Member Info for inanaco

Joint awards: Where two or more institutions hold a Grant jointly, CRUK may select one institution as the designated Host Institution. The designated Host Institution only shall receive the Grant payments and must transfer appropriate funds to the other institution(s) without undue delay.

Only one host institution as controller of the funds... it acts as the distributor, sorry but your argument has failed

please explain how this funding does not interact with the balance sheet ... ?

You cannot ...

ONW and Tosh have failed again

well according to CRUK it does .... so how can i be wrong ?

Financial management: The Host Institution must ensure proper financial management of the Grant and accountability for the use of public funds, including by obtaining and keeping invoices and maintaining proper books and detailed records of costs and expenses incurred in relation to the Grant, and by applying its usual arrangements for monitoring and preventing fraud bribery and any other corrupt practices. The Host Institution must account for all income and expenditure related to the Grant through a separate cost centre or, if it does not use cost centres, it must keep the Grant in a separate bank account used exclusively for the Grant funds.

Audits and site visits: CRUK may seek confirmation from the Host Institution or the Host Institution’s external auditors that the Grant has been used in accordance with the Terms and Conditions. CRUK (or its agents) may also conduct its own audit of the Grant at any time and the Host Institution shall co-operate fully in that regard, including by allowing CRUK to inspect all books, records and facilities related to the Grant, by providing copies of all relevant books and records on request, and by procuring that any subcontractors provide that assistance as well.

yes i have already explained, Ray, the point is, Even if the cash is held "off Shore" from scancell, Scancell balance sheet still is involved as its the only way that we have to account for our costs .... so its ludicrous to even suggest it is not.

Understand that the cash spent could also collect Tax Credits ..... so unless the cash actually moves through the balance sheet this would be unavailable

well it has to sit somewhere on the scancell accounts .... its not invisible imaginary money

i suggest you ask an accountant ...

how to spend £20m so that it never appears as an in or out on the balance sheet ... only that would appear as the perfect tax avoidance scheme ... Ie Nothing declared.

in should be If .....

How its drawn down directly affects how its sits, Upfront would mean cash is on the balance sheet or in paid arrears

but both ways fit into the "debtors and creditors" which sits on the balance sheet. It has to otherwise you cannot account for anything,

what we do not know, and that will become apparent over time by RNS is the exact commercial structure based around this research.

Used to develop Modi3 .... ... how the money is distributed is irrelevant as the core asset is Scancells Patent moditope
the logic behind the posts is not relevant as all costs associated is covered under the grant ie from wages to electricity bills. Its obvious that it cannot be used for other projects but to say that its not sitting on scancells balance sheet is not quite correct, because you are not valuing the up lift in IP that this grant generates in your calculations, which would sit on the balance sheet once its commercialised or value attributed via a licence etc. So in effect its £20m of committed research funding which indirectly sits on scancells balance sheet. Just like Modi1 has to day cost built into that has to be met by scancell ie the license of amplivant so that is committed research with an outcome. the Only difference with Modi3 is that research is funded.

MPs backed an amendment that would keep the UK in the European medicines regulatory network.

its non dilutive, no difference to getting a commercial deal, where the other party buys nothing but gives us £20m to invest in the moditope program ..

Its the ultimate commercial win

i refer you the first actual post i made. No criticism of RR at all ........

inanaco
Posts: 27,393
Premium Chat Member
Opinion: No Opinion
Price: 12.35
RE: CrukToday 09:03They are not evaluating ..........

Under the terms of the agreement, Scancell and BioNTech will enter into an initial research collaboration to discover and characterise T cell receptors specific for citrullinated epitopes from vimentin and enolase

Lindy has already explained the science of identification in the Feb Vid for Calculus.

BioNTech will have the exclusive option to enter into a licence agreement for the development of cell receptor based therapeutics that are specific to Modi-1 epitopes.

Its not up to scancell to develop TCR vaccines, as Lindy has already explained that they can identify down to the individual T cell that has gone active to the moditope epitope, Then the science of identifying and cloning out the TCR is BioNtechs.

As this is done in human blood not mice, scancell has shown that the moditope epitopes are immunogenic

otherwise you would not get an "activated t cell"

The fact that Genentech and BioNtech which are the drivers of TCR and have signed up to the Modi3 program subject to the grant is a clear indicator that the Modi1 TCR program is on track.

i just questioned the use of the word .....

its you lot that went Over the Top ...

you yourself could not justify either ....

in fact Boom page 5 from your link contradicts it again

Moditope
TCR characterisation

they have clearly used the same data Scancell and hardman

has one party in Scancell written the RNS and another the PDF ?

like i said its a contradiction ..

yes, many get unbalanced on here .... interesting thou

nobody could back what was in the report "on news flow"