We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
21ATS, unremitting negativity, have you read your own posts, it’s like Leonard Cohen reincarnate ..
____________________________________________________________________
Enlighten me then, what glowing sunshine do you currently see in the saga involving the DHSC, from my perspective all it looks is unremmitingly negative.
Don't turn yet another thread into some sort of witch hunt, we had some good constructive conversation over the weekend without your nonsence.
If you don't like what I right or the questions I ask, simply choose to ignore them, don't start crying Shorter/Deramper! I see enough of that crap from uneducated individuals on these BB's and I though much of NCYT was above it.
I hope I'm wrong, but every article I read about the DHSC points to a level of incompentence that is difficult to comprehend, hence I think nothing short of litigation is going to solve the problem. I would be delighted though to see a little red dot that tells me the dispute is over and settled via arbitration. I'm just not holding my breath like many on here seem to be.
I also have no wish to sell my holding at a loss, which Is why I'm not about to sell up and **** off.
21ATS & Oriens, posting together, are you flatmates or something more sinister, you both put me in mind of someone administering whilst gripping the patient tightly around the throat - transparent as glass, murky as sh1*.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Paranoia is a terrible thing,.
I say what I see.
I'm fed up with looking at red numbers on my holding, I'd like to see a resolution but all the time all I read is negative.
I fear that assuming any logic or normal business behaviour applies to the DHSC is a step too far.
I have no doubt a civil servant who has no personal interest in a dispute being resolved one way or another would be swayed by a company standing firm and not supplying product via a new agreement due to a previous agreement being in dispute. It is simply too easy for the Civil Servant to say that simply a different contract/department/not my job/not my problem.
That would need to go up the food chain and I see that decision being made at close to ministerial level.
Post by Poidster :-
The facts were new orders were placed by individual nhs labs, those orders were received and not fulfilled.
Said labs have been waiting for new deliveries for several weeks, chasing the company on delivery dates they are now being promised imminently.
There have been no issues with production or volume.
Thats as much as I'm prepared to say on here
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
A couple of Questions of what's been running through my mind today as a result of discussions on here.
My understanding was NCYT was suppling the DHSC in volume, effectively to a central distribution point - the dispute has arisen on this supply - exact reasons unknown.
Again, my understanding is that individual entities (trust/Labs/hospitals?) are new free to order supplies direct rather than centrally through the DHSC,
How is the latter being paid for? Are the DHSC paying centrally for individual orders or are the trusts/labs/hospital responisble for paying for their own supplies?
I guess what I'm getting at is we could be getting excited that supplies appear to be released again and there's an indication the DHSC might again be onside - only to find out that these two things are mutually exclusive and whilst we're suppling on a local level, the national problem we're caught up in (DHSC dispute) continues?
I thought as much, there's been a lot of speculation posted in a manner that sugggests it's fact on this BB over the past few weeks.
I don't think any agreement has been reached, as much as I'd like ot sorted. They would be obliged to inform the market if there were.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
An NDA can't trump a legal obligation. Otherwise you could have a takeover approach done under an NDA and no one would ever know. Not to cast doubt on any posters, but as far as I'm concerned until I see an RNS then there has been no change. Believe it when I see it.
Question.
At what point does an NDA trump a legal requirement to publish information whoch materially effects a companys share price?
NCYT were required legally to disclose the dispute with the DHSC are we seriously suggesting an NDA may actually stop an RNS stating the Dispute is over and there is an outcome?
I'm not interested in what we were doing, I'm interested in what we're doing now and going forward.
Who are we selling to and in what volume?
Who are our customers?
What contracts to supply do we have going forward?
Clearly the "market" is simply not intereated in the first 5 months of this year, it's pricing the company on very different assumptions.
The single biggest assumption in that numbers above is revenue. Last year it was as you state.
This year it's what exactly?
We're specifically being told not to ask and it's being made clear it won't be divulged.
Any company that's smashing sales generally can't wait to shout it from the rooftops it's good for business, it's good for PR, it's good for shareholder value.
Ask yourself why any compnay would flat refuse to discuss it's sales, then you have the answer to whay we're languising where we are. The numbers are likely quite ugly going forward.
What "they" know is probably the one thing we're being told we can't ask or discuss. Actual revenues going forward now the market is starting to become flooded with competition.
I've never before been invested in a company that flat out refuses to engage with it's shareholders despite it appearing to be successful and profit making.
I have a sick feeling in my stomach about this, I hope I'm wrong.
That's aside from the DHSC radio silence debacle
My intention is to remove my initial investment when the price has doubled for me - Circa £7.80. The rest I will let run. Lets hope that materialises first.
So whatever category that falls into, probably a combination of two.
My wife's main carer tested positive on Thursday, confirmed by PCR this weekend. She's been double jabbed.
Her three sones, all of whom refuse to be vaccinted, all went to the Euro Football final last Sunday. All three are positive.
We're all clear in this house so far.
Clearly Johnny is a realist..
Simply becuase his opinion differs from yours or what you'd like to see it doesn't make him a deramper.
I'm sat here like many on the board lookng at red numbers, albeit mine a lot a smaller than some as I have an average just under £4.00. The reason we are where we are is partly due to what Johnny has explained.
Until the DHSC situation is resolved (whatever way it's resolved) there reamins uncertainty. I'm hoping it's resolved soon and the SP flies to where it should be.
It would also be nice to know what we're selling, to whom we're selling and who we're in partnership with.
That's a good and concise explanation of why we are where we are right now.
The DHSC Dispute is hanging over this company and supressing any or all good news that is being generated right now.
He arrives at the number referring to the following paragraph in the RNS of 22nd June, it is the "headline" number on which pretty much every is currently valuing and judging this company. The sooner this can be put to bed the better as in reality NCYT will not progress (as far as SP is concerned) until it has been sorted:-
On 9 April 2021, Novacyt announced it was in dispute with the DHSC in relation to its second supply contract and made a further update on 21 May 2021. The dispute primarily relates to Q4 2020 revenue totalling £129.1m in respect of a specific product supplied to the NHS. The Company has taken independent legal advice and a provision has been made in the financial statements with the Board's estimate at this time in respect of this claim with DHSC.