Member Info for theiceberg

That should be evolved not involved

Red, I would ignore the Reuters and look at it objectively.
But Reuters has involved many many times of the years and recently. It has had plenty of journalists resign over bias. It was funded in the 60-70s by the UK govt.....please ignore the Reuters and look at the bias list of news articles and the timing.

I think your blinding yourself red, look at the list of stories...ignore your thoughts about Reuters...can you honestly say that's unbias?
Look up cgp...Nothing for several years then 7 months ago when the solg negative stories started they magically start getting news articles from sources.
You say that Reuters is often quoted but nobody had quoted this?
The truth is that Reuters has several thousand journalists. Sometimes they are happy to print stories that land in their laps and even Reuters admit there only source is a single shareholder...They admit it's bad journalism.

I posted the same list as you, you just had to click on news.
Articles from latest backwards.
- Solg to begin process to replace CEO (which is actually that succession planning will start before summer)
-solg CEO rebuked
-Nearly half solg shareholders vote against board (not strictly true)
-cgp looks to replace solgs board
-Ceo says he can fend off destabilizing call to remove him
-Canada's CGP looks to replace board (a second article).
-CGP rejects Sol vs takeover attempt.
We are now at 7 months ago.

No mention of anything positive.
If you can't admit that is a bias list of news then...
If you don't think a cgp source is feeding easy stories.
If you want to take the story at face value and then ascribe your theories to it.
It is of course your prerogative.
I am maintaining my stance, despite the fact that at some point I will likely put my xtr gains in here and so could talk the share down. I am very positive and expect a torrent of good news!!!

Red, have a look at https://www.reuters.com/companies/SOLG.L

What do you notice about the news section....
A serious question.
Is there talk about Porvenir? Is there anything positive?
Lots of talk about cgp, how CGP are going to replace the BOD, how solg was defeated etc etc.
No intelligent person could claim It was unbias.
It could almost have been written by somebody at cgp....
Now I wonder which shareholder planted this story...

Cool collection of info.
My only comment is that the announcement of the Alpala committee is due in Jan,this will determine what changes they require in the PFS , with the PFS probably being delivered in March. It was discussions around the PFS that I tried to clarify with solg.

We've tried to say that but apparently it means the company has to make an announcement, that the company is being controlled by bhp, that the BOD no longer have faith in Nick and 100 other things...
Yet the market has treated it as a wet fart, barely moving in the first 30 mins...

Because it was a 2 bit story sourced by a single shareholder...which hadn't been picked up since by anybody else apart from people on this forum for the last 48 hrs.
(A bit harsh,sorry, but it really would have been a bit weird for them to respond in my opinion.) There still might be something, even a friendly interview...

"I don't believe this is 'dirty tricks' scrat ...I believe this is the new BoD taking control back from a 'privateer'..."

Red this is where you and i completely disagree. A spin article sourced from a single shareholder with no evidence to corroborate it, is not what I would base a new BOD comment on. You maybe right, but personally I require considerably more than this.

Red, of course you can but personally I don't think it's a good idea to go through all the arguments again why you have your AGM thoughts and others have theirs. The AGM has been and gone.

I am not saying all is well earthling, just that the company can't will say much about it. As I said as long as it's done well I don't care whether Nick is CEO of not..I do care he's got a bit chunk of the company as this is good.

If the company does release an rns It will likely be along the lines of " Nick has the full support of the bod to take the company forward, succession planning is being undertaken for all key staff" and I have no doubt that people will come on here and say this isn't a firm denial etc..
The problem is they can't issue a firm denial as they should have succession planning in place.

Addict I appreciate that the number of shares matter, but it makes it difficult to believe if the journalist cannot even be bothered to log onto the solg website and look up the meeting she's quoting!
I am not saying it's wrong..just if it's wrong, solg might not be bothered about countering every fake story.
Tbh if things are done well I don't have a problem with Nick going, or staying. I didn't invest for nick, he wasn't one of the reasons.

Just to add every company should have a succession plan for its ceo....They often want to get somebody in to learn the company etc before hand...It's good business. It's probably something the committee has said should be in place, in case Irwin takes a contract out on nick.

Addict, there is two sides to reuters, the deep investigative journalism and the ticket tape that prints everything. The job of Reuters is to be The Source of news, all news hence the ticket tape label. To do this they need to run every story..Every story. Even the kitten in new South Wales that can meow to INXS.
The author says clearly she has a single source..she makes multiple mistakes "after nearly half of shareholders," and then further mistakes. So no I dont classify it as a major news organisation for this purpose.
Nobody else, the FT, Ecuadorian papers, mining sites have ran with it yet..SO no sorry, if solg don't want to respond to it id be ok with that. That's is my view.

I hope there is an rns, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if there wasnt...It's a single shareholder with a planted story and a couple of Twitter accounts, no major financial news organisation has run with it.
They might not feel the need to respond to every 2 bit story and tweet. Equally they might be a vague bland rns or better still some real news.
I can't see the sp moving too much without news though.

It's what I said this morning, the story (one shareholder) is so vague, that anybody can use it to support whatever bizzaro story they want to contrive.
But no disrespect to anybody, the stories don't really make much sense.
What I will say is whoever has sourced the story has a clear agenda. Bhp have been tight lipped about everything. Newcrest and CGP have been the only ones that have tried to spin and release news like this.
Newcrest would do it and have always before, through AFR etc...but this broke in Canadian time....not though any serious news outlet either.
I could see CGP having a friendly mid tier manager, who's heard that Nick might start planning succession in the summer, he's told cgp, CGP have leaked it to a friendly reporter, tied in the agm and it is what it is now. This forum has then spawned 100 theories to support their view....

I actually agree with you earthling.
There was a report that BHP would launch a bid in April-June because the govt uncertainty would be gone and the PFS would be out. However Nick not going until sept/oct (if the succession plan is produced by summer)' helps them not one jot.
If that's a good time to bid (and I believe it would be) then would BHP really want Nick still in place at that time with rio, barrick, Chinese bids being launched..?
If they do a JV with solg to stop any hostile(not co supported) bid, then they arnt really gaining from Nick going as everything would be agreed.

Nothing in this story is actually good for bhp.

If it turns out to be true..well I don't believe that Nick would sit there and behave as a trained poodle for 6-12 months.
If I was Nick and didn't want to go I would work outside the bod to find a partner, support their bid and the guarantee that I would stay in charge when it happens.
If I couldn't do that I would go and be as annoying as newcrest and CGP have been.
Tbh I don't believe that a majority of the bod would face Nick down. I am not sure it means anything.

Not really addict, I've written a few articles over the years and worked with quite a few journalists, bad one's such as the daily express and the times and good ones which which tend to be small industry specific ones. But they all have the same thing in common, they try to take a something that has happened which is true and put in to support their story. It adds weight and provides an anchor.
In this story, if you've heard that Nick might be planning a succession, it would be natural, but lazy to tie it to the AGM. If you've only got a single source then that source will provide its own spin and bias...