Member Info for FatherTedCrilly

Iwantthatone...

"Perfectly standard procedure"

Are you suggesting this applies to all of TLY's contracts? That they employ staff based on 'expected' renewals and then it is TLY, not the client that has to cover 'exceptional' costs?

"When you have to lay off a significant number of people who work on a specific contract with specific skills they’re exceptional costs. It’s just like a reorganisation of any other business."

For me staffing costs are operational, not exceptional.

Why was there not either:

1. A penalty clause for a contract break to cover staff costs

2. Short term rolling contracts for staff

To take staff on for long term, with no penalty clause for early termination is just dumb. Really dumb.

Struggling to dial in as on phone and travelling. If any kind person could paste these 2 questions in - I’d be very grateful.

1. How have the other assets progressed in the last 4 months (Oral delivery, AI etc.)

2. Was there a legal challenge to the proposed HOOk deal?

The RNS also says " exceptional costs are expected" due to the loss of the contract.

By labelling these as 'exceptional' (when they are more likely operational) Totally can maintain their EBITDA forecast.

Till the board offer some clarity on the level of costs there is going to be nervousness from investors.

The loss of 2 senior board members with no explanation isn't helping either.

I think this might be the beginning of the end. CFO gone with immediate effect last year, the sudden loss of government contract… and now the CEO has gone.

This is looking like the death throes of TLY.

It always seemed like a bit of a compromise / short cut to get to NASDAQ.

The fact it has fallen over isn't a great look (board please take note) but I bought into POLB for the pipeline and wasn't thrilled at it being diluted. Not particularly disappointed right now, based on available info.

Some clear communication from the board would be good now...

IWantThatOne - you are reinforcing the point I was making. It is the government that ultimately controls health spending, regardless of how many separate bodies make up the NHS.

This is why there is investor nervousness (and a fairly significant SP drop) over the sudden loss of a single contract.

"This “one client” nonsense has been answered many times before. The various NHS commissioning bodies operate independently"

SIgh.

They do, but within guidelines and a framework decided by the government.

If the government says "Here's 10 billion extra, lets boost private support for the NHS" thne happy days for TLY...

If the government says "We need to stop wasting money on private support services that we can bring in-house, phase out contracts" then not so happy.

It doesn't matter how many 'independent bodies there are... there is, essentially, a single end client that sets policy.

Within, not without, government guidelines

The £3.5m EBITDA won't include the "exceptional costs" mentioned in the RNS.

The fact that these are significant enough to be mentioned in the RNS (but without detail) does not bode well.

As for the drop being overdone... TLY only really has one client (and yes, I know different Trusts are 'technically separate entities etc. etc. but they all operate without government defined guidelines) and there will be genuine concern that this is the start of a pattern

From the RNS.

For "exceptional costs are expected" read 'we still have to pay for staff that have no work'.

This looks even worse than just the loss of a contract and could wipe out any profit from the rest of the business :-/

Https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06492564?term=hvivo&rank=3

Good to see this go active :-)

BillB-an alternative view (which I suspect the market will wake up to shortly) is that HVIVO can weather a 10million contract delay / loss an still turn a handsome profit. The business model is pretty bulletproof

... and the growth strategy looks to be a great strategic fit.

This is looking very, very strong indeed :-)

"the FDA have had an input and agreed the utility of a challenge trial"

This is potentially huge. The US Food and Drug administration have been involved in, and approved, a HVIVO challenge trial at Phase 3 as an acceptable route to market.

Very, very happy with this :-)

Thanks for posting Burton.

Possibly a realisation that tying the SP to HOOKs was ignoring the potential value of Poolbeg's assets?

(I understand why people did this, and calculating the number of shares and HOOKs current SP was the only way to get a quick valuation when the RNS dropped)

Hi all

Anyone here with experience of trading a US listed stock from a UK account?

This isn't something I've done before so any recommendations welcome. It is likely that HOOK/POLB will be the only US listed stock I will be invested in - so I'm not less bothered about the cost of individual trades compared to Foreign exchange fees...

(I hold a decent number of POLB shares, all currently within an ISA - but my understanding is Barclays won't be able to manage this if the takeover goes ahead)

Thanks for any suggestions / experience.

Cheers FTC

Very interestingly worded RNS.

My take is this. The boards feel the need to hint at positivity without breaking the rules. They have suggested that Gilead may be the diving force in this (likely couldn't have happened without Gilead's approval anyway given the partnership deals on HOOKs pipeline). SO Gilead want access to one (or more) of POLBs products. Given their stated interest in immunotherapy probably POLB-001.

The change in placing terms to 30million PLUS suggests that they are already oversubscribed. This is both positive, as there is obviously interested parties, and negative as may mean further dilution. Would be good to get clarity on how much.

Overall I'm happy and still adding.

GLA

My thoughts exactly Marcbought

I've just thrown a chuck of my trading pot in here (I have a long term holding too). Could make a nice 20-30% from the low point today.

I'll still post her if I find anything relevant / interesting...

I just green boxed them. Not because they are negative about HVO (I welcome critical opinions) but in their haste to bash this company they reveal considerable ignorance about the company and the sector they operate in. It isn't worth the effort to read their posts.