Member Info for Fruitsnveg

"Their LTIPs framework has awarded options over 3.15 million shares to the CEO in recent years, all of which can be exercised at leisure at any time far in the future, for the princely sum of one penny per share. "

I believe this is incorrect, there is no "at leisure", paying themselves what they like when they like. It used be dependent on certain 'incentivising' milestones being met (which they have not been yet and are not insignificant in nature). Do post the text of the LTIP where it says the CEO can now pay himself what he likes when he likes?

"Now, all this criticism can be made to go away if the BoD simply announces the funding solution strategy,"

Dear me. Translation: Select activist investors will quit agitating if the company push some funding business their way.

...What a load of bullocks, in a field.

"I am still hoping for p2p route"

"I am still hoping for 2p".

Spot the difference.

The Paladin,

That's an interesting question you pose about TGF. In the absence of any high-profile, public campaign to win over shareholders, I think we could assume that they are not displeased with the CEO / company direction. Or, they could be employing a more friendly, passive less visible approach with BOD/Snr Mgmnt team. I detect no active issues though, at least not presently. Worth noting too that they are invested here some time now, having even increased their holding over a period, and not accidentally, to 28.2%. My guess is that they made a (minimum) 5 year investment on SNG (just my opinion, obvs. DYOR). Which, with time still to spare to achieve progress, and thus returns on investment, it may explain their current ease to watch Rome being built? My hope is that the AGM will make things a little more transparent.

To add, it's not just Universal trial results that are expected, but possibly also a route to funding here in the UK.

To re-cap, in Prof Wilko's own words from his Jan 2023 interview :

"Due to the winter pressures, Southampton has had a flying start and we are already planning our first read out, which will inform the design of interventional studies, which could launch later this year. Our team of research nurses and doctors, with support from UHS clinical teams, is organised by the Southampton Clinical Trials Unit which is developing a global reputation for expertise in respiratory studies. Although there is no drug involved as yet, the project is funded by close collaboration with industry partners, and we are bringing together a unique consortium of companies willing to work pre-competitively to understand more about this challenge to health."

[https://generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk/medicallyspeaking/2023/01/12/using-our-expertise-to-help-ease-winter-pressures/]

TGF have never involved themselves in any such complicated, high-risk, high cost, high-touch point transaction before, ever.

Why would they start now?

"The real issues here are TFG's negative control and RM's performance and integrity".

Explain?

It would be most imprudent to conflate "how quiet this BB has become" with "shareholder fatigue". Watching and waiting is far less taxing than partaking in melee. Be not fooled by the silence of a large number.

As for your claim that Brooke is leaving tomorrow (...) ; is this really the hill that you wish to lay down to die the last few remaining shreds of your guesswork upon...?

Ghia is certainly "well versed" Woodstock. But everything has a season, and a reason; while you are away Ghia confessed that they and a small group of investors were turned down by the company for offering funding after Sprinter Who knew? If I were in that rebuffed position, awaiting further opportunity to "do business", I would be inclined to talk down the company's progress. Quite a bit! It's one way to lead a horse to drink. Perhaps that's why the company have made a point of reiterating recently that they have enough cash to meet commitments for over a year, to June 2024...

ATVB.

No Professor, it very much DOES matter which institution Ghia and friends have been fronting whilst playing the friendly neighbourhood PI's here and across the other SNG forums. There is a huge conflict of interest for all genuine shareholders whose interests are not the same as those looking for a financial deal with the company. The answers will come today, either via Ghia, or via the the Company.

Ghia you said "If you read my original comments about attending the AGM I attended with an institution."

Yet, there is NO mention of ANY institution you attended with in your posting history Ghia. On the contrary, you posted just after the AGM... "would it surprise you to know that myself and a couple of other investors communicated with the Ned via our brokers to question the need for resolutions 12/13.".

I'l ask again; which institution did you attend the AGM with Ghia?

I think all PI's here deserve Full Disclosure Ghia, not just from you, but ALL those involved. Y

You've been passing yourselves off as 'PI's' for the past few years here - but in reality you have been part of a deal offer to the company, not exactly the shared interests we were led to believe!

More info please.

Let's recap. You said "FYI I was part of a consortium of investors that offered funds for this very reason prior to the AGM but it was rebuffed."

But now you are saying this was an 'institution'. OK. If that was what you meant (but didn't say), which institution was it?

Ghia,
I do hope you find the time to answer my questions about this offer that you and an undisclosed number of private individuals posting here made to the company post-Sprinter Ghia. The more I delve this evening, the more I realise channels of communication are very delicate structures. They are based very much on trust. I have difficulty aligning how genuine pi interests align with those of a "consortium of (private) investors" . I await your responses.

I want to know who is at the other side of the offer of "support" and "cash" Ghia.

Which other posters on the forums were involved in the r"ebuffed" offer? Like you, none thought to mention the conflict of interest - I'm sure you don't need me to spell out what that conflict is.... Time for full disclosure.

"We put feelers out" "Our intention", "we could significantly underwrite the book", "We lobbied "

Who is the "We" you refer to Ghia. Who is in this consortium of investors?

Ghia

"FYI I was part of a consortium of investors that offered funds for this very reason prior to the AGM but it was rebuffed.
Clearly a deal they had at the time never followed through"

Wow. May I ask what evidence do you have of this mentioned deal? To be clear, is this your opinion or based on fact (if so, what)? Who else here is part of your consortium?

I am glad that he company rebuffed your offer of funds, for who knows what strings may have been attached which would have be unbeneficial to existing shareholders. Only showing your hand about this today, many would call it a very Machiavellian move, and I can't say I would disagree. . Such offers are rarely made from a purely altruistic place. I ask myself; does this explain your change in attitude after Sprinter (and being rebuffed by the BOD?) to "bottom drawer / nothing to see here investment"... ? It certainly makes more sense now. It leaves me with a very uncomfortable feeling about your, and others, motives here all along. Not what I was expecting; it will require some thoughtful rumination....

Not exactly the message you were giving 3 months ago when you were ramping this share to the moon and back.

Short on memory, short on SNG?

POV: self-confessed shorter expresses their dismay at the company.

lol.

A thoroughly sensible post there Doc83, IMHO.

Prof,

Poly aren't "stuck here". If they wanted out they would quietly tap up their industry contacts to find a willing buyer and step out as seamlessly as the stepped in. You seem to have great difficulty accepting their support here. I guess it goes against your trading MO.