Member Info for WoodyB

CMG I am waiting.

You've got a lot to say for yourself. So you think I've not got any shares or invested £4.50 max. If you like to put a bet on that, we can get it independently checked? £10,000 says I invested more than £50,000. £500 to get it independently checked by LSE, that should cover their costs. Are you in or not?

Starting a 'thread of fear'? Don't be a berk. I am down and fed up with it. Nothing wrong with venting that. Why don't you stop posting unfounded messages about 20p by Christmas? I would love it but is seems very unlikely.

No thanks I've got my target price.

I've got a lot thank you.

Anyone else wish they were out of this for the weekend?

I meant an offer of funding, not an offer for the shares!

Can anyone recall date or better still have a link to the webinar where Mather stated SG had an offer of £1bn, or words to that effect? It has stuck in my mind that Ingo Hofmaier looked wrong-footed when Mather said this. I would like to re-watch it. Best wishes all.

The idea that competing businesses/boards do not discuss or take steps to pre-plan possible future deals is naive. This happens all the time. It is part of business life. It does not mean any hard an settled terms are agreed or formalised, to give parties freedom to go cold, or firm up later on. It does not mean there are any breaches of regulation or law. If a binding deal or Heads of Terms were inked that would be a different matter. I have no idea if SG and BHP liaising BTW. Enjoy the sun if you are in the UK.

Thanks to Add and Sean for this morning's update.

In one of the most recent vid's of Scott, shortly after the latest funding news, he did make very brief reference to the permits will make this a 'turnkey' asset. It was only for second or so. Apologies if someone else has previously made the same point. It was the interview someone on here commented that Scott looked tired. Scott would not mention making this a turnkey asset unless the intention was to sell as primary objective.

Thanks very much DBW

Thanks for posting those Red

62p

I am actually encouraged it is FN, nonetheless SG and probably FN have been shamed into this RNS by the speculation on X and here, no doubt elsewhere.

Add, SC's is scaldwell@solgold.com.au or try cstackhouse@solgold.com.au. They never replied to me, but then I don't have £10m!

Thanks for your thoughts Addicknt and Jack. I think unless the lender is FN, the £10m is unsecured from someone else, if the latter FN's prior charge has priority. So that means if it is not FN the lender is extremely confident about their position and SG, or desperate to keep the lights on.

Thanks Addicknt, I tend to agree, but SG should least clarify, or did I read somewhere a week or two back that lender had requested anonymity? If so that does not sound like FN?

Can someone clarify what HH's position is? A negative pledge is SG's agreement not to create and security or loans charged on assets without their consent. This could still mean that FN loaned the £10m, or it could mean it was provided by unsecured loan by someone else? SG would probably have got FN's consent to the latter out of courtesy anyway?

Great news, that’s a great relief. I’m pleased for all LTHs. Congratulations to Scott Caldwell and the team.

Hello Red.

As you have surmised the uncertainty surrounds references to :

... a 'significant' portion of the estimated 'initial' capital development costs of the Project - my italics - how much is 'significant'? This means they have not got all the funding arranged or even close to it? Is that significant portion conditional on SG raising the balance to get to first base? What does 'initial' refer to? What happens after that?

The £10m loan is effectively emergency funding and is apparently sufficient for the next 'few' months, whoopee. To me that means 3-4 months? I am a LTH, so I am sticking with as I am well down, but can't wait for this to be over now.