat - share prices can go down as well as up.

Now I really am going, honest!

SH, just can't stand it when people talk a share down to suit their purpose and then have the gall to appear soon after with a uturn on their point of view, after they've bought back in. Frankly it's disgusting.

And I don't see what relevance how long you've been in and out of this share has with respect to the above - it has no bearing on it whatsoever.

Dibs, agree that this is way oversold both technically and fundamentally.

The slow stochs haven't been this low since Brexit announcement day. Today showed the first proper signs of support in the price action. The savvy will see this and I expect a strong bounce next week.

SH - let's call a spade a spade. You were fully in cash yesterday and talking about 35p and below. You call it positive - I call it transparent BS.

Lol, Seanhunter - you're much more positive today. Bought back in by any chance?

Interesting stuff - nice bit of clarity there.

It doesn't give a valuation to the amount that CGP owes for their share of the exploration so far, which is probably around $15 million, and counting. So, that's being thrown into the offer too, which takes the CGP total Cacabel valuation up to circa $500 million, a fair bit closer to the current SOLG Cascabel valuation of $894m.

Popped my head back in - couldn't resist. Well said WTL.

I should say: I may have timed my exit well (36p), but I was late to the party and only bought at a range of prices in the 30s. Overall, I came out a few quid up, but nothing to write home about.

Tipsa - not sure why Cornerstone think they're worth a better offer than that to be honest. What the shareholders are being offered is a 20% premium to what we SOLG holders are offered, which is the current market price! The CGP holders then still have all of the takeover upside that they had before, just via SOLG instead of Cornerstone. Plus they get access to the other concessions. Egos at play over there I think.

GG40 - it was just out of interest. If you hold there, it would be worth you clarifying it with them directly. I certainly wouldn't touch it with a barge pole until I understood either what they are/mean or that it is a typo on the website.

exercise in motion. Clearly there were a shedload of them sat at 88-89p.