Member Info for Porky9

@Goomer

I trade in numerous stocks, don’t be so stupid

I comment here because I know what I’m talking about

If I want to buy here I would support the placing, I’m not as it stands because I consider it expensive in relation to its fundamental values especially as what was their Crown Jewels, 201 was given away to a two bit start up, the constant blunders of the board and I know it’s at least a five year investment from this point that’s if they can secure placing support, I’m not 100% convinced they will in the circumstances.

I have little confidence in the board and changes need to be made and finally the board won’t buy either so why should i

@PatientInvestor (AKA Iceman)

As deputy chief ramper you can’t help yourself, you down average and then start posting nonsense

Adam won’t be able to see and review negotiations with THX because if he did that would be insider dealing the moment he trades any of his holdings he is on for a prison stretch.

He is NOT a Director and not privy to ANY confidential information outside of that of other investors, Val are dancing a fine line frankly.

The mcap today is £7m in April 21 it was just over £2m I would say the business position today is worse than it was in April 21 yet with have more shares in issue but more than a 300% higher share price so when you say 6-9 is your range, fine that’s your range but from an investment perspective this could quite easily fallback to April 21 levels or lower on a like for like mcap.

Finally, yes made great returns during the bull run, yes was guilty of ramping when I thought 201 was going to move to trials with a major, not given away to a start up that has constantly failed to deliver when they say.

I see @PM2022 so basically you want new investors to support and back this at the current inflated price in the hope that the placing can be completed at an even higher price to reduce your dilution risk? Good luck with that.

Jeeze, the Directors are not even buying at this level because the stocks “unstable” and they know the placing due but you want others to risk their hard earned money? They need to lead by example frankly and you need to stop unsubstantiated ramping.

* THX clearly can't get funded, as already explained they would need to raise at least £20m just for early stage P1 and P2 trials plus the £1.3m down payment and other costs. Would you give that to a start up in a biotech funding drought when there are loads of other biotech funding required projects from more advanced and proven teams? Where is your evidence?

*CLX is is at least a year or more off being ready, read the updates, it’s still being prepared and it would then need a financial backer, it will take time. It’s pre-clinical.

I 100% agree with Nick on 201, bin off THX asap, start talking to biotechs with funds to advance 201 give it them for free to get trials going so we can see if it works or not and agree a milestone payment on success.

@PM2022 here we go with another of your baseless ramps without ANY back up information to support, you just don’t stop:-

* The raise needs to be completed before the year end, ideally sooner than later to avoid higher levels of dilution.Expectation this month or next if support secured? 5p placing is my best bet if they act quick enough, otherwise lower.

* Cash was previously to run out early 24 but Due to recent acquisition spend capital required sooner. Cash burn is close to £200k pcm. Back up close to pre 2021 levels.

* No revenues in last 12 years, non forecast in H2. If they can win some lab contracts early following Imagen acquisition it will help but it will take time and significantly more cash in sales and marketing to take the labs from zero revenue to £2.5m revenue to break even.

*Unfortunately Adam is not “inside” he is NOT a board member, he should be as it’s commercials we needs support on and help to direct the board away from making more blunders not more science. Suzy needs help.

*Delighted you can wait, you sound “calm and unconcerned” which is a good thing, it’s at least a five year business plan from here and will take time so you need to be.

* AIM market conditions are poor, likewise the biotech funding sector, glad you can predict markets from here, it’s a rare skill. Assets are only worth what people will pay, market wants results now and proof of concept not Jam.

* Adam can’t push for anything he is NOT on the board, the BOD make the decisions.

* They couldn’t get the £1.3m over the line for 201 which was advanced stages, they are unlikely to now get £10m in up front early for a pre-clinical assets, that’s pure fantasy. CLX is possibly brilliant but it’s a way off yet being ready for a Phase One trial and a financial backer will then need to be found, a P1 trial costs circa £4m a P2 trial costs circa £ 16m so they need a backer with capacity to fund £20m early stage to see if it works and unlikely to be paying £10m in addition on top upfront - any future deal would likely be milestone led. DYOR

* And what proof have you that THX will get funded now in H2 for 201 or is that a gut feeling? My view is it won’t happen and they will need to find a new partner. Valirx need the £1.3m and PYC need the 6% for sure it would help both towards their respective cash burns however it’s highly unlikely.

Now stop posting mindless ramping... if you are going to ramp put some substance/ facts behind your opinion. E.g you understand after 2 yrs THX will be funded because of.. an IM, a Prospectus, evidence you have come across during research, what exactly?

@OB

HH is incredibly quick and witty, some of the rapid put downs against some of my comments have been brilliant - in real life the poster would be an absolute blast to go for a drink with, love it :)

@BaggMann

I can't disagree with you, it was Stella's "Gerald Ratner" moment for sure. But bloody hell, who gives a cr@p about what gossip is said on a BB? Seriously? Look if they start delivering the SP would be in a totally different position it would take care of itself.

But this is an issue isn't it? The board are clearly concerned about small shareholder opinion BECAUSE they reply on our votes each year to stay elected. If they actually had skin in the game and a sizable holding they would be better protected. Ironic really.

Fortunately, Adam gave them all a lifeline this time. If we take Kevin's vote was it 16m for and 12m against? I'm not sure now, it was for one of them but anyhow, My point is Adams 7.5m of votes for, saved the day. He likes the BOD as it is for some reason.

The BOD should not even need to read BBs, do you think the CEO of GSK spends time reading the GSK board at LSE and what varying small investors say at any given moment? He probably has never heard of the LSE stock BB.

I just think the BOD stress levels were high prior to the AGM, they worried about jobs on the line, knee jerk reactions to create interest, i mean what was that Oncobone RNS about if not a knee jerk reaction and that may have indirectly led to stupid comments and the frustration shown by Stella in her comments. I'm not making excuses for her but i think the stress and pressure pre results played a part for sure.

@Fredd1eboy

What you say is actually 100% correct.

II do not give a fig about BB gossip, they look plain and simply at fundamental value and if can they make a profit or not. Its purely business not an emotional transaction. They look at the board and the track record, how established they are and possible long term ROI.

One of the key issues here is the track record, a continual need to raise, a continual failure to deliver and numerous errors along the way. I tried to encourage a small boutique investment house to take a position around the time of the 201 deal. We are not talking big II player we are talking family office level, so a lower level of evaluation but I thought if I could attract their interest, It would be a step toward attracting II and bigger players and frankly, if they had gone for it I would have possibly gone for a declared position myself.

After the 201 decision, they made it clear to me they weren’t interested, they were unsure of the business concept, in a recent conversation they considered this more akin to a lifestyle business. Now we can ignore that, it doesn’t matter, different investors will have different views and profiles, but this business needs II support for sure not just rely on an ever reducing private investor base.

When Stella commented about stability and this not being a two year but more of a longer term five year play, I know exactly what she means. She knows the business is not yet stable enough to attract II support, or even her own, she made that clear and she is right.

To date as far as I know during the last 12 years, they have not proven that they can take any University concept forward, position it and move it to a bigger player and towards commercialisation. I.e., prove the concept. Now they want to create a tCRO a lab business from scratch in a highly competitive space. So, this is another direction change that will have it’s challenges and add to the time lines.

My view is that II support is still a few years off, but they would need to prove they can deliver first, this 201 situation overhanging them really isn’t helping either in the meantime its lost time. I’m not saying they can never attract II support I’m saying it’s a good few years off until this is a stable commercial proposition. Don’t forget II are spending pension fund and other people’s money so they need to be secure in their investment.

Good luck to you but this will take a lot of time and more capital now for sure.

LMOL at you @Iceman (AKA PatientInvestor)

If i could cut and paste L2 here i would

Your ramping is unbelievable

Do tell me how the ASK is improving unless you or someone else wants to down average?

CNKS are still at 5.2p and there has been NO buys since the down average buy at 10 this morning, all the other trades are sells.

I would call you chief ramper but PM2022 holds that position so you will have to be deputy as he takes some beating..

Lol - Yes Gerald but you know what i mean :)

And for full clarity here is the “George Ratner” moment from Stella why she wont buy:-

“Does NOT have the management and Stability compared to the other business she is involved with”

“This is NOT a 2 year strategy but a 5 year plus strategy and should the business have the stability to attract my investment or Institutional Investment in the future then well you never know”

Skip to 35mins in the Media City presentation.

https://www.valirx.com/news/valirx-shareholder-qa-medicity-nottingham-june-2023

Meanwhile:-

And the general view of the rest of the board why they won’t buy either is clarified during the AGM at 37mins:-

https://www.valirx.com/news/valirx-agm-2023

Kevin: “Buying shares does not illustrate commitment”

Martin “Regularly we are outside of when we can or can’t Buy Shares”

Quite amazing

So, to conclude: - As I keep saying the current tCRO plan is a long term plan, more funding and more time required, and the business needs to get “stable”

@Rightback

Adams credentials to his own work are NOT in question BUT he is NOT on the board is he. This is a powerless advisory role on the science side. They have science covered in spades, it’s the commercial business side that needs support to stop them continuing to make the same blundering errors.

@Freddleboy

You are NOT getting it

You have all expressed disappointment at the progress, the blunders, the disaster that is 201 and when it came down to it Voted for more of the same.

@PatientInvestor

Keep down averaging, go for it. The air is NOT filled with excitement. This is a long term investment from here 5yrs plus and needs more cash and time. IF Adam had joined the board and off loaded some of the dead wood yes, we would have a chance and I live in hope. As it stands its more of the same, I don’t know why Adam wont join the Board as a NED frankly OR why the board wont have him. There is a level of arrogance in the BOD as I see it and to be fair quite rightly, when the chips were down Adam supported the status quo.

Anyhow, you are two faced, pre the AGM you wanted changes then after the AGM it was all, I am happy about the outcome – yeah right....

Seriously Nick? You call it a de-ramp, I call it bringing a balance to the constant ramping here from both Iceman and PM2022.

Frankly, the board can do enough damage to the Share Price on their own as it is.

Handling of 201, is the biggest value killer by far, can you imagine the difference had say AZN took 201 back in 2021 and it was now two years down the line on trials?? Rather than us still waiting in neverendum and when they do finally ditch THX, we need another year on top to negotiate new terms with an alternative due to the exclusive we are locked in? Ridiculous

Oh, and stand by, if they don’t get the placing sorted at 5p that window will close shortly. It will be back to April 21 3.5p levels or possibly 2.25p like for like mcap to back then.

Meanwhile, some here are just emotionally involved and NOT looking at this as a commercial business. The board needs changes end of. The shareholders have funded this, they have not delivered as outlined and even awarded themselves ridiculous bonuses we can’t afford and when it came to the vote, you have voted for more of the same…. Go figure.

The rampers here need fluff news to try and bolster the share price and sucker newbies in on the basis the share price is cheap because its down from a recent high, so that dilution when the placing lands is less dilutive. This is NOT a cheap share price.

The market has changed, valuations are right down, Investors need results not Jam. I would argue the mcap is high compared to where it was. No revenue in 15 years, 15 raises, 3 125:1 consolidations, 5 raises under Suzy and placement 6 due any moment – come on.

I repeat there is NOT one event that can bring cash in during the short term hence why the board are not buying either. I would argue THX won’t get funded despite £1.3m would cover half of VALs cash burn and the lab will take a long time to get anything close to £2.5m of revenue – so where ca the money come from other than from shareholders?

It is what it is.

In fact correction: House Broker Cenkos at 5.2p now

This is going to take a lot of time, patience and more cash from here

@Iceman/ pm2022

Jeeze, stop the constant ramping

The House Broker CNKS will only take stock off you a5 5.5p currently.

Only two left above 6p

If they don’t sort the placing soon they will be lucky to secure the 5p at this rate

Stop spinning it

@Wallcrawler

You claim that concessions were given. Can you clarify EXACTLY what these concessions were?

Also if these "concessions" were only given to Adam and NOT other shareholders then already the BOD risk running into conflicts with insider dealing rules already, i really don't think they would be that stupid.

You cannot preference one shareholder over another with business information that could influence buying or selling of shares irrespective of their holding.

1. We sure will look back at this AGM and have huge regrets because you have all spent weeks complaining quite rightly about the number of business blunders made to date yet when it came down to it voted for the status quo. So business as usual, doing exactly the same things and expecting a different outcome. Ridiculous.

2. To be fair, I suspect that had Adam NOT voted the board to remain the position would have been different. I believe he may come to regret that decision in time.

3. Mark, this advisory position can’t possibly make a difference. A shareholder can’t be advantaged over another, that’s insider dealing unless they are given an official Directorship hence the things that matter and current state of contracts etc can’t be discussed with Adam. Further, the BOD need to be extra careful they don’t fall foul of the rules in this situation either.

4. Uxm484 - it’s totally about knowledge and experience, you don’t know what you don’t know, so far they have not proven the original concept as no drug in all that time has gone to next stages towards commercialisation and now we are funding a start up CRO in a highly saturated market of which none of the board have experience of running.

5. Iceman - don’t be patronising, this isn’t a good thing that all board positions remain and it’s business as usual and well you know it no matter how you try and spin it as some sort of positive

@Wallcrawler

Sorry that i didn't join your telegram group, nor did i want to take part in the groups collective manipulation games. I'm not into that, I'm my own person. I play with a straight bat and tell it as it is. You can stick telegram where the sun doesn't shine.

I'm just glad that some of the recent p&d attempts to sucker new investors in whilst some of you offloaded from the placing didn't work out this time. Tough luck.

For what its worth, not that i need to prove anything to you, i have vast business experience, numerous interests inside and outside of listed companies and i roll the dice my own way. I have seen it all before, majority of tricks before and worn the T-Shirt so not interested. Also, the ramping crew on LSE have been rumbled now.

As for Adam, I wish him well with this advisory position, a great guy but i 100% agree with Nick that its a matter of time before he throws his hat in the ring, clearly he is happy for now to give the board an extra chance. I wouldn't have done that frankly, i feel the outcome on 201 is inevitable and we are just wasting more time until the board confirm same. I also firmly believe that doing the same things and expecting a different outcome is utter madness, but hey ho, lets play deja vu for the next few months until we get confirmation of same.

Something still needs to change frankly and it will ultimately

@Nick

Thanks for the vote of confidence, however; 1) I don’t think a select number of posters would want me involved 2) the BOD certainly wouldn’t as it would be Turkey’s voting for Christmas as I would take an Axe to over half of them and c) At the moment Adam is endorsing the status quo and frankly, we need to go through a bigger pain threshold, learn the hard way, history will likely repeat itself before he decides to endorse change.

So as I see it, this needs to run its course until towards the year end before changes are embraced. At that point it might be worth exploring options.

@uxm484

Yes, that’s right, your post demonstrates the sort of commercial naivety that Suzy has, its called business. Your problem is that you demonstrate limited business experience, in the real world you can’t look at things through rose tinted specs. You will notice that VAL just purchased the assets of Imagen for £170k a business that had ploughed £6m into staff and overheads, spent out and went into administration. Does it not occur to you that if VAL remain on their current trajectory, with this gung-ho spend attitude they could be the next Imagen? Someone else picking up VAL s assets for a token payment? That the reality isn’t it, don’t be fooled.

@The WallCrawler

Not sure/ can’t remember who you were prior to this username but it matters not. Why you think I was banned here and have suggested this three times is beyond me. I am a premium member, I have never been banned and further, why would Claire want to ban a poster with a difference of opinion?

And bless you, you have gone to the trouble of creating a twitter account to cut and post historic comments of mine, (that you stumbled upon on twitter, with like a billion tweets going on, yeah right) that really Is sad but do your worst with that one. It may come as a surprise to you but practically 95% of the posters here don’t even use twitter, I only tend to use it myself for connections.

But if you genuinely think Adam as a science advisor will make a difference it wont, the guy needs to be a director, if he is not, they cant divulge critical information to him due to insider trading rules BUT it’s critical key aspects that need looking at and changing here, including certain Board members.

The one area of knowledge that the board have zero issues with is on the science side. Its the areas of basic business commercial acumen, commercial direction, fiscal control where the board needs support and the right additions with the right connections.

Pork's

@BagMan

Exactly, she is no idiot. I can’t remember her NED salary without looking it up but I think it’s like £40k so why should she stick that in an unstable investment?

I agree with you that her background is financial based and there is probably an argument to say the board is top heavy with financial background directors hence why we have this bankers mentality regarding bonuses without performance and high salaries paid which wouldn’t happen in a private limited company with zero revenue coming in and relying on external investment support.

That being said, i can’t argue your point about making a negative statement unprompted, it was kind of her “George Rantner” moment and could have been avoided but as I say there are bigger issues than this one.

@BagMann

Just read your reply regarding Stella not happy about BB comments and making reference to it at the AGM. well yes some can take things personally and she was obviously upset by certain comments but frankly a number of posters here had the knife out for her JUST because she said the stock unstable and wasn’t in a position to buy yet.

In hindsight, ok her wording could be less charged and probably better not to discuss BB gossip but I don’t see it as a hanging offence, in the grand scale of fck ups that have helped destroy SH value I rank that one right at the bottom of the list frankly.