Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[tosh123] 04/4/2019 10:40

Berm,
they have had 8 years +.
They have tried to follow the well trodden path and its not worked. They may not have been able to do things different historically, but NOW we are approaching a watershed moment when they must decide whether to continue doing what they've been doing, trying to develop all platforms and risk financial ruin, or totally change their ethos, and cash in some chips that will allow them to continue to sit at the table.

I could be wrong with my suggestion Berm, i accept that, but i also know that one thing im not wrong about is that the BOD have consistently under performed.
Its time to change tack IMHO.

[bermudashorts] 04/4/2019 10:21

Panama,

I think they genuinely believed they would be able to secure a deal. You probably think it was just hype - we'll never know.

[panama7] 04/4/2019 10:16

Bermuda, you are correct there were no takers so how do you balance that against " Selling the company for many multiples " and " 7 years of significant interest in both platforms " after 2013 fundraise " we will now be in a position to do deals on both platforms ". How on earth were the BOD in any position to make any of those statements. The effect of making those statements and failing to back them up with anything of substance is a 5p shareprice and potential funding at 4p.

[bermudashorts] 04/4/2019 10:15

As for the scattergun approach - they're caught between a rock and a hard place. They absolutely have to press on with moditope - if nothing else just to get the patents filed, all of which need to be supported by in depth research. Then they have to press on with at least one candidate from the platform because that patent clock is ticking away and they can't afford to just leave it sitting on the shelf.

[bermudashorts] 04/4/2019 10:10

.......but if it's just a question of strategy or the business model then that suggests all you have to do is change the strategy and all will be well.

In terms of strategy - how would you have done things any differently? They ran a standard sized phase I/IIa trial for SCIB1 and achieved excellent results. They managed to get their foot in the door and get those NDA's signed but at the end of the day there were no takers and that is the fundamental issue here. How would a different strategy have made any difference?

You're making the huge assumption that there was a deal to be done - I'm not sure that's the case.

By the way, I'm not coming at this from the stance of defending the BOD, there are areas that I feel warrant criticism but I'm just trying to understand the real issues.

[panama7] 04/4/2019 10:10

Tosh, I totally agree with you they need to sell something. Let's face it anything they could potentially sell keeps going down in valuation anyway with all these fundraisings and more to come.

[the real lozan] 04/4/2019 10:08

Common sense v 'perception' -
IF.. this was as 'EASY / PROVEN / CERTAIN' -"NO RISK here"...As someone 'says'it is
Surelee = This would not be SUB 6p
FUNDING would NOT be hard to find...As it IS
Trials would have been underway long ago... excluding other minor set-backs
EVERYONE would have NO CONcerns ...As they have
.
The CONcerns STEM from the FACT that the 'IMAGE' was 'planted' that - this was going to be 'EASY / PROVEN / CERTAIN' -"NO RISK here"...As someone 'says'it WAS.
.
It is NOT, REALITY is different to invented expectations.
MAYBE, if folks understood... that MAYBE- the BoD are doing their BEST with what they HAVE, and are in a difficult market with numerous other companies 'vieing for backing', MAYBE - SUB 6p is what one might EXPECT ATM ???
At this stage in the development of SCLP... NO ONE should be surprised, or have been led to 'expect' £6 -'EASY / PROVEN / CERTAIN' -"NO RISK here"...As someone 'says'it is.
Folks would not be sooo frustrated/ disappointed/ critical.. had they not allowed themselves to 'expect £6 -'EASY / PROVEN / CERTAIN' -"NO RISK here"...As someone 'says'it was.
MAYBE, the BoD ARE doing their BEST under difficult circumstances
That doesn't mean to say, the BoD seem to make those cicumstances more difficult for themselves, or for shareholders, by 'being remote' ???

[tosh123] 04/4/2019 09:58

Panama,
i understand that principle, but to be able to run multiple trials, you need massive funding, and we dont have it... and unless theres some sort of deal which involves a third party buying or funding a platform, we will be raising in the 4p range, its total nonsense.
The scattergun approach can still be achieved via inbuilt royalty arrangements.

I can have 4 Bentley's parked on my drive, which look lovely, but if i cant afford the fuel to be able to drive any of them, whats the point ?
Better that i sell or rent one out so that i can buy the fuel to drive one of the others.

[panama7] 04/4/2019 09:50

Tosh, LD told an Investor at the AGM that they just need one target to hit and we would be in the money. I would take from that it's a scattergun approach as they don't have enough confidence in one single product and it's better to have several options in the hope that one pays off.

[tosh123] 04/4/2019 09:44

Berm,
but all they have done is driven the share price through the floor. There has been raise after raise but still no meaningful data.
There comes a time when rather than continue to screw the shareholders and haemorrhage cash, that the focus needs to be changed IMHO.
Better to get one platform to market in a timely fashion, than have numerous " potential " products that all require massive funding, and remain unproven.

I understand the usual protocol for baby bio's, but after nearly 8 years, we're still nowhere near attaining any form of proven product.
I would sell one of the platforms and then use the capital to fund the other.
Everything has a price, so if we were realistic in what we wanted to achieve from a sale, we could still retain certain on going royalties, but without the burden of the required trials.
May be a bit simplistic, but im certain theres a deal to be done somewhere.

[panama7] 04/4/2019 09:42

Bermuda, I agree with Tosh there has been no coherent business strategy it has all been built on arrogance that Big Pharma would be fighting each other to get a deal. The arrogance in Goodfellow's Frankfurt video confirms this. 65 NDA's issued and no interest yet they have consistently told us for 7 years that there is significant interest in both platforms. They bungle along in the hope that someone will trow money there way and then suddenly realise that is not going to happen and then have to raise funds from a position of weakness which has led to raising at ever decreasing prices and an ever falling shareprice. Their performance is summed up in the share chart of 7 years.

[bermudashorts] 04/4/2019 09:25

Tosh,

I can't see how the business model is the problem, they're following a standard biotech. strategy. ie. Develop each product to the stage whereby they have sufficient data to secure a licensing deal or sale. The issue isn't the strategy - it's simply that they haven't yet managed to secure a deal for SCIB1. I'm not sure what business model or strategy they could adopt now other than what they're already doing which is to gather more data.

[ivyspivey] 04/4/2019 09:17

Post red Tosh.
Yes we are all frustrated with progress and like all hope science will see us through but need these trials to start.
By pushing ahead in all fronts they will get through cash quicker.
Let us hope they have the balance of risk/reward covered but their track record so far is not great.
As Panama 7 says will make fir an interesting EGM if called or in time the next AGM

[tosh123] 04/4/2019 08:59

Morning TF / Ivy,
the main concern as i see it, is that its just rinse and repeat, the same stuff that we've been hearing for over 7 years, and that hasn't worked.
I genuinely hoped that when the BOD changed, that the business model would change along with it, however, twould appear that its just more of the same, only difference is that its now costing us a lot more to do the same stuff.

To say im frustrated is an understatement.
I genuinely thought they would try to monetise one platform using the other, by selling one of them.

Thank goodness the BOD ( unlike a certain village idiot ) acknowledge the risk profile of the company. It still beggars belief that anyone could believe that theres such a thing as a riskless investment... the guy is totally bonkers !
The BOD have always appreciated that there are risks, and a lot of them, its only our brainless wonder that states otherwise, so its nice to see it in writing, once again proving the idiot is totally WRONG.

Onwards and upwards from here i hope.

[ivyspivey] 04/4/2019 08:22

Morning TF,
Yes they are following what they have been saying for some time and the point you make is very valid.
On this occasion I did not prioritise asking specifically on progress of SCIB 1 Combo as I and others have had previous responses and I am happy that he would not respond to elucidate the situation moving forward.
We know they will need cash at some point so 2 general options a Raise or a Deal.
They also have a decision as to whether to actively manage the cash to postpone the point at which they need the money.
It seems clear that they are not doing this so that is something gleaned from my reply.
As well as they acknowledge the risk aspect of any of the individual platforms unlike some.
So those are the 2 things I take from the reply and everything is about opinion and interpretation all I want to do is do it in the light of the fullest information

[torquayfan] 04/4/2019 00:44

Ivy 21391 ''I had a reply back from CH just confirming the main priorities are to generate trial data from Modi 1 and SCIB 1 /Combo and this multi faceted approach is to mitigate risk''.

IMO the time for any prioritising is long past. Maybe a few years ago, BoD might have prioritised one platform over another, but they decided to progress all the science together, even adding to it (Glycans etc). Undoubtedly this has spread the risks but also and inevitably, slowed up progress on all fronts.

News would be good - FGS what IS happening, or not, at the FDA ?

[ivyspivey] 03/4/2019 14:32

Hi P7,
He basically just reiterated the need to generate data for both platforms and how hard they are working towards this aim.
In fairness I did not ask specifically on progress but more on whether a more focused priority on one platform may be more beneficial than a multi faceted approach and also the need for news soon.
ATB

[panama7] 03/4/2019 14:04

Ivy, In your communication with CH did he sign off with everything is on track and everything is going to plan.

[bermudashorts] 03/4/2019 13:25

Loz,

I know someone who is quite knowledgeable if you want to DM me via this site

[the real lozan] 03/4/2019 12:57

While it's quiet -
Do *WE ALL* have any 'Coin collectors', or 'Coin experts'.. amongst our ranks ???
If so, please contact me, as I could do-with a little advice re. this subject
Lozan

[bermudashorts] 03/4/2019 11:20

ah right am with you now - thanks Gazza

[gazza] 03/4/2019 10:38

Bermuda,

The problem is the numbers are all cumulative so buy year 1 what are they worth in year 8, buy year 2 worth year 8 etc. So only 8 scenarios are catered for (all buy and hold)

They do not state the other permutation, buy year one, sell year 2, buy year 2 sell year 4 etc. There are hundreds of permutations, the hold one year permutations are 83 alone I gave up analysing the 3,4,5,6,7 year options.

[bermudashorts] 03/4/2019 09:58

Panama..............well yes the share chart speaks for itself, just wanted to point out that something doesn't seem to be quite right with Tommy's figures/analysis.

[panama7] 03/4/2019 09:51

Bermuda, yes and Goodfellow took full credit and responsibility, strange how he has not taken full credit and responsibility for the abysmal performance since then. There was a 5 month period where the share went in an upward trajectory and now 6 years of the total opposite. Not bad for a company that could have been sold for many multiples of 34p 6 years ago.