Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[torquayfan] 25/10/2018 23:09

Agema / ONW - as for LSE 'reporting', just two posts in 12 months - I always make a point of declaring openly when I do so.

Agema - ''Daily and in volume'' - hardly. And I very very much doubt that LSE posts are removed 'auto' at all let alone on just 2 reports.

Agema - it's those last comments about Prof. Lindy I objected too. As for your solicitor - go on then you Clown ! He/she'll laugh. A lot. As did I.

ONW - you've a short memory - on LSE I often posted on your behalf to try and keep the 'free speech' we both value, open - (and was often rebuked by other posters for doing so).

Both - you may not have noticed but I'm not exactly in the 'Club' over there - I post as I see things myself.

Keep smiling - the World hasn't quite ended yet . . .

[kreature] 25/10/2018 22:26

1.5p covers cash ?

[wanderer1210_0] 25/10/2018 21:21

TAKE NOTE LSE, THIS IS WHAT DEBATE LOOKS LIKE

[gooosed] 25/10/2018 20:52

""Don't forget most large shareholders have a seat on the board'

Unfortunately not so, in fact shareholder representation sadly lacking on the BOD. KCB's resignation has left a gap that needs to be filled and very much hope they'll redress the imbalance asap.""

Why would Chiplin & Lewis want to complicate matters ?

[panama7] 25/10/2018 19:37

So an II has sold 900,000 shares at these prices, this isn't about the delay to the trial, this is about the lack of integrity and leadership from the BOD. If you lie and mislead Investors for as long as Scamcell have then eventually it will catch up with you. Can't wait to hear what thses numpties have to say at the AGM. I wonder if Goodfellow's deceitful face will be in attendance.

[bermudashorts] 25/10/2018 17:50

Panama, ONW - yep that's right, thanks.

[oldnotwise] 25/10/2018 17:34

Agema
Bermuda didn't say that...
He said there were no takers!
Anyway, interesting day and thanks for the input..
ATB

[panama7] 25/10/2018 17:32

Agema, I think Bermuda means in theory they could have sold it but obviously to be able to sell something you need a buyer.

[oldnotwise] 25/10/2018 17:31

Berm
Certainly agree with the point re funding and the split, but at the time I felt that the new platform would create undue problems for a sale of the SCIB asset...
Wished I'd had the "out of box" thinking to realise that there wasn't a market for SCIB then..... Surely that was contemporary heresy???? (Attempt at humour hehe)...
Thanks for the input and good to hear ...
AIMO
ATB

[agema] 25/10/2018 17:27

Bermudashorts

So Scancell could very easily have sold Scib 1 completely.

Yeah right. If you believe that, you believe anything.

IMHO. Goodnight.

[panama7] 25/10/2018 17:27

Old, I think you will find that Goodfellow stated that they would sell the asset ( immunobody ) or the company was made after the discovery of Moditope. They are two completely different platforms no synergy, two completely different assets. They could have in theory sold Immunobody, apid a dividend to existing Shareholders and kep a substantial amount for running costs and to develop Moditope. This didn't happen because as I said earlier after approaching 60 Pharmas they were no buyers. We were told there was a change of strategy due to the discovery of Moditope I can assure you that is not the truth they wanted to sell Immunobody but no one wanted it. Goodfellow blatantly lied. He hung Investors out to dry. He appointed Peter Allen six weeks after his Frankfurt video for the sole purpose of raising funds but he omitted to tell Investors until 3 months later. Every Investor that bought in those 3 months was hyng out to dry and has never been able to get their money back. FACT

[bermudashorts] 25/10/2018 17:18

ONW - agree with much of the above but the problems marketing SCIB1 were nothing to do with the position of the Company IMO - it was simply that there were no takers for a cancer vaccine! They could have very easily licensed out SCIB1 or even sold the asset completely.

As I understand it, RG wanted to split off Moditope into a separate company for funding reasons. It's much easier in biotech. to raise seed funding rather than follow on funding. Moditope alone in a new company could have raised the necessary seed funding to take it forwards whereas retaining it within the existing company meant that they needed to raise funds on the basis of follow on funding (and we all know how that turned out!) You also had the issue of HMRC's 15% restriction on the VCT funds which would (and has) limit the amount existing funds could invest over time. That's why once funds had been raised and development commenced it was an issue that couldn't be resurrected as the opportunity had been lost.

[oldnotwise] 25/10/2018 17:08

Agema
i get your points, but I'm sick of hearing how good the science is, and like you after six years I'm sceptical. I simply made the naive questions because that's what I want to know about, not hearing from ego driven statements which have been shown to be completely incorrect in both expectation and effect.
I'm certainly aware of BODs' ability to prevaricate, but we can all read between the lines given the peace and quiet in which to do it!
AIMO
ATB

[oldnotwise] 25/10/2018 17:03

Panama
Sorry to disagree but the Moditope discovery was poorly handled both from a presentational and commercial viewpoint. You said yourself that

" Goodfellw stated that they would sell the Asset ( Immunobody ) or the Company."

that was (I believe) before the announcement and then I suspect there were problems marketing SCIB due to the inability of Scancell the company to be sold Lock stock and Barrel as was the original intention and whilst I'm not qualified to comment on the scientific cross platform problems created by Moditope I reckon there were some. Also RG did say he wanted to split the company re the two platforms but that was not a view shared by the then chairman, and from a very basic view I can understand why he might have wanted to do that. We don't really know why but I do stand by the view that the company faced problems when it realised it had a second asset that required a great deal of research, money and lab time to take forward, and with possible linkages (Commercial and scientific) across the two platforms it would certainly have created commercialising difficulties.
Having said all that, that's my view but now we're in a different place with different staff, and like you I want to know more about their views and expectations, and I think we need assurances about corporate governance going forward. Gone are the days of a free ride for the BOD, I think as shareholders we deserve to know what's going on (or Not).
AIMO
ATB

[agema] 25/10/2018 17:00

Given that all trial information gets published. The pharma world reads and evaluates it all. If no sale or even offers. It can only mean the science is not good enough.

AGM’s. Questioning the Board. Mmmm. I have been to many.I never go nowadays. They all promise the earth. Positive things are always around the corner. This time next year.???. Boards are skilled in not giving you a direct and straight answer. They answer questions with another question. Real important information and price sensitive info cannot be released unless via an RNS. So what great info can you get at an AGM.

Anyway. Let’s see if this years AGM is any different. Bye all.

[oldnotwise] 25/10/2018 16:50

Agema
Now you're moving into a different area altogether with the "selling itself" business.
Yes to a degree I agree, so as mentioned this morning what's the REAL situation here? It would be an interesting question for someone to ask at the AGM in that is the Science so good that we don't need trials to prove it because it's already proven and so it's just a question of going through the motions.
Personally I'm not sure that's quite the case but wouldn't it be great to get how the BOD see it?
What if they say that they're confident but we have to await the various trial results, then the next natural question is how long do we have to wait assuming that the trials start ..... in whatever dates are currently "expected" at the time of the question.
The next question then has to be why haven't we been snapped up already (maybe the BOD don't subscribe to the fact that the "Science" isn't as guaranteed as some might like to make out).
What then about other developments in our field that haven't made it out of the shadows beyond those "in the know" ie the likes of our CSO and other REAL movers and shakers in the "industry", I'm sure word gets around. I've always worried about an alternative becoming available or being considered (and no, I'm not interested in what Laymen think, I want to hear it from people who KNOW about the inside of the industry).
All of these questions are purposely naive, but they're the sort of ones I want answered, not someone's ego talking at me.
So all we have to do is ask those basics without being clever or taking quantum leaps so that a value judgement can be made by the masses in which I include myself! Let's face it the CLEVER predictions we've all heard over the last six years or so have been pretty valueless, and if we see that they still have to take effect (even though it should all have happened several years ago according to some). Maybe we can get a handle on what the BOD expect and from that we can make more informed value judgements as Investors.
OK I guess most of us still subscribe (in a hopeful way) to "the science will see us through" but over what sort of timescale and what's the risk/reward (which to someone who's kept their original holding from say 2012 and not added) means that its skewed massively away from the original reward target towards a greater risk potential thanks to the substantial dilution that's been experienced to date.
Wouldn't it be great to consider Scancell shares in a rational and quiet way rather than on the basis of the Snake Oil salesmans' claims?
AIMO
ATB

[panama7] 25/10/2018 16:36

Old, the Moditope situation didn't cause them any problem, Goodfellw stated that they would sell the Asset ( Immunobody ) or the Company. They did neither for the simple reason after approaching 60 Companies no one was remotely interested. This notion that there was a change of strategy due to the discovery of Moditope is a load of old rubbish. 6 years of no sale and no deals in a sector awash with them tells you everything you need to know. Our BOD have an over inflated opinion of themselves , they are little fish in a big sea and are out of their depth. They have made so many basic fundamental errors that absolute millions have been wiped off Investors portfolios. Every sell in the last couple of days would have realised a loss what a disgraceful position to be in after all the tweets, presentations , asides and pronouncements by various individuals on the BOD.

[agema] 25/10/2018 16:30

Old.

If the science was that good. The company would surely sell itself. The Board would be irrelevant.

Clearly trials and results thus far, have not been good enough. A Board cannot sell a company that no one wants.

Lindy’s time would tell a story. A good question to ask at an AGM.

ATB.

[oldnotwise] 25/10/2018 16:07

Panama.. I'm not saying you're wrong... but Maybe, just maybe the previous incumbents of the Chair and CE Office were less able than the situation required.... OK they might have been unintentionally less than outstanding, but I have some sympathy for the problems that the Moditope situation threw at them, they just handled it commercially badly (Purely in my view).
The latest recruits however may be a different kettle of fish.....
Just wanted to throw that in.
AIMO
ATB