"If the funding to develop Britbox is only £65m, it is not going to be a game changer"
It could be the sign of a company playing 'catch up'....and £65m is significant if it is a yearly cost with escalating investment and no significant income or profits generated. Hopefully it will be money well spent and generate lots of revenue but it does smack of too little, too late (IMO).
"BUT, there is not need for the constant cut and paste rubbish and the regurgitation of old news. He or she is one sad lonely individual to spend so much time on constant negative comment.
Sadly I do agree that the company have constantly over promised and under-delivered. A sorry state of affairs compounded by a lowlife scum poster, who likes nothing better than to gloat and say I told you so."
RB, unfortunately for shareholders (of RTHM) you are 100% correct. Up to this point RTHM has been a bad investment....but tomorrow is another day...perhaps!!!
To be brutally fair, if say a year ago (or perhaps 2 years) a new investor had taken notice of what Stt1 wrote and steered clear of RTHM then looking at the SP right now they would be quite relieved.
This is nothing to do with Stt1 being correct (or some sort of guru) but more a sad reflection on the countless broken promises by RTHM....there is always a jam tomorrow. Indeed by now (based on forecasts & hints at inflection points) RTHM should be safely in profit (real profits and NOT EBITDA) and have single digit P/E.
I have said this before that the problem is not Stt1 but the inability of RTHM (and perhaps!! TAP) to deliver the jam.
Tricky, I'm not sure if the wasp analogy works. If we had jam - plenty of jam - then the wasp would 'probably' go away. Indeed if we had the jam we wouldn't care about the wasp (other than to laugh at it) because we'd be too busy enjoying our jam.
The annoyance isn't the 'wasp', it's the lack of jam IMO. Without any jam the buzzing of the wasp is really annoying because it's constantly reminding us about the lack of jam.
I suppose now we have to discuss what flavour of jam people would like??!!
Isn't the anger & annoyance misdirected somewhat. Surely people should be annoyed by the constant 'jam tomorrow' message of RTHM. Just at the point that RTHM was due to shift from EBITDA into actual profit (according to forecasts) then they sell out to TAP...who then tell us that RTHM numbers were below expectations. Constant jam...there comes a time when being told that the jam is in the post but it never arrives, can become a little tiring.
Surely it's not about some insignificant poster says, it's whether RTHM and now TAP actually deliver in their results. If TAP start producing solid results then naysayers will become less annoying IMO. Come on TA, tell us that the jam is in the post, next day recorded delivery!!
This is on the TAP discussion board:
"Effective Date of the Scheme 1 April 2019
- Admission of the Enlarged Group to trading on AIM by 8:00 a.m. on 1 or 2 April 2019
- Delisting of RhythmOne Shares by 8:00 a.m. on 1 or 2 April 2019 (Suspended 7.30 1 April)
- New Taptica Shares issued to RhythmOne Shareholders by 8:00 a.m. on 1 or 2 April"
Ananda does seem to have gone very quiet after all his 'enthusiasm'...I guess he/she has got what they wanted and moved onto something else.
There was always going to be a lot of shares purchased during the rights issue at circa 7.5p floating about....despite the recent drop, those shareholders may be willing sellers (assuming they haven't already offloaded).
I expect the P&D crowd will return...it worked so well this time. Maybe nearer the P3 trial results....maybe tomorrow.
"Ken James stated there is the potential of a regulatory submission in th EU in 2020 if the med gels data is so compelling and basically safe, and everything I heard in that presentation indicated a high likelihood for that to be the case." [thomasbrowne]
TB, I was aware of the possibility of an early regulatory submission in the EU (not USA btw). But that requires that P3 part A provides compelling data...not a certainty and so a shareholder needs to plan on what is most likely i.e. regulatory application in 2021.
Early regulatory approval would be a bonus and would mean that the trial data was outstanding. Obviously, what is compelling to FUM many not be compelling to regulators...so best to stick with the 2021 date in mind and not count our chickens too early. Any long term investor in FUM will tell you to expect things to take longer than expected or desired.
I watched the webcast. It is 'probably' suited for people who don't know much about MED2005. But it was very long, too technical in places and fairly boring. So Hawkshead is right to avoid it IMO...you aren't going to learn much new or to your advantage.
Some thoughts of mine:
- Mr Barder took a back seat, he is probably still getting over his loss of credibility.. Ken James seemed to take a lot of the load.
- Professor David Ralph was fairly pointless...a +30 minutes pointless history of ED treatments....not much on MED2005 from him.
- The explanation on DermaSys was useful to those who don't know how it works.
- P3 part A - results Dec 2019
- P3 part B - results End 2020
- Regulatory approval application most likely to start in 2021
Other things they didn't mention:
- Dermasys isn't patented...it's a trademark. It's the formulation of the solvent & active ingredient that's patented
- The status of attempt to increase patent life of MED2005
- P2 onset times for MED2005 were the same as placebo....so they cannot really make the 5 to 10 minute onset time claim IMO. The P3 trials are designed to get more data about onset time & duration of action.
Presumably the 16 to 19 offer is required to make TAP the dominant company....but the offer also seriously undervalues R1 (I think most of us can agree). So we are really swapping R1 shares for an investment in TAP at a not very good rate for us. Do we really want to invest in TAP? Or is the merged company more valuable than the individual entities (based on R1's previous 'investments' then possibly not).
Even if TAP shares rose to 400p that wouldn't value R1 as very much (given that R1 pre-YUME was over 400p itself). I know, it's all historical stuff but it does make you think....especially when R1's 'profits' (stop laughing) are about to take off....certainly not guaranteed based on R1's SP alone.
Needs some additional cash on the table to seal the deal IMO...we should be able to tap TAP for some folding stuff.
It doesn't look like a very good deal for R1 shareholders. It makes our management look very needy...which makes me think they aren't comfortable about R1's performance as a standalone entity going forward.
TAP are saying: "We don't really need you, but at the right price we would be interested".
Perhaps R1 shareholders would be better off long to medium term with a combined outfit....but short term we are losers. It would be nice to see some cash on the table.
But I suppose it's not our decision. The big players will get their way.
More jam tomorrow....just a different flavour.
"But he didn't give any numbers....presumably (guessing here) the 'offer' would have been above 60p.....so his forecast of 50% uplift would be above 90p."
Obviously the 60/90p estimated valuation would have been before the rights issue dilution...so gawd only knows what figure Mr Barder is thinking of now...probably the 11p figure (presumably a multi-million pound bonus will be based on that)
Back in September Mr Barder said that he was going to proceed with MED2002 phase 3 without doing a deal for the sake of shareholder value....I think he said that MED would be worth 50% more with P3 complete. I wonder what he thinks of the current SP.
Hopefully that 50% increase in value isn't based on current SP...or about 11p.
But he didn't give any numbers....presumably (guessing here) the 'offer' would have been above 60p.....so his forecast of 50% uplift would be above 90p.
But P3 has to deliver good results first....not guaranteed IMO.
" I don’t think the apparent rivalry between R1 and TLY boards adds anything to either board, it just wastes space."
BrassNeck, thanks for pointing me towards the TLY board. For a while now I've struggled to understand why the likes of SST1 & 'Graham-wales' have been so negative about RTHM. It seems to be some childish tit-for-tat vendetta....they seem to feel they are protecting their TLY investment by trashing RTHM. They must be about 5 years old...(that's probably unfair to toddlers)
OK, both TLY and RTHM aren't doing very well at the moment....trashing a companies reputation just because it makes you feel good doesn't help matters. It won't make your investments do better. Time to concentrate on what is important IMO.