Member Info for 21ATS

Posted on another BB, makes for a fun read.

https://www.griproom.com/fun/10-signs-your-company-is-about-to-be-acquired?s=08

It was a nice surprise this morning. That's the bonus of being a pessimist/realist. Every now and again you get a really pleasant surprise.

It removes a lot of angst from this afternoons presentation as many underlying questions have been addressed.

It's a shame the DHSC thing still drags on, that's holding the SP back to the tune of at least 100% minimum IMO.

Whilst it's nice to see good revenues, it's only half the information. We're not sure what margins we're operating on now and at what level expenses are running with all the new staffing and marketing. It's still all a positive though, but explains why we're seeing what many would feel is a modest rise today rather than a rocket. It will be interesting to see where this ends today and at what level we finish the week.

It's nice to have a positive feeling after so many glum days.

I have a feeling tomorrows meeting is going to be a bit of a damp squib, jam tomorrow type affair. I do hope it turns out to be more than that though. The willingness to answer the extensive list of well thought out questions discussed on here will be telling.

I think we just have to sit tight until the CEO changes and the DHSC issue is settled. The DHSC will likely use the Judicial Review for reason to simply put everything on hold until that point unless by some miracle the arbitration is finalised.

For me these are now a 6 month hold to see how it all pans out, once you get your mind around that and you're not obsessed with small daily SP movements your sanity can return to normal.

The fundamentals here are too far out of whack with the SP for it to make sense. It's just the sheer volume of unknows supressing it right now.

Here lies the fundamental problem with suppling the Government. You are always potentially subject to them simply deciding not to pay you at any time. Unlike supplying any form of private enterprise where legal proceedings are generally pretty definitive, assuming the company in question has assets, with a Gov you struggle to enforce any such proceedings.

They may simply decide not to pay, what are you then going to do? Issue a winding up order against the DHSC? You can’t it’s not a company you can wind up. Send the bailiffs in? Can’t pay we’ll take it away?

Let’s assume we’re caught up in the Judicial Review (JR), we don’t know if we are or not due to the lack of transparency of the situation specifically with NCYT.

Lets assume the JR outcome is not in the favour of the DHSC, they could simply say, “Hmm, we acknowledge the results of the JR thanks, but we’re still not going to pay”. What do you do then? Sue them? Say you won the case, how do you enforce it? How long will it take?

All the time your outcome is relying on the Government deciding to pay you what you’re owed.

This, in combination with unknown levels of sales going forward, is why we find the share price languishing where it is today. You can sum it all up in one word – unknown. The market has a fear of the unknown outcome.

I’m really hoping that the investor meeting next week sheds some light on NCYT moving forward away from the DHSC fiasco. A clear and different revenue stream will do confidence a world of good until the current mess is untangled.

In the meantime I continue to hold and will add where I can at these depressed prices. I’m not holding my breath for any form of resolution this year though. I’m also hoping that the change at the helm will encourage more communication from the company to the market/shareholders.

The reality is it’s only 20 weeks until the end of the year. In the big scheme of things that’s no time.

We're treading water until the 18th, I'm looking forward to hearing what they have to say at the IM, Lets hope it's drives some sentiment back in this direction.

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.

right/write - I should grammar check before I post.

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.

The more of these accounts I read about the DHSC and non payments the more convinced I am that this is going to end in litigation.

They clearly have no intention of paying and will only do so when forced.

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

The most ill I've ever been in my life was NV. The last two days of a cruise, I had to be injected to stop the projectile vomiting.

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.