Member Info for AB124

Thanks to all for your input on this thread.
i think we can say its been done to death so I'll leave it here.
Again, thanks for your thoughts.
ATB

RR,
I agree to a point, but why not have a CSO and another differently experienced individual as CEO?
AIMO

Stakis,
Firstly (damned predictive text) the word "helping" in the passage you quoted should have read "helming". Minor difference but.. .
Thanks for coming back on that.
My point is not how many advisors etc but a balance between the Scientific and Financial at the top of Scancell.
It is a valid and reasonable concern in that irrespective of any negotiating "team" I believe there is too much reliance on one person's judgement which sadly does lack a lifetime's involvement in the financial hotseat of companies at the sharp end of companies in a very cutthroat business. There is no question as to our CEO's Scientific expertise.
It's that balance which is missing from Scancell. The two people at the top of the company are the same as existed in 2012.
I'm not sure that that is necessarily a good thing.
I hope to see an update from the company when we have dome data indicating their vision for Scancell's future.
Simple as that.
I don't think that's in any way unreasonable.
AIMO

RW
Perhaps you could let us know where you see Scancell in five years time?
I have no idea which is why it would be helpful for the company to give some information as to their vision after the early indicators from the current trials.
Look forward to hearing.

Stakis,
I respect your views and yes, maybe a poker game has some value as an analogy.
I have as much inside information as you so we're level there.
Do you have any specific knowledge of the financial specifics of Biotech?
I don't, BUT I have massive respect fir LD as a CSO.
I'm equally not so sure that there aren't skilsets that are specific to a CEO in this sector.
Maybe LD has these skills, but even if she has does she have the time to demonstrate those skills? I'd always assumed that CEO was a full time job with specific experience and contact requirements, particularly when attempting to market multi platforms currently in trials.
So we're looking at an inexperienced CEO helping a potentially multimillion company who's also CSO of that company whilst also holding down a position at a uk university. To help out on the finance side a retired Board member has been drafted back on a temporary(?) basis.
So I guess that if LD turns up to each "poker game" to face professional multinational negotiators, lawyers and associated staffers she'll not only have sorted out the Science but she'll out wit them in the negotiations/pokergame for the value of the company.
Wonderwoman indeed!
As I say I have no experience of running
the negotiations for a potentially multiibillion company. I do believe in horses for courses and I sincerely hope that our overworked CSO is as good a poker player as you say. Having written this post I'm less happy than I was.
I don't believe that selling Scancell is really about a game of poker even though our representative is unbeatable on the science.
Stakis it's been good to have your views and be able to respond. I don't dismiss your points but I do wonder how far away from the actuality of selling a Bio to the very sharp and astute Global Pharma both of us are.
I do hope we shareholders do hear about the future of Scancell from the BoD in due course.. I think it would be interesting and helpful of not necessary.
Thanks again.
AIMO

RP
Well, we don't agree. I say the Shareholders are entitled to know where the BoD want to take the company, whereas you seemingly don't.
I think it would be helpful to everyone, but as we don't agree there's not much more to be said.
Appreciate your considered responses though. Thanks.
AIMO.

RP
OK, so that presumably gives rise to thoughts of possible future work fo Scancell or a lock stock and barrel sale of the platform. Or perhaps a complete sale with Scancell researching other areas?
This is what I'm talking about. Does Scancell have a long term future irrespective of any (as yet) indeterminate deals. It's as much a question of the types of deal and the CSO'S intentions longer term.
The initial impetus is obviously platform related, but there's plenty of possibilities which we shareholders cannot yet know about.
I'd like to find out what the thinking really is.... anyone can speculate but ultimately that's all it is I would hope the BoD have some idea of where they want the company to go.
Seems a reasonable question for an investor to ask.
AIMO

RP,
I wonder what sort of deal she meant. I don't remember it being qualified. Moditope is a case in point. I doubt there's anyone holding shares here who doesn't expect positive early data, but is the intention to get a deal to sell the platform or retain some sort of interest? As I'm sure you'll remember I have stated that I don't expect any response on the Bob's future intentions for the company before the AGM or when early data is to hand (whichever is the sooner). If I've missed something regarding the nature of any Deals (short/medium or long term) I'm sorry but I don't think I have.
All I'm looking for is an indication of the BoD's thinking in terms of the company's likely lifespan through the way it continues to retain interests in any of the IP it owns at the moment or might expand in the future.
AIMO

I'm not sure anyone's saying that deals should be made with haste (I think that's what was meant).
I do believe though that the company might helpfully indicate its vision for commercial progress on a short, medium and long term view so that the Shareholders can make considered judgements on how they view the future.
I don't believe anybody's reminding the CEO about the question, I think it's a reasonable expectation that shareholders should be given some idea about where the BoD think they can progress the IP.
Since there's Trials underway, and also that by the AGM there should be some idea of progress surely it's not an unreasonable question to ask (particularly as the capital we have is finite whereas the development of the science is potentially expandable).
So, can a shareholder ask for information which would allow him/her to decide whether the anticipated direction of the company - crudely long term income producer or short term asset sale or a mixture of the two?
As stated before Scancell's mission statement in 2011 was necessarily abandoned in 2012 so with trials on the go now maybe it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask, "where do we go from here?".
Short(ish) term asset sales or long term development of the existing assets?
In other words what does the BoD think is the best way forward? There's been very little indication that I've seen.
Obviously there's several options but the preferred ones should be broadly available for consideration. Doesn't seem too complicated to me.
AIMO

:-)

Maybe C11 with your statement,
"Well, I guess if anyone believes they are being treated like a mushroom, why are they even here!?"
Perhaps you're inching towards the reason why the Company with World Beating science is currently trading at a bit above 13p after ten years of R and D and no commercial deals. Not only that, they currently have four trials in operation and perhaps six months to indications of IP being proven.
It suggests to me that something's not as it should be, but then this is AIM.
Beyond that as the SP seems to be at such a disconnect with the suggested value of the combined IP perhaps there might just be a gap in the value of the BOD (in some of it's required expertise).
Hopefully the Data releases IDC will bridge that gap and the true value will surface .
I do hope so.
AIMO

RR
Wouldn't disagree but at what point does the CEO decide that the part of the IP subject to offer is "Fully Valued"?
I make my point as the discussion about how long the existing cash lasts is far too simplistic when taken against Scancell's lack of presentation of its long term business plan.
Let's be honest, when the majority of LTH got involved in 2012 there was a very clearly announced mission statement.
Ten years later there isn't one.
Maybe now's the time to let the shareholders know whether we are reactive/proactive or somewhere in between on the search for buyers for our IP/Company.
Or maybe in simpler concept, what is the plan for Scancell as seen in the BoD's vision, Short, Medium and Long term?
AIMO

Surely the funding question is secondary to one such as,
"At what point will the BoD as led by the CEO decide that an offer is acceptable?"
It's all very well having a reducing cash level with attractive IP but what we don't have (as shareholders) is any control (hence ability to judge timings) over the acceptance of Offers/Deals for any part of the IP.
Why do I say that?
I'm sure I read somewhere that someone had spoken to LD who stated that an offer received was insufficient to be accepted.
As a shareholder I don't remember having anything put in front of me for my vote.
If that is the case then at what point does any offer be presented to the shareholders (should the object product not be considered to have reached maximum value by the CEO/CSO.?).
If that were to keep happening (and we all know that the CSO has a personal involvement in the entire IP of Scancell) maybe deals are further away than anyone can judge.
AIMO

TF
Good to hear....
I agree, the Science will see us through (with some help from strategic, and insightful Corporate planning)! :-)
ATB

Miavoce,
I value your response to my post where you say,
"I believe that the company now has a very clear commercial strategy as follows (soonest first):-"
I was looking for a statement from The BoD in due course. Much as I value your beliefs it's no more valid than anyone can say at the moment and there's no certainty on which of the options you post they'd prefer.
From the thrust of your response below of the six headers you state partnerships in five and sell or partner in one.
From this you seem to be saying that Scancell will generally speaking continue to exist into the future.
Does this mean that you know the company will continue to develop further novel IP once the partnerships you mention are in place?
Does this also mean that Scancell will resist full offers for all or part of the IP in those items you mention as partnerships?
Will the company exist as an R and D operation in biotech funded by Royalty income?
Will the existing CSO continue in that sole role or will the combined CSO/CEO mandate be maintained by LD?
I admire your thoughts for how Scancell could go forward in the next few years, but without the Input of either the Trial results we await or a statement from the BOD (in the light of those results) I would suggest that your points are not really relevant to my question which remains simply as,
"How will the BoD intend to direct Scancell into the future?"
I'm not too sure that any can answer that apart from the BoD themselves armed with the Results of the trials they're awaiting details from at the moment quite apart from the question of what will be left of the IP if any one or more of your suggestions are different from your expectations (ignoring your number two which is sell OR partner Immunobody).
That's broadly why I think it's far too early to pursue them for answers as they probably aren't in a position to provide that detail ATM.
If I'm wrong and If they are I'd welcome a statement from them now, because as a shareholder I've no idea what they intend for the future.
In 2012 they had a mission statement. Now they haven't (at least that's been made to the Shareholders).
So again Miavoce, thanks for your input but for me the only real answers can come from the Company, and they're probably not yet in a position to provide them.
When they are I hope they will.
AIMO

I genuinely believe that the good news we await is quite simply positive Data from at least one (or hopefully all trials) in process ATM.
Maybe more "products/variations on themes" would be considered good by many, but I'm not sure the market would agree when considered in terms of this week's SP reaction to the RNS announcing an addition to the IP.
Scancell is in the happy position of being able to enjoy support/control for the SP if needed (see the SP performance in 2021) but I believe there is now a pressing need for some positive financial results as keeping the SP within range cannot be maintained forever without tangible results - either good or bad.
I relate back to TF's oft quoted comment from some time ago, "The science will see us through". In fairness I've not seen him say that for some time) but I'm not sure that's the case now. We need the strategic vision to take the company forward, and if that means not necessarily realising the complete theoretical discounted value of each and every component of the IP perhaps that might just be something that has to be done. I'd hate to see paralysis in potential cashflow into the company simply because there was an attempt to maximise every last penny of potential value throughout the portfolio. If that were to happen I'd have to ask myself where the powerbase in the company was rooted, Scientific or Financial?
There is a balance to be struck and the thought of missing opportunity to fund future development by the management of all assets (even through sales of some IP) would be a massive disservice to the Shareholders even though the purely scientific potential had not been fully completed.
The wait for tangible Trial results will continue for some time yet, but once these are beginning to flow I hope we'll see some indications of the way the company is to go forward in terms of structure and vision. Things will have changed and hopefully the BoD's updated vision for Scancell will begin to be revealed.
AIMO

Balerno,
Couldn't agree more with your final paragraph.
Overall I think we probably agree more than we differ.
I do like your point,
"I’m not suggesting greed is good as a number of venturers believe, but we need a sign that a deal for something that can be delivered sooner rather than later."
ATB

Balerno,
I've read your comments and I do understand.
Having set out my stall earlier, and reading your views I think we may differ, but only in terms of timelines.
Having three Trials in progress I feel that the only course of action realistically available to us (the shareholders) at the moment is to wait for the first data returns (ie safety and the early efficacy indicators).
To harangue the BOD about Corporate structures seems to be piling pressure on at a time when we really haven't a clue as to the future for all three element in trial at the moment.
However, once those indicators are available there would be more to work on in terms of the company's future. Positive Data will bring a better picture of how the platforms are taken forward.
It is then i believe that it would be a good time to challenge the BOD. Perhaps at this year's AGM (although even that might be too early) requests for how the BOD intend to take the company forward (and maybe what sort of Company they plan Scancell to be) might be appropriate should the early data (if any) prove positive.
Without any idea of the early outcomes of the current trials it would surely be unreasonable to press for the future direction.
That said presumably there must be some indicators that the BOD can release which would allow the shareholders to determine whether a successful Scancell will even exist (let alone what would be it's structure) in that event.
That's why I'm happy to sit back and await some Data to what we really have to deal with for the future.
So I'll not be joining a group to approach the Company at this time. That might change once we have answers to some questions which the Data from trials will furnish.
Hope that explains my position and thanks for taking the trouble to respond to my earlier posts.
AIMO

Balerno,
Just hate it when that happens! Good luck with the retrieval!

Balerno,
I've been very careful to add AIMO to the end of my posts.
There's a fundamental problem in the context of the subject of BOD composition.
In the early days of Scancell it was a Science driven company and LD and RG were (quite rightly) Joint CEOs.
Immunobody was the asset that set the company fair to a P1 and then P2 and then.... Sale of the Company.
Moditope arrived.
That changed the entire nature of the company.
As time (and lots of it) went by things changed including CH.
As more time went on things continued to change and then....
Vulpes and RM.
That's where I believe SCLP became an investment rather than a trading stock (But risk remained).
The surprise for me was after CH departed I assumed that LD's appointment as CEO would be temporary. It wasn't.
I don't think that the incumbent is no good, I just think that there are two sides to the company which both require drive and inspiration but in different ways.
Is it fair to expect the undoubtedly talented CSO to do the CEO's job as well? More importantly, are there enough hours in the day for one person to do both? Even more importantly, who is able to stand back and direct the Company's future direction? I suspect that Scancell is driven more by the development of science than the direction of Commercialisation.
I understand the fear that the "Bean Counters" often get in the way of the "Product" but without the Bean Counters are the Products getting in the way of the Company.
I don't in any way suggest that LD is not doing a great job, but could that job be made easier without the demands of a differently focussed area of administration that the CEO demands.
We've arrived at the present with Three trials in progress and two highly focussed Investors... No mean achievement whatever the history!
So how can anyone think that there's any value in going to the Company and suggesting that "we know better"?
I think we should sit back and see what comes from the trials that have taken so long to get going. There must be a great deal of work to be done in keeping all those plates spinning, perhaps more than one person split in two at the top can manage efficiently.
I am prepared to sit and wait for the data, but people endlessly trying to predict to the week when results will come seems pointless (and frankly daft) when we all know that the information we wait for will only arrive when the Company have it. The main result of these predictions is disappointment.
Maybe the idea of restructuring at Board level might be more than worth considering if Scancell is expected to last long into the future as a going concern rather than a holding company for assets to be sold off as soon as the "Deals" come to the fore.
Chicken and egg? But someone has to build the henhouse if the business is not designed simply to sell off the assets at the first opportunity.
Scancell have to decide, but it would be good to see an indication of future business planning.
AIMO