Member Info for Natdan

"Getting a letter of Assurance from the US Treasury...would be helpful" - I bet it would PF, but do you seriously think they would oblige? PF appears to have reached the dilusional stage of proceedings, too much desert sun, thinking that the US will be remotely interested.
This update is one of comic proportions, made me chuckle at least.

The best the BOD can offer is being "hopeful" that one day a solution might be found (in the long grass) to allow this SIGNED contract with Iran to begin.
Too many opportunities, in my humble view, for either party to walk away at any stage: the big bad excuse of Trump is already writ large.

Hilarious! Getting an award in the China and AMERICA ..forum is flicking the two fingers at Illumina. The location will surely maximise prospects of further contract wins in this most lucrative of areas.

Let's hope they treble check the patent if/when any new product is launched in the distant future.

The general waffle contained in the CEO's update today sheds a little more light on WSG's dealings with regard to Iran. We are told that the MOU with Iran was generated in March 2016, leading to a cascade of speculation for nearly two years on this forum by all our knowledgeable posters, as to the likely location of any contractual win. Fast-forward to May 2018. May 7th saw the signing of the long-term contract with Iran. May 8th saw the Trump announcement regarding Iran. May 10th updated the market with a RNS. Is it just me or does anyone feel that either the timing of all this is a touch coicidental and/or convenient, or PF (and by extension WSG) are just the unluckiest investors to ever tread the AIM market? After a deal taking TWENTY SIX months to finalise, it is "signed" off just the very day before Trump makes an announcement on Iran? More confusion is thrown into the mix: "none of Westminster's proposed equipment or services relates to any proposed sanctions." In which case, why not just go with the deal and start earning? Why throw into the mix a proviso that the contract will only "become effective on the exchange f formal board letters between us and the client." Just do it??? I note once again the infamous disclaimer also sneaked in: "although with projects f this scale and complexity there can be never be certainty f outcome r timing." Ooh Matron, more laxative please...

So why would a company whose very existence may well ultimately rely upon this "deal", back off from its completion simply because of a unilateral declaration from the US? I rather suspect that PF's cloak-and dagger secretiveness, including a suitcase ready-packed for the ultimate go-ahead which is unlikely to ever happen, sprinkled with the occasional 'imminent' , masks a growing realisation that this contract at least, is one that even Paul Daniels would not have been able to pull out of the hat.

Good to see Jimzi rise above the parapet, at least he should have no trouble with NT purchase attempts near-term. Some of the prolific rampers appear to be Awol big-time though. As I stated in my Christmas parable for those who may recall at the time of the "game-changing" RNS, beware of false prophets bearing gifts springs to mind. More importantly, I focused upon PF's subtle disclaimer (" there can never be certainty of timing or outcome"). Never was a truer word spoken in jest. This allows him in effect to walk away from any non-contract, simply by pushing the blame to another. How convenient to blame it on the leader of the free-world. Toodle pip

Hell no, this is even worse than the SQ's prop-shaft dropping off.

Ouch! THe market is applying an old-tested mathematical formula, namely " The SP move is inversely proportional to the length of 'imminent'. Or something like that...

Amusing to see Twixalot that font of all knowledge and stating of the bleedin'obvious, begging to get back on the good side of flipper Superb insight in criticising the big buyer earlier for his lack of common-sense in timing...is this the same Twixy who if you believe has been topping up all the way down and still holds ?

You have to admire the temerity of the BOD: it's as if they are flicking the proverbial two fingers at Illumina and the court judgment. The message is loud and clear: you won't stop us from trading and growing (whatever happened to Illumina's "injunctive" threat?) The now routine inclusion of projected tests and revenues is welcome as it evidences the momentum behind the growth. You never know, it may persuade Illumina to settle with a nominal licence fee agreement.

it seems the only remaining award deserving of SL would now be his outstanding contribution to....shareholder value. So SL is recognised in the world of bio, whilst the judge in effect was saying, to use an educational analogy, that the company was copying someone else's homework. You couldn't make it up!

Twixalot, I doubt whether a poster exists who has been so consistently negative on a share and its BOD but who has supposedly remained invested, and even topped up so regularly. You must be sporting substantial losses....or you are a fake, or both. That's all pretend ex-pat.

Twixalot wasn't meant as an insult but a compliment. Perhaps you've been sitting in the sun too long or whatever you choose to get up to in Ladyboyland. Was merely putting forward a scenario to posters- I don't know whether it's an option for NIPT

Intended for those here far more knowledgeable than me:- I note from today's RNS that, "local laboratory set-ups with remote cloud-based NIPT analysis" exist. This being the case and noting that the PLC's gravity of earnings has pulled significantly to the Mid/Far East, what is to stop the BOD from upping sticks, delisting here (whilst selling PIs down the river) and setting up in sunnier climes where the term "patent infringement" does not appear to exist? I was thinking somewhere not far from Thailand, so that our resident Twixalot could no longer excuse himself from AGMs! And where he could scrutinise and hold the BOD to account, whilst beating them relentlessly until they realised that their primary raison d'etre is to deliver long-term value to shareholders!

A friend of mine recently took up a junior management post here. The anecdotal evidence here is a company throwing off heaps of cash via large repeat contracts. However, it appears woefully underinvested and run inefficiently. If the new CEO addresses these aspects which he clearly intends to, then the upside here is far in excess of the opportunistic Frenchie bid, which is merely seeking to cash in on the recently depressed SP. Stick with the current management.

This has the whiff of desperation attached to it , not to mention arrogance: not only do they believe they cannot rely on simpleton investors remembering a deadline date, but there is a discernible "nudge" towards telling us what is the best way to act, the directors know the best. Don't they? Unclear to me whether there is a legality issue in releasing such a skewed document at this stage of the tender process. I couldn't imagine The Tory high office releasing a communication on voting day telling the people having the right to vote which way to exercise their franchise. Standby for the inevitable raised bid.

Was looking at the figures for Kraft's short-lived offer for Unilever. Note the ferocity of Unilever's rejection of a bid premium of only 18%. Compare this with the derisory 10% premium here (or possibly less if currency fluctuations impact negatively) and you can see our BOD almost hiding under the table hoping this will go away quietly, hence the whispering RNS announcing the game-changing, first-oil production at Stella. The maths here is so out of kilter that a significantly higher bid just has to materialise. After all, who would want to hand a bargain on a plate to an anonymous, opportunistic predator from a country which produces precisely no black stuff of its own? The BOD I here you shout?

Where's the oracle with his learned view, not having a lie-in on this of all days?

Let the battle begin!. DElek and directors account for approx 22%', plenty of room for a counter.