Member Info for Minnissage

Study those sentences closely . I rest my case.

The inertia in the SP was clear for all to see yesterday after the contract wins RNS. It is the DoseMe and Predict ONC updates that are eagerly anticipated. The significant time lag between ending of the pilot and any announcement is adding to the drag.

A classic example from the board clearly demonstrating that, when you have nothing to say it is better to say nothing.

Possibly but if the ducks were in order the interest generated yesterday by positioning and expectation setting could have been capitalised on as well as silencing the naysayers

Bit surprised there has been no comms from new BoD KH. They would have known they were in box seat and had plenty of time to craft a positioning RNS.

L2 currently 5 v 2 so mkt doesn’t think so right now

The next RNS is the critical one. A positioning statement from the new BoD would be most welcome.

Ironically what will have sealed the fate of the BoD here is their own post req comms strategy. They needed positivity, commitment, strategy and deliverables to win hearts and minds. The complete lack of any of those seems a reflection of their approach to running the company and thus how we got to where we are now. I read all carefully and saw nothing that would transform performance.

The RNS may change that a bit in the short term

Absolutely KH. As a defence it is simply purile

Interesting RNS. It talks about a lack of plan from the requisitioners. The same observation could be levelled at the current board.

One thing I would say SS. A drawback of having the scientist in charge of commercials is that they can be loathe to let go of their baby and / or have unrealistic expectations.

So far we have seen a denigration of the requisitioners by the current Board but nothing from the incumbents about what they have achieved, progress made or strategy they are executing.

Though not unheard of it is not commonplace for scientists to make good business people. You need both on board .

What was striking was that there was nothing in the circular regarding current strategy and activity to add shareholder value. One would have expected a piece on jeopardising current projects if the Board were to be replaced. The absence of any such suggestions suggest they may not exist

The EGM is not a given. Firstly PYC will scrutinise the documentation to ensure it is all present and correct and follows the required procedures.

Secondly and much more importantly there is a third way. If the requisitioner has a plan the way is open for discussion and negotiation for a solution to be reached that accommodates some changes deemed substantial enough for the requisition to be withdrawn.

At present we do not know what plans the requisitioner has nor do we know that the existing board are united enough and focussed enough to deliver the ‘growth’ strategy. I would therefore counsel against hasty decisions either way until we have more clarity

With respect Nic that’s not strictly accurate . A successful grant application could see Val through the whole of 2026, depending on the size of the grant.

There will always be traders while there is uncertainty to exploit OB.

As I observed yesterday both detractors and promoters appear to agree that a bounce is anticipated in Q1. Not surprising given the number of opportunities that are being worked on plus the grant activity that we know Val are exploring. Triggering the warrants has to be a priority for Q1.

The question for the traders is at what point do you sit tight in the boat so as not to miss the high tide.

It appears that both the detractors and promoters have become aligned in the expectation of a Q1 bounce reading through the BB

No doubt Stephen will have retained the warrants Nick. Maybe more canny than you would have us believe

We can but pray to be bought for the IP Trout