Member Info for CrustyPete

Well for what it is worth I am somewhat cautious about making assumptions regarding the Admarine 501's movement and any association with TRP. You may well be right but, in truth, similar associations in both our recent and more extended extended history have often been misplaced. I am happy to hope that it is but certainly not expectant.

CMG you say "Maybe the government is bundling all the new blocks and the TRP announcement for the 24th before releasing."

That may well be the case or or perhaps, just as likely that, with a new license round in progress, the Govt is somewhat distracted by that and getting the associated money through the door and that little old TRP and their license extension / Farm-Out approval are a lower priority.... "plenty of time for that after the license round is complete".

In either event we shouldn't have too long to wait.

Fingers crossed.

Though those late 400k and 600k Buys, suggest that any sp weakness will be pounced on. Good news.

News re Genmab milestone payment has certainly been anticipated for quite a while and Modi trial news should be appearing in the next couple of months. The potentially biggest news re SCOPE funding is also widely anticipated with trials due to start in H2 - though there is no fixed timescale for that and any negotiations of that significance are always likely to take time - it is in no-ones best interest for the BoD to take the first low-ball offer that comes along.

Yes, it is possible that negotiations are holding up delivery of that news, particularly if Genmab conversations are a solution or even partial solution to the SCOPE funding or if the separation of GT from Scancell is a prerequisite for that funding solution - maybe for one or the other to take a NASDAQ listing.

However if we do not see news very soon I fear that the current share price will come under pressure; shares are already changing hands at prices below those of only a week ago when we saw a significant, isolated, increase in trading volume for no obvious reason. An increase that immediately dissipated.

Hello VIK4.

Tell me VIK4 is that 200,000,000 SELL at 0.024p "retail"? If not why haven't you flagged that trade as "not retail"? If so, it puts your relatively lowly 35 million and 40 million trades into perspective eh?

Have you eaten your donkey yet?

You lied to everyone. You told us that we would be at 0.90p but here we are at 2.30p. Tell us oh omniscient one, when will we be seeing 0.90p?

Why do you bother posting here? You have zero credibility.

joyo the comedy act.

The two trades that you speak of 6kerope9 at the first two trades of the day, of 500,000 and 7920909 both at 0.0253p so, presumably SELLS. They were bog standard AIMX trades and therefore no obvious reason why LSE would omit them. But, honestly, it happens all the bloody time on countless shares- don't know why they bother. On one of my holdings today there was an evident Back-to-back trade (also an AIMX trade) and the LSE board only captured one side of it!

Bloody useless.

And they want people to pay extra for more detailed, granular, up to date info? Lol! I get that free from my "platform".

"Make it simple" - Lol! you pompous ar53.

I am very aware of the LTIP, AIM rules and Governance policies and the Takeover Code (I have experience of them) McNol. I am very aware of how BoD's look to reward their staff and themselves. Your diatribe below **might** be true but you still haven't answered why, to the original point, would an official RNS issued by the Company expressly state "no earlier" if all of the above was in place to allow it? They could quite easily have left that specific term out of the RNS. It is that very term that triggered my initial response.

But anyway McNol, I'll leave the stage to you.

Bye bye until Monday. GLA.

StockwellTone. Yes indeed broadly what I was stating from the beginning (by arrangement) but not forgetting that phrase in the RNS about the vesting being "no earlier"...... had the LTIP scheme rules, company articles etc allowed it why, oh why would the RNS say "no earlier", when it was a possibility?

Anyway, enough is enough.

"They won't recommend a deal to shareholders unless it pays out their awards at a price they like (e.g., 3p+)..."

Or they won't recommend one until the end of their vesting period. My initial point.

I would agree with your 9:11 post but would state that if that was true the RNS would not say "NO EARLIER"....

Enough. IT was only ever meant to be an observation nothi9ng more.

They cannot ignore them, no, but "appropriate" gives huge flexibility and it does not necessarily allow the holders to cash in early.... I have experienced this with my own Company LTIP.

But anyway, as I say. You can have the last word McNol, you always do.....

"Sell the company at a massive premium (3p+) and vest everything instantly..."

ONLY if they are allowed to.

The RNS states - see below - that the Shares cannot be vested before three years. Which, if so, rules the above out.....

"The awards under the LTIP comprise a total of 94,378,108 nil cost awards over ordinary shares ("Awards") in the Company which will vest no earlier than three years from the date of grant."

NB "NO EARLIER"

Anyway - I will leave you to the last word McNol. It seems you cannot close without it.

I am aware that vesting can be brought forward but as (I said below) only by specific arrangement; it does NOT happen automatically. AIM law allows it but it does not automatically ensure it. If that had been part of the LTIP arrangement I would have hoped that would have been clarified in the RNS.

We are not talking the next 12 months though are we? we are talking 36 months. The LTIP holders cannot benefit from a sale until their shares have vested, in three years time (unless by specific arrangement, which is not articulated in the RNS). Many here would be happy to take a buyout at 3 - 4 p in that 12 (or more) months you reference but that now is a slim prospect until at least 3 years.

Indeed McNol the management is not positioning for a short term exit but it also means (for better or for worse) that the BoD are not going to be working for a sale of He1 anytime soon either. Personally I consider that good news but, ultimately the BoD should be operating in shareholdewrs best interests and, if that means a "sale" that is what should happen and many shareholders would welcome it..

Ooops, the green boxes are back. Ballbuster must be back in town. Lol!

Get ready for a laugh one and all - I wonder what nonsensical, superficial drivel will he post this time?

No its not PC, it is "usually" because they are CEO of an existing major supplier with a recognised presence in the market..... but not in Lorna's case, where it is because she is only now recognised as being a recognised figurehead in the industry but there is nothing usual about it.

Moonparty. A tick, yes but in the opposite direction.

In reality it has been on the cards for a while - very few trades above 13.50p on the market since yesterday and most, if not all, of those today were all SINT trades (Systematic Internalisers) and did not go through the Market Makers. Probably just crossing between accounts or netted trades.

Do they Gordon? Blimey I must have lived a very sheltered existence? And there was me thinking it was the rogerer that paid and not the rogeree!