Scancell Share Discussion Threads

[panama7] 26/10/2018 09:27

ONW, spot on again, rewards for failure seem to be the norm in this Country now. There is absolutely no correlation between the Share price performance and everything that has emanated from the BOD over the course of 6 years. We have been told for 6 years that there is " SIGNIFICANT INTEREST " being shown in both platforms yet they have had to raise funds at half the price of 5 years ago. If you genuinely had " SIGNIFICAN INTEREST ! in your science you would not be having to raise funds at heavily discounted levels and at the lowest share price for 5 years. Quite simply they have lied and their lies have finally caught up with them.

[the real lozan] 26/10/2018 09:27

Delays and cash-burn -
The LOSS BOSS tries to minimise the REALITY of the situation, with a rallying 'whimper' for swallowers to 'take-heart' and BUY,BUY,BUY... with =
"interest on £10m would cover the none science executive wages for a month or two"
.
Will HE next suggest the 'scientists / staff' wear 'longJohns', and bring torches to work, as the heating/ lighting gets turned off over the winter months - to save a few more Qvids, to help/add to =
"interest on £10m would cover the none science executive wages for a month or two"
.
Just out of interest -
Did/Do those self-granted 'pay rises' extend to the employees ???
OR
Were/are those 'self-granted 'pay rises' limited to those BoD members who 'produce the least' ???

[oldnotwise] 26/10/2018 09:02

Yes, I think to sum up the present share price mess the answer's pretty straightforward and In my opinion it's as simple as:-

The market's losing faith in the Company's ability to commercialise a potentially worldbeating and extraordinary portfolio of assets which offer great promise in the fight against Cancer.
I think it's fair to say that the Science is as good if not better than many, it's simply the commercialisation that's creating the problems and sadly if nothing's done to get Scancell's priorities sorted out (and quick) we may find ourselves chasing a dream rather than riding the wave of success.
BOD, You need to knuckle down and not waste our IP and USP, Oh and let's have performance related rewards rather than salaries that don't require any performance criteria. Perhaps a pay freeze, or maybe even an interim pay cut?
The science's been provided.... let's see the corporate stuff equally succeed... NOW!
AIMO
ATB

[oldnotwise] 26/10/2018 08:38

Just a thought....
Given the history of SCLP and cash raising, I wonder if there's a fear that with the CRUK Grand Challenge £20m results being put back (which let's face it was a done deal with some "experts" -£20M in the bin) and now the (potential further) delay in the US trial together with the increased cash burn for enhanced BOD remuneration, has frightened the market into believing there's a cash raiser afoot sooner rather than later....
If that's the case let's hope the BOD manage to satisfactorily elaborate on this unfortunate situation that might help to explain the current share price weakness.
Hope that scenario doesn't materialise..... but who knows?
AIMO
ATB

[oldnotwise] 26/10/2018 08:14

TF
Please don't think I'm criticising you personally... I'm not.
The free speech stuff is all about being able to post here and not have the usual suspects pile in and make ridiculous amounts of noise to mask out the post they don't agree with. I don't include you in that.
I haven't suggested that you were the culprit in having my posts removed on LSE (there's others who were much keener to arrange that).
I'd hoped I'd indicated my appreciation of your supportive comments towards the end there, and if that wasn't evident ,I'm sorry.
Although I don't always agree with your comments we've always remained civil to each other, and so I thank you.
Hope that clears things up.... In no way was your style of posting to do with my departure from LSE, (You and I know how to agree to disagree) :-)
ATB

[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