Member Info for CaptainSwag

"No RNS this morning so clearly no agreement with the auditors. Bad look. This could end up going to the wire."

the rns said mid september which in AIM speak probably means week of 19th september more than likely - things are only ever late rather than on time. my guess would be at the end of the week prob The thursday.

we know there is some accounting practice going on - which needs to be gone over by auditors. in addition they are transactional testing which i believe is looking at the "risks" associated with the business. sounds to me like they are trying to confirm that it is a "going concern". yes they have received some money for CD4 etc but still have liability of gov dispute and we don't know existing cash burn and if FT is profitable now that all costs will be set against the revenue.

it would seem to me as a bit of a mess

wbacfc - ummm...if he can. word salad won't get the price to £10

unfortunately too late for us that lost a mint in odx ,

if only they had signed a contract with a minimum - could have avoided the mess

"Novacyt, directed at the time by scientists, sure of their diagnostic means, did not understand the difficulty of hospitals faced with the wave of patients (tsunami)"

i suspect ncyt came up with the best product they could at the time. dhsc prob didn't have many if any other options. however the landscape was changing in pretty amazing times....i think something came along better but dhsc were committed.....seems they don't mind wasting billions on some things but £150m on a domestic company?..not so much

ncyt had a contract - and i suspect after a certain amount of trying to appease - werent going to back down.

my only worry is that the judge might think ncyt like some other companies were taking advantage and that the nhs deserved the best available etc.

bottom line is a contract is a contract. i am assuming or rather really hoping it is water tight. and doesn't give the gov the cards completely..like the odx one

and i doubt any are actually discussing odx itself? not going to bother reading through zillion posts about people talking about their banal lives and fantasies about others.

back to the share itself - any predictions on SP for the end of the week?

Thanks exmex - very useful info from a quick skim ...will plough through later

dr - good post....and it is difficult to see why the differences were not sorted out at the time.

maybe ncyt got too big for their boots ? and thought they could sell the test anywhere. they were a company who were a minnow before covid and unfortunately look like going back there on future plans.....the only thing that can save them is a good result in the dispute

dr - good post and link. the article shows both sides of the argument

for ncyt
"The government has insisted that the rollout is not being stopped and that there are no plans to remove the existing machines, some of which have been validated and are now providing rapid testing for hospital patients and staff.

A spokesperson for the government said: “All the testing technologies used in NHS hospitals have been clinically validated and are highly accurate."

for the dhsc

"“Sadly yet again we are seeing a contract dished out by this government failing to deliver. It is absolutely right that the contract is reviewed, so that the public does not end up footing the bill for testing kit that simply isn’t functioning as promised."

i guess this is what the judge will ultimately decide on should it go to trial...

"lse should auto ban anyone posting 3 times in a row, there's never any need for it. Quality would improve immediately."

stxx - sometimes i go on a board and there might be 3 different threads started that i want to respond on...though to be fair it is normally about the company concerned and not about other posters,

i still think if you don't indulge "spammers" then they might hopefully lose interest. the more attention you give them is like oxygen.

"Please god no, no news is bad news and news is catastrophic news! Oh well, after that update they can load at 75p."

yep.....can't say i am looking forward to news at the moment...seems to only drive the sp one way
we could really do with some more director buys - making a statement

"Why, oh why, are the directors not absolutely loading up at these prices "

p100 - could they be in a "closed period"? the 6 months figures were released last september and if they are going to do the same this year then i think that would mean it is closed period?

"CS, you seem to be comparing Direct PCR with standard PCR. Big difference."

exmex - you may be right. was a table with number of tests and tbh i was looking to see if anything had achieved sensitivity of 100% - and also specificity of 100%..as the sensitivity was stipulated by the dhsc as their condition.

i thought if no one else had achieved 100% then it strengthens ncyt's case

Pretty close with my 2.6p prediction.

i was on the gov website the other day and it had a list of the tests and their sensitivity- got a terrible memory at the best of times. if you search i am sure you can find the same table i did

harchris - the trouble is without knowing what the dhsc case is - we are all just guessing.
we all want to believe it is a simple case of the dhsc have ulterior motives and are incompetent either in their data collection or user protocol.

we have to accept there is a risk that ncyt will lose - which is what the market has priced in to a certain extent. i believe it is kinda hedging its bet.

i have seen pcr tests at 100% sensitivity .. if the dhsc have a good argument that the tests were not up to scratch eg 80% ..will the judge be swayed by thinking that the public deserved a more accurate test?
hopefully the contracts signed are water tight

"Sure but that firmly puts the DHSC in the wrong then."

i think so too as i wrote under the bit you quoted

however ultimately it will depend how the dhsc dress up their data and what the judge thinks - should it go to court.

best case scenario is that hearing the opening gambit from ncyt the gov reconsider. i am just not uber confident on this

"Gamblers seem to think the price will rise.

it was selling shares already owned ?
i saw this as a sign that even the gamblers want to reduce exposure?

"The defence simply has to prove that the DHSC data is unreliable and incomplete, compiled from multiple sites without reference to ANY validation protocol."

haha ..bit like saying the defence just has to simply prove the accused did not commit the crime.
simple but not necessarily easy.

if goes to trial then the judge will have to make the decision. could still be a long and rough ride

"but when have the government or any department, ever got anything right in the last couple decades."

the thing is that anything "got right" would not be front page news. we only hear when they get it wrong and get caught out

there seem to be other pcr kits that are more accurate - and it may be that they wanted to replace ncyt stuff with them and then wanted a way out of paying for the stuff they already
had.

the issue is that ncyt stuff was approved and ordered - if something better comes along then you have to use up the old stuff too. they did it with the lft tests where the original stuff got replaced with better versions - and then it got wheeled out as they were stopping free stuff

pebble - the article said they provided data and that ncyt did not think it was valid.

that would seem to be the whole point of the case and ultimately what the judge will decide on if no deal is made.