Member Info for AB124

RW

Thankyou for your 07.55 yesterday.

I imagine the CLNs are a prior charge on the company over the equity so why would RM convert? Scancell is due to repay the CLNs plus accrued interest in 2027.

Unless they've signifivantly reduced their holding of Ord shares by 2027 I can't imagine RM would want to increase their commitment (Particularly as it might require them to make a full bid -Subject to then current legislation). With RM's repayments due from the Company for Capital and Interest if it gets as far as 2027, without any significant restoration of the SP (RM's average 10pish?) the outlook for Scancell under those conditions seems likely to be rather iffy.

So, no, I would be surprised to see anything other than RM taking their capital and interest back from the CLNs (If available from the company's then assets) as a bit unlikely. Of course that is blown out of the water if ANOTHER maturity extension is agreed,,,,,, But is that really likely?

AIMO

To all who post here

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

May we all enjoy a Peaceful and Prosperous 2025.

EE as you say,

"He made it clear at the AGM that looking at these aspects is his main priority (and many of us have repeatedly pointed to such a need in the company)"

But in your case only since (I think you posted the other day) 2020.

Many can lay claim to making that point for a great many years before you arrived as an investor, and so by definition due to their foresight, frustration will have been building over a much greater length of time. So IMO criticising them is somewhat disingenuous.

It's not new here to read comment that that commercialisation has been sadly lacking in the context of Scancell's oft lauded "world beating/leading" IP.

EE, you've only been keeping Scancell company for four years. Many have frustratedly kept the faith for a great deal longer. they have every right to make their feelings known.

In any case your own oft stated predictions for the imminent stratospheric trajectory of Scancell's SP have proved inaccurate to say the least, so let others have their say even though it might not fit with your Johnny Come Lately enthusiasm.

They are allowed to you know.

AIMO

EE

Wow!

As you say, the issue wasn't underwritten, so why raise that point against Panmure in the first place? I can only assume you discovered that fact this evening after you stated last evening,

"Panmure should be careful. Those with underwriting experience (like me) know full well that if you price something too cheaply,,,,"

As to your very professional and 'Boardmemberlike' reply to me this evening, fear not, I'll leave any future inaccurate statements you make to hang undisturbed on your tree of withering credibility. I'd not want to hurt your feelings any further.

So sorry to have upset you to the extent I obviously have.

Have a very happy and peaceful Christmas.

All best.

EE

Thanks for your response.

Actually the 2013 Issue for Scancell was at a deep discount and (IMO) created a very serious precedent for shaking trust in Scancell's ability to manage its future financing.

Since you are a bit critical of the pricing I guess you would have been equally "bit Critical" in 2013. It actually damaged the brand on that occasion.

You make the point that your experience was in debt.

I'm sure you'll agree that Debt Issuance is a rather different animal from equity.

You also mentioned you were experienced in underwriting. Did your company underwrite its own issue? I think I might have misunderstood your role as you were actually involved in the issuance rather than the support through the underwriting? I imagine you paid a substantial sum to the underwriters of your two two substantial issuances, Ultimately they're the organisations who take the risk of any failure of the issue,

Sorry, got a bit confused, as you seem to have been working for the company who actually issued the debt rather than the underwriter taking the issue on,

In that connection what percentage do you reckon Scancell had to pay for the underwriting? In fact, was this issue underwritten?

Anyway, again thanks for your thoughts.

If you really want an issue to criticise have a look at that 2013 bombshell from Scancell. It's a corker!

AIMO

EE, as you say,

"Panmure should be careful. Those with underwriting experience (like me) know full well that if you price something too cheaply then you can engineer both an over-subscription and after-market price performance"

You seem to be critical of Scancell's recent issue.

Couple of questions given your experience.

1) Where would you have priced the issue?

2) Any major successful Issues you been instrumental in providing the underwriting facilities?

It's a very interesting career experience to have, so sharing your experience would be very helpful to those of us without such close involvement.

Hope you don't mind me asking.

With respect to those who worry, why wouldn't the SP retreat?

The announcement yesterday showed the the data so far is good (but not at the level that so many here had decided it would be).

The timelines for results have once more inched further away

The timeline stretch threatens the funding (to some degree).

All of the above during the biggest shock to the Bio Market due to the the (proposed) appointment of the non vac friendly Kennedy in the States in January 2025 (Probably Scancell's most important year of its life).

All those with faith in Scancell would be well advised to simply wait and see; unless anyone can give an idea of how an investor can have their cake and eat it.

Actually there's not much else that can be done.

AIMO

This was probably the most blatant illustration of, "buy the rumour, sell the fact".

It makes no difference to the overall journey for Scancell but any company who have had such misfortunes with timelines over the years will be open to these sort of swings.

As many have said before it's all about the Data, but that Data is still not quite there.

So we wait for more figures whilst trying to work out How much and in what form and when the next cash requirement will be teased from existing (but hopefully NEW) investors.

Oh, and add to that Dilutive or non dilutive.

It may very well come right in the end, but it's never a straight line graph.

AIMO

EE

Drivel yourself!

It's actually a screwed up OFF EXCHANGE transfer (at the marker closing price).

The Fat finger element has been reversed,

Possibly a transfer between funds.

Please don't be rude to people when you're not sure yourself.

EE,

"They can do anything they like, providing shareholders approve it."

Fair comment. but WHICH shareholders?

Haven't seen any sign of a holdings RNS since the last buying spree in the market, have you?

AIMO

Crusty,

Unless the MMs went short over the last couple of days of the buying we saw up to 19.5p

that idea puts a different complexion on the recent SP movement.

Since nobody has any access to the MMs' books that is a perfectly reasonable point to make.

However anyone with the firepower could test it. PMSL

AIMO

RW,

Your earlier post which I'll reprint below:

"The RG Frankfurt 'sale of the company' was I believe a genuine path they intended to follow, and the louder whiners and bashers always conveniently ignore the fact that it preceded the creation of Moditope by a few months which completely changed the direction of the company - a direction which now looks to be on the cusp of delivering serious returns, all being well. So please, look at the Frankfurt comments in context and look at what has been built since."

RW If you don't remember the contents of an interview from a member of the Scancell BOD perhaps you should take the time to research before you not only completely misrepresent what was said, but also you (as usual) take the route of "snidely" casting aspersions on the accuracy and veracity of others.

Surely you'd normally gather your evidence and then record it accurately? Maybe not, you certainly didn't today.

Your assertions are actually completely incorrect and to support your manufactured "evidence" you lie about material facts as well as attempt to smear the accuracy of other posters' comments.

For anyone who's forgotten (or maybe never seen RW's Interview) here's a link for you to see accurately what was said and compare it to the conveniently "adjusted" reporting of Ratcliffewriter.

Incidentally RW, WHEN actually was Moditope announced? August 2012 as I remember it.

Maybe you'd like to apologise to the, "the louder whiners and bashers" who always conveniently ignore the fact that it preceded the creation of Moditope by a few months which completely changed the direction of the company.

Look like the whiners and bashers knew a great deal more about the Company's history than you!

Try this link,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-J5J7bBQDs

if this doesn't work simply google :-

Interview with Dr. Richard Goodfellow, CEO of Scancell Holdings PLC (27th Feb 2013)

Enjoy.

GF,

And before you say anything, Yes I Know.

:-)

RW,

I appreciate your noticing my small addition to this BB.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Enjoy the weather.

ATB

GF

16p paid , maybe, but NOT on the London Stock Exchange, so it hasn't been traded on the market we follow. Hence it's not valid in the context we post here that 16p has traded.

It hasn't.

If however you want to insist that it represents a valid trade you'll find that reputable chart providers do not include such trades as they're,

"Not subject to Rules of London Stock Exchange".

So I would contend that EE is quite correct in his post that 16p has not gone.

Purely posted as a point of order.

AIMO

Violin, I fully appreciate that electing for further trials would require further funds, BUT reading the article (If LD is reported correctly) the trials seem to be a requirement of realising value rather than a useful add on.

Merely my take on the situation, and I'm sure there are many here who know a great deal more about the Industry than I do.

I hadn't realised the potential time horizons for the real end game.

AIMO

Bermuda, thanks for posting.

At least the recent Board appointment brings live and direct contact with the capital sources that a continuance to further trials will seemingly need, quite apart from RM's likely desire to protect their existing commitment.

Can't believe there spectre of fund raising has been introduced again.

AIMO

To me question 4 is the most telling.

It appears that Scancell actually still have to network with no small effort and expenditure. Suggests to me that the "Deals" aren't quite as large and immediate as some would have us believe.

That's a shame but hopefully setting out the Scancell stall at such prestigious events as we are now doing will create that "American Funding" that many crave.

Maybe be careful what you wish for would be a worthwhile phrase to remember in that connection.

That said hopefully there will be some monetisation of the IP sooner rather than later.

AIMO

Stakis,

Your 11.28

If anyone over there (with a few notable exceptions) REALLY did understand the science it seems they don't get the INVESTING side as they seem to have spent a great many years telling everyone that "the" RNS is due, "any day now".

Since they have failed to see "The" RNS that was predicted, which will skyrocket SCLP to £8 per share, it appears they've been waiting 11 years for their ideal exit, although they'll all come up with reasons why they are right (Irrespective of the irrefutable proof that to date they are not).

I say 11 years rather than 12 because of the cash raise in 2013 (@ 22.5p a substantial discount to the previous day's closing price) that finally wiped out any near term prospect of a return to the dizzy heights of the 2012 (64p - BEFORE the mass dilution - which followed over the ensuing (almost) 11 years).

So it seems a relatively straightforward but obvious conclusion that many of the "experts" over there do not have the global view of the Biotech industry (or even a passing acquaintance ) with the commercial situation in the Biotech industry which would have been helpful in making Scancell an investment which could have been profitable and that, or some of that profit, secured in 2012.

Now THAT would have been a great investment. Many are now left with a break even in 2024 which (IMO) cannot be claimed as a brilliant strategy. Many watched their holding swing from significant profit to their current position by following the Scientific "Experts" on BBs.

Buying and blindly holding has clearly been not been the stellar moneymaking process that so many trumpeted year in year out. It's a shame but irrefutable.

Anyone who has taken the decision to disinvest at the many opportunities which have arisen over the years have generally been "ridiculed" for their decision, even though most of those who have sold have generally been able to reinvest at a lower level given the passage of time whilst recovering some (or all) of their initial investment.

I'm sure there's a few realists on this BB who would agree. Fewer over on the other side (or however the divide is described) and maybe there will be howls of protest that my comments aren't valid or even born of malice. They are neither. There will be people who have profited from Scancell over the years, but it won't be those who have followed the "expert" advice of those who are most vociferous (and often outrageously wrong) on not only this, but other BBs.

AIMO