Member Info for isas

Rather than run with losses you can try and use your holding to influence the bod to change. On the one hand you are asking people to sell up and on the other you are supposed to be supporting the company- bit of a contradiction isn't there! real investors are critical partners of the management- remember they are employed by us not the other way around- it appears supporters of the status quo are foot soldiers of the bod or the brokers waiting in anticipation to get hold of freebees- 100% dilution to make a quick buck.

To be quite honest not that worried about the info- just the culture change at bod level, if we want to preserve the cash surely they can accrue their pay/fees until the deal is done, why take the easiest route and resort to dilution at crazy discounts. Lets share the risk and reward. If there is no indication of any movement by bod in the next few days then I am resolved to vote no.

To BD and everyone involved in the action group well done. tremendous achievement in restructuring the bod and taking steps to a new culture.

Just look at the rns from Solo oil, a group of investors have finally brought the bod to align their interests with those of shareholders. Why can't our bod do the same at least take 50% of their salaries in shares.

Is the oil pre-sold and at what point is the price fixed, on loading or delivery?

Obelix in business or in general life there are no clear cut yes and no answers. It's like a bully in front of you saying if you don't move over I will smack you and you keep moving over, one day you decide to take another of your friends with you and the bully boy says the same, you and your mate can say we are standing here before , why don't you just walk to the other side, I am sure seeing both of you and the confidence in your voice the bully will step aside. Now the question is this if you are a long term investor are you going to be blackmailed every year into submission for headroom increase and your pre-emption rights r are you finally going to call it a bluff and say I don't like this continual path to destruction, I want some clarity and possibly a different way of financing- I would prefer you the current management to find a workable solution that satisfies preserving my shareholder value, however, if you are not able to do we will bring in people who can- remember we are employing these people to create shareholder value.

Oh they are the big boys and girls that I think Satu had coffee with in 2014.

Those who threaten that to vote no would lead to administration are not telling the truth, the company has continued since the last no vote in 2016/17. This is too lucrative a source of income for the bod, to save your investment and to have any chance of decent return you need to vote no, let the bod come up with a better solution by engaging with investors.

Tarquin is not a bod member and has his own pr company which is contracted to VAL. He's a dogsbody paid to take flak and keep the bod members insulated from having to deal with investors.

Excellent post, highly recommended. now is the time, learn from history, don't keeping the same mistakes, hold them to account.

If your argument is correct, who is in control of this company the bod or questionable organisations like BS. You as a shareholder are giving away your rights to the bod to take easy options. you need to vote no in order for them to come back with a fully worked plan of what they need to take at least one drug to commercialisation- nothing less nothing more. then we can allow the the headroom- no a blank cheque of 100%. burn't by this bod many times over the years to trust them with a blank cheque. To those who perceive the criticism of the bod as negative and tell us to sell up, why should we, we have paid to develop the company to this stage and reserve the right to say what we think is in the best interests of our interest. If on the other hand you are so confident of this bod you can buy my stock from me at my average.

Thanks for clarifying MP.

Did any one mention that JB said that this was JB's last meeting- is he going to move sideways or leave?

I think for some resolutions a minimum of votes are required legally- 51% or 70%, I can't recall the details and havn't got the time to look up.

Thats the stupidity of us PI's, we don't realise our strength and when to exercise it and the bod's on aim have mastered it to a degree that even Bernie Maddoff would be envious of.

thanks for the comments from the agm. appreciated

Thanks Maths, That is the position the bod have put themselves in and they are putting out foot soldiers in order to get their way, If the no vote is successful they would need to go back to the drawing board and come to a compromise solution, they are not stupid and the company would not go to administration, either the current bod would need to find a acceptable solution or somebody else can be brought in no-one is bigger than the company and they are not stupid to throw away their careers. The situation is not a black and white in businesses it is resolved by arriving at compromises, but i dare say most investors are fickle and easily scared into submission by bods, after all this has been played out almost every year and bod have almost always got away with it. I wouldn't read anything into the Align fiasco, I have a feeling it was amateur dramatics to build upto the GM.

Mathsprof I agree to some degree about your point about pre-emption rights for a small company, but as they say there are many ways to skin a cat- the point is they are asking for 100% headroom increase and for us to do away with our PE rights. The message they are giving to investors is we will fleece whenever and however we like and you would have no choice. They could have alternatively said we would like to increase the headroom to 30, 40, 50% etc which would take us a juncture where we will be able to conclude a deal and in addition the bod would convert some their warrants in order to provide confidence and share risks with our investors etc. not let us bend you over and next year we'ell do the same because we got you trapped. No more bullying people stand up for your rights.

Why do you think they want you to give up your pre-emption rights? Those who are telling genuine long term holders and critics of the bod, need to remember we have paid to develop the drugs this far and have every right to criticise the bad financial decisions that have decimated our investments and will continue to stand up to bullying.

Seems to be the regurgitation of the old stuff- seems like desperation from bod to pay a few quid to Proactive to recycle old stuff.