Member Info for HelloSanDiego

Manifesto - "We are recruiting, there is evidence some plan at SNG is well advanced and if we were going to rely on a PT it would be hard to justify these appointments."

There are several ways to justify them:

1) It might be a condition of STRIVE that the company has it's own project manager to oversee it, or...
2) As I suggested before, if STRIVE has been agreed the company may feel it has the funds to put together another trial of its own to run concurrently. Something focussing on long covid, maybe?

Manifesto - "ACTIV2 results were held back IMHO"

You're entitled to literally any opinion you want.

But when there's nothing to back it up and compelling reasons to think you're wrong, I wouldn't put too much weight behind it.

I suspect the company's supposed 'change in direction' were to assure investors that a platform trial wasn't our only hope.

But I'm quite sure it would be our best one by far, providing it materializes.

...so what I'm saying is, if we're on STRIVE in a few months we'll have the results far quicker than if were to wait for a joint venture, design a trial, then wait for that to get approved and underway and finished.

Manifesto,

You've overlooked several things:

1) The ACTIV results were delayed because the ACTIV program was cancelled just as we finished. It was just bad luck.
2) With an NIAID backed trial -which is already being planned- I suspect we could be finished long before one that is nothing more than a theory in the minds of the few people who post here.

Paladin - "Isn’t it realistic to suppose that before this happens, there might be some interest shown by a BP company?"

Their interest wouldn't matter.

The point I've tried to make is that if we're on STRIVE by then, a joint venture would not be in Synairgen or its shareholders' interests. We'd already be on a trial that could get the drug approved. So in return for a (relatively) little money in the short term, Synairgen would be giving up a huge amount in the long term.

There are some convincing signs the company is gearing up for a platform trial, probably STRIVE.

If that happens, a fundraise late next year would be far preferable to a joint venture. Isn't that obvious?

Two questions:

1) Did anyone here follow all of Axe's crazy ramblings?
2) Did he acknowledge that another 1500 patient platform trial could be on the horizon?

Andy - "A company with a single drug that hasn’t had their single drug on any trial for the last 10 months."

A £35m company that could be worth £5bn in a few years.

I have no doubt he's still involved in it. The only part I was debating was the extent of his involvment.

Also, to add to the answer I gave Tommy, Synairgen didn't have anyone who project managed the P3 trial because it was done by Parexel.

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2021/01/synairgen-phase-iii-trial.page

Tommy - "Haven’t we already designed 3 or 4 trials over the last few years using available in-house people?"

Yes and no.

I'm not certain but I was under the impression Sir Stephen was more heavily involved in the development and testing than he is now, and vaguely recall seeing a statement to that effect. The "all hands to the pumps" attitude during the first couple of years ago Covid has subsided a little as things have returned to normal. So employing someone to manage another trial is definitely possible.

There's no guarantee these two new roles are for Synairgen, but I think it looks likely. And if that's correct it raises a few questions.

Have there been any discussions on here about what the new roles are actually for?

I think a Director of Quality would be responsible for two things:
- Overseeing the manufacture of the drug
- Ensuring it is safely dispensed into vials.

I don't think the company will be looking at manufacturing more right now, when they've stated they already have enough for a large P3 trial. But vials were in short supply before, due to the pandemic. So it makes sense they would need someone for that.

But here's what doesn't make sense: if they are readying supplies in preparation for an upcoming trial, isn't it weird they didn't advertise for someone to actually DESIGN one until six weeks after?

I'm sure we'll find out before long.

gunto - "Doesn’t take that much to understand there is a trial on its way."

I know. But it takes a lot to understand whether that's good news or bad.

If a £20m fundraise or loan to fund it is on its way, that's not great.

If it's the scenario I just suggested, that is.

One possibility is that the Director of Quality will be overseeing the supply of the drug to STRIVE and if that's been finalized already, that frees up the company's time and money to undertake some of its own research in other areas, hence the need for these two new roles.

That's the only (positive) explanation I've got so far. Are there any others?

The Director of Quality job was advertised on September 29th and has now been removed from their website and Synairgen's.

But it's odd that the two new ones aren't on Synairgen's site if they're the client.

Also, why would they even need these staff when they already had the people they needed to carry out a large, global, phase 3 trial? Any ideas?

Hobson Prior had a Director of Quality GMP GDP job appear on their site around the same time that Synairgen advertised for the same position. It's expired now but here's the link:

https://www.hobsonprior.com/job/director-of-quality-in-southampton-hampshire-jid-17632

So it looks like Hobson Prior's client was Synairgen. That advert and the two new ones they advertised described their client as "a fantastic CRO located in Southampton" located in Southampton. So I think it's likely that Synairgen is/was advertising all three vacancies.

Page 132 of the Takeover Code reads to me as though someone holding under 30% can put in any offer they like.

"[If] any person acquires, whether by a series of transactions over a period of time or not, an interest in shares which (taken together with shares in which persons acting in concert with him are interested) carry 30% or more of the voting rights of a company;" ...blah blah blah mandatory offer.

Different solicitor's sites have different interpretations: some agree with me, others with Doc83. So I'm still unsure, tbh. I see the logic in Doc's argument but I'm still not sure that's how rule 9 is applied.

https://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/code.pdf

Doc83 - "Polygon wouldn’t bid right now. They’d have to offer c.£2 per share."

I don't think they would. If they hit 30% they have to put in a mandatory bid equal to their highest buy price of the past 12 months.

But I'm pretty sure that BEFORE they hit the 30% they can just put in any offer they like, just like you or I can.

I don't think Polygon is aiming for a February takeover.

The reason is this: they can put in any offer they like today. There's nothing to stop them reaching 29.99% and offering 20p, 40p or whatever else right now. The fact they haven't gives me a lot more confidence that isn't their plan. Perhaps they're hoping to exceed 30% in February. But I don't think a takeover is on the cards.