We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
If you read the contract and it was publically available, there was no minimum Calderkate. I repeat, there was no minimum order quatity. The contract was a back up that was to be used as a back up. Back ups are often never utilised.
I did warn you all about these 'action groups'?prior to the vote. See them before and seen what happens afterwards. Nothing, it all goes rather quiet. Such groups normally oppose everything, however they never come forward with proposals. Why? Again, normally the group is led by people who have never run a bath, let alone a company. The dogs bark and the caravan moves on!
Why so long for the DHSC to take this action??? Well we were at arbitration so looks like that has run its course and now it will go legal. Obviously we have been advised that we have a robust case. We were and are not really in a great position to enter into acquisitions while this hangs over us, though neither are we a great target. Going legal is similiar to arbitration in that the DHSC dispute is still hanging there, so best we continue to sell products and develop new ones.
PI100.. I think you mean 'you'?...and not 'we'? when refering to how shareholders view director purchases. You have lost the plot. Of course there are unforseen factors that directors would not know about when purchasing shares. Graham was not to know about what lay ahead with the DHSC dispute. But your suggestion of smoke &? mirrors...you have been reading too many novels.
PI100. What a silly thing to say...... Ignore director buys....... Do you think anyone would buy a share if they thought it was going down longer term, particularly directors? I think you have let yourself down here. They have far more knowledge of the Co than anyone else and no sane person would invest to simply lose their money.
Decent post harchris. Of course David is not out of his depth. Correct 100% in that the short term share price was not on his agenda. Rather, he has spent his time planning ahead, which we will all understand shortly. Any focus on the SP is not useful until the DHSC dispute is resolved as it's a heavy weight around the company's neck, whatever good news it may want to share. The positive point is that he has been able to focus on product development and strategy. I'm not suggesting that does not involve NCYT being acquired in the near future, a merger or acquistion taking place, but I believe whatever happens the SH's will see upside.
Thank you Starbright. For those asking the questions re NED's , they are treated exactly the same as other members of the BOD's when it comes to purchasing or selling shares within both open and closed periods. Of course all these folks (Directors) have a better handle on the company than us investors as they are on the ground, making decisions and are part of the negotiation process with employees, recruitment, R&D, and customers. They will know how things are progressing with the DHSC, thats obvious. If they buy its because they are confident about the Co's future. It's no good banning the BOD of all Co's from purchasing or selling shares simply because they know more than us. Some investors make most of their decisions based on BOD share purchases and sales. Can make sense sometimes!
We all know that there are open and closed periods and NCYT will shortly enter a closed period as we move into April. However, given the dispute with the DHSC and the 'material'?nature of any outcome, there will be periods when the BOD will not be permitted to purchase shares or indeed, it would be very unwise too. What we do know is that given the purchase of shares by the CFO there is no immediate DHSC resolution pening nor is there any 'insider'? knowledge on Biosynex purchasing shares. However, what we do know is that the CFO purchasing shares suggests that he believes that we are undervalued and that there is future upside. If one reads between the lines one would see this as a buying signal, but please dyor.
Okehurst.
You must have either a short term memory or limited understanding of contract law. I'm not sticking up for the Bod's at all, but anyone with a little 2 x 1 would have read the contract. There was no 'guaranteed' minimum and little substance to the overall terms. It was a back up for the DHSC only and not used. Yes, unbelievable that ODX did not secure any volume, but the bod did not lie.
The dogs bark and the caravan moves on.
Trader
yes 'devil n deep blue sea' spring to mind.
For other posters here, we are not II's, insiders, employess of ODX etc, however we do take large stakes in Co's. Most of us did not take up the open offer to purchase additional shares because they were cheaper to buy in the market. Simples!
Everyone has their choice to make. We made ours. Not saying its the right one, but it is a decision. As I suggested we have been here before, all been CEO's of listed Co's and all been bitten before. We believe a successful fundraise is the best of thecworst, but hey, just make your choice, though please dont listen to those that have sold out. OSAG...to covert at outset, tried to form a 'club' rather than open assistance to all. No plan! No expertise in the sector. No transparency. Well, we all make mistakes.
Trader.
A good buy at 4.6p, so no need to buy at 5.0. Simple! The bod's will win the vote. This bb is full of people who have no idea..not all but most. Many still here bleating while having sold. Punters...not investors...betted and lost. Yes, awful I know, but never have I read such boring, repetitive, negative and ill thought out comments. No one has a plan, strategy or real knowledge of the sector. Unfortunately the share attracted punters...and herein lies the problem. I've voted to support, as previously posted and so have my colleagues. Not 100% happy or sure, but the OSAG and others offered little option. As i said..frying pan...fire!
Okenhurst1
Can i ask why you think current SH's only purchased 12% of the open offer. Surely SH's will buy in the open market as its less than 5p???
Surprised that OSAG has only c10% of the current vote as members. I have control of a higher % together with a few colleagues and my good self and we have yet to vote! Can I suggest that the reason for such a low membership (given the conduct of the ODX boeard)?could very well be your lack of tranparency and the absence of a plan and strategy. One should not have to join OSAG prior to understanding both the points I raise here. What a strange way to go about recruiting support? While we too are angry and frustrated with the bod's we have no desire to follow an alternative group who could well act in a similar unprofessional way. You say you are acting for all SH's, so publish the correspondence with ODX and your plan. We could be happy to join you. What troubles me was the comments by OSAG that the email from ODX was 'inside information'?and could not be circulated. This is not true and asks a question about the groups '?integrity', the very reason we all distrust the bod's. Frying pan fire!
Yes, agree 100%. It's extremely boring reading the same old posts. We know what has taken place, so lets look forward folks. Still waiting to see the email received by OSAG. Why has this NOT been circulated? In addition, we need a plan, we need to know what we as SH's will do if the vote 'No' succeeds. Is there a plan and is there an email. We have been misled by the ODX board, however we dont want to be misled by the OSAG either...do we??
I am asking that OSAG publish their plan here for all SH's to see. The email from ODX to OSAG should be published here too. It cannot be confidential, thats a rather silly excuse and makes me question both the intelligence and credibility of the group. In doing both they may well secure millions of votes that are at this point in time either undecided or inclined to vote yes, myself and colleagues included. You should not have to join OSAG before you see sight of the two reasonable requests I have suggested here. Simple. Why the covert actions OSAG? Are we not all tired of such actions from ODX?
DSAF makes some sense. If OSAG wants support it needs to publish all here. The comment re insider info is not at all correct and rather silly. If the BOD have responded to OSAG the content needs to be shared here. How else will OSAG gain new support? There are millions of votes still undecided (I know for sure)? however, as angry as I am with the BOD I dont fancy 'frying pan to fire'. The anger needs replacing with calm and the covert nature of OSAG replaced with transparency. I would love to see a plan posted here of a clear strategy from OSAG if a no vote is achieved. Like I suggested earlier, too much energy being wasted here by posters banging on about the past, with much from those who have sold already.
Traderbuckie. I am not suggesting that I along with many SH's here have not made mistakes. Indeed my previous posts are here for all to see. There is far too much 'history'? being debated here. The past is not always a good indicator for the future. What I am trying to say is if you sold, thats great for you. In addition I am not trying to state who should be allowed to post on bb boards. Rather, if you indeed sold out why on earth are you wasting time posting here trying to encourage others to follow you? Not make sense, unless you regret it? What I am trying to say is that we are where we are and all the bluster about sacking the bod's and voting no is perhaps not the best or only solution. I have yet to see a credible alternative from the vote no shareholders and as I expressed, I have had a bad experience of PI's trying to run a company. It seldom works. The bod have set out their forward strategy within their RNS. We read it, digest it and decide. The grass is not always greener. You mention leaving RR too early....maybe you have left ODX too early too. We all make mistakes, me included, however I try to look forward, not backwards. I wish you well.
I understand that there is much anger and frustration here. In fact many of the comments have been made whilst under the stress of loss. Understandable! There are many points being made by those who have already sold and are still hanging around to hopefully persuade holders to sell or vote no. If you sold move on and please stop mudding the wateras those remaining near a clear head. My colleague and my good self are SH's at the 7 figure level. Can you imagine how upset we are and yes, Colin was out of his depth and the bod's have not always been forthcoming, however we are where we are. Repeating the failures et al is not helpful and some investors are rather naive to say the least.
I would suggest that we must all breathe deeply and consider how we vote. Many here have never run a company or sat on a Public Co Board. It's not easy to change a director and far more difficult to change the entire bod. Changing the business strategy is not eady either, nor is cost cutting &?reorganisation. So, lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We can't change whats already happened. While I understand why we would vote no, the dilution, lack of confidence in management, anger, naivety and past performance, I have yet to see a credible alternative offered. Reading the bod proposals re the fund raise and without having all the detail available, I can see the company going to the wall in the future unless it reduces its ability to continue its annual losses and secures medium term funding to meet its proposed strategy. Yes, we can use our loan/overdraft facility, though this will simply create debt, leaving a fund raise or insolvency at a later date. Yes, we can vote no and later raise some funds by selling upto 10% of the Co via a new fundraise, but at what price? Time is not on our side. Would a vote yes buy us time to change some of the bods going forward. The big q is how? As a group of PI's we have limited access to the bod's and their decision making. What is the strategy of the OSAG apart from a no vote? Vote no then what? Baby.... Bathwater!!!
If we believe in the propsed strategy of the bod as a way forward, we would need to support them, as painful as that might be. I have been in a similar situation some years ago in another investment. We voted no, happy at the time, changed the bod and 18 months later the Co was sold for a song! Baby... Bathwater.
If we dont believe in the bod strategy we vote no. The resulting consequence is we would need to maybe look to utilise our banking facilities and a fundraise (perhaps existing shareholders only)? though this would not be enough to fund the proposed bid strategy.
I think i will support the bod and hopefully someone will set up a PI Shareholder Group to communicate with the bod once the dust has settled.