Member Info for Porky9

The principle issue with this RNS release was that it was devoid of detail. Share magazine reported:-

"ValiRx’s announcement did not refer to the potential amount of revenue generated through the agreement or when it may commence"

I believe investors perception was that it was knee jerk RNS to try and deflect from the Japan disappointment. To me this just demonstrated the naivety of Suzy in the CEO position. It also kind of treats Investors with utter contempt in some ways, they are more sophisticated than that and want to know how a reportable aspect could affects the business. It was again IMO not well worded due to that lack of detail.

If Suzy was not in a position to report what business she thought this relationship could bring to labs, some detail in the RNS such as “OncoBone currently work with x number of clients with revenues over x” may have at least given further confidence.

In reality we believe it’s a Satu connection, a business with token revenues itself and that of course compounds the issue further, what was the point of it?

The BOD are clearly a bit in panic, once the dust settles and AGM out the way they can move forwards.

Ironic really: If the BOD had more skin in the game and were holding more shares, had II Support they would have more control over the outcome of these votes.

Interesting

I am NOT after any cheap shares, they are NOT cheap, I consider the business has a lot of work ahead of it, starting with the board changes then time and money. The business, using Stella's words is "not yet stable" much to do IMO for this to become investible. Anyhow, as i keep saying, this should be a forum to debate not an echo chamber for rampers.

Meanwhile, the reason today the market is NOT excited over the press release is because the investment landscape has changed. As commented by shares magazine:-

"ValiRx’s announcement did not refer to the potential amount of revenue generated through the agreement or when it may commence"

In other words, its seen as yet another Jam tomorrow event and that doesn't pay the bills today - this is the issue.

No it’s not well said @WallCracker

Any motives are in your head, look wake up and smell the coffee:-

The biggest factor by a yard mile that has damaged the share price was giving our top legacy asset backed by Cancer Research UK, namely 201 away to a start up without funds to execute the deal. But worse, removing any direct calls to action when they continually failed to deliver whilst also locking us out of negotiating elsewhere. The continued dire handling of this asset continues yet has damaged reputation in the company, confidence of both shareholders and possibly fledgling Uni bios out there maybe considering VAL over other CROs , certainly would put off II and bespoke commercial investors and family offices from investing and in my opinion a complete clusterfck of a continuing situation without any grasp of it still.

The other errors are all relatively minor in comparison although doing lots of continual small raises rather one and meeting timelines probably doesn’t help either.

BUT the 201 decision was made well before Stella joined the board, she has hardly had chance to make her mark and yet you are calling for her head? Why? She’s a dam good NED and honest broker. Just have just objected to her because she didn’t fit your pro ramp stance and buy shares, a crime others on the board are guilty of BUT she likely will buy furtherdown the road as the company becomes stable

That’s business it’s not personal, wake up.

@Freddleboy

Because what she is saying is right, VAL is still effectively a fledgling business on the AIM with much to do ahead of it to be in anyway classed as “stable”.

Yes, her wording at the presentation could have been softer, we do all live with a snowflake generation now, but what she explained was totally understandable.

I really like her, she’s highly professional, knows what’s she’s talking about, she’s a highly accomplished NED and brings reality to the BOD.

That’s why I voted YES to her being retained

You voting No to retaining Stella... I mean

@Wallcracker

OK - Please explain to me your reasons for NOT voting to retain Stella, because as I see it she has done nothing wrong other than being totally honest with the sH community during the presentation - How can you justify that decision?

@Bagman

She has vast experience in the space, she sits on other boards and brings a highly professional balance to the team. She is a realist, doesn’t suffer fools gladly and knows what she is talking about.

The issue that some posters here have is that she hasn’t brought shares, yet the same applies to other board members. I would argue that Suzy who earns more than four times Stella’s NED salary hasn’t purchased recently either.

Stella was honest during the presentation it’s just some here took umbrage to the way her point was executed, I agree she could have worded it better but what she said was factually correct. Some Posters here prefer an alternative reality of the situation.

I have voted both Stella and Suzy to remain as Directors, Stella as a professional and Suzy in the hope she moves to a Group Science Officer role, I don’t want her off the board but in a different position. The business is better for having both of these members imo.

@PatientInvestor

No Iceman, I object to being accused of being banned when I haven’t, it’s that simple.

As for today’s RNS I see zero point in it - yes it’s Satu’s old limited shell company, has £7k of assets and does next to FA revenue but guess if it’s a contract agreement it needs confirmation.

And stop knocking Stella, she’s a bloody good NED, best they have frankly. I have said she could have worded her answer differently during the presentation but what she said was factually correct - you just don’t like her reply because it doesn’t fit your pro ramp agenda

Oh and @Wallcracker watch this space:-

Giving VAL authority to issue up to 50m shares and to then not issue them is akin to putting a bucket of strawberry’s in front of a donkey and telling it not to eat them :)

The AIM is designed to support fund raising

@Wallcracker

You cheeky twat

I can tell you 100% I have NEVER been banned or prevented from posting, further I am a premium member at LSE so I can pos5 wha5 I like when I like

I genuinely stop posting for a couple of weeks due to OB and a couple of others informing me my posts were upsetting some posters but frankly rampers, you included need stopping

So don’t post unsupported accusations - idiot

Actually it will come as zero surprise to many that i don't agree with @StrollerB - To do the exact same things and expect a different outcome is total madness.

The raise/spend/raise/spend/consolidate cycle needs to be broken, to do that it requires a change in attitude top down and a different way of thinking frankly.

Think careful about your voting decisions but its your decision and nobody else's. You are a shareholder and your vote matters.

@Uncanny

It may have escaped your notice but i was not posting here for almost three weeks. I have only made comments here following the presentation and updates in the last couple of days. Many shareholders old and new have recently posted opinion on voting intentions.

I await the forward plans and results of the vote at the AGM in two weeks.

@Uncanny

It’s a stock forum to debate not an echo chamber

No own agenda, it’s a business, it’s just you and your two ramping buddies with agendas. I am not calling anyone a liar, the BOD have been open and honest. The resolutions seek support for 50m shares, that’s 50% dilution if all issued including the 10m options - FACT

I’m going off the information before me, you in the other hand are refusing to acknowledge it because it doesn’t fit your short term ramping agenda.

Good luck

@usm484

Oh come on, that is total fantasy Island, where is Roark when you need her?

We are at the mid point of the 2023 year going into H2. Re-read the CENKOS report, they need to bolster capital now during H2 - FACT

Also, CLX is not worth £20m now, it could be in the distant future but it’s preclinical, it needs loads of work required yet before it’s remotely ready for early phase trials.

With 201 they have been clear and honest and said they have NO guarantees that THX will execute, no guarantees they will be funded.

Imagen is part of lab services, the whole point of Inalpha is to be a tCRO with many USPS to deliver a unique offering hence the previous Buy and Build requirement.

Something is only worth what someone will pay for it and setting up another spin off company at companies house (SPV) does not turn it into millions of value overnight.

Honestly, I think you are reading about a different company, appreciate the three rampers are out early this morning but let’s stick to what’s being said by the BOD not some fantasy Island version of business.

@Ironmighty

It is the responsibility of the board to ensure the business is adequately funded at all times. Not acting is bloody reckless and SH would be the first to complain if it was left until too late and risk administration.

In these very threads the Shareholders are complaining that Gerry did not act and force Suzy to bolster the capital position at 30p when he knew they needed cash, did nothing and then the emergency raise later at 10p - Nobody can predict market prices, Nobody knew a war was coming and it would affect the market (remember Iceman? - there won’t be a war?) Nobody knew we would be entering a Biotech funding drought that would impact the entire sector. What if the mcap dropped from its current £8m back to £2.250m again? You would be first to complain the company should have acted sooner!

It is not my “Weapon of fear” this is business. They are on the AIM FFS. What larger investors get hacked off over is not the raising of capital where it adds value, it’s constant raise cycles and not delivering and not raising enough in the first place so that VAL have to waste time doing it all over again inside of a two year window. It feels like all they do is raise funds.

VAL are currently trapped in this loop. I say sort the ship out, set out clear plans to get the business to BE with lab revenue and set out clearly what they need, sort out 201 and bin THX of its causing more damage than it’s worth, be open and frank about what they need, then fund various new drug lines, set aside say £500k to fund say 7 new evaluations and also seek out sponsors for some of them. Rebuild the business from here.

Let’s face it we all know there is opportunity for VAL to make a difference, but it will take more time and cash to do it. Suzy also lacks the right support on the board IMO, that was clear, Suzy also needs to be in a Group Science Officer type role not CEO, now is an opportunity to change all that.

Pork’s

Ps. I still say Stella is a bloody good NED, I totally get her position. It’s not what SH want to hear but it’s honest. Yes, what she said was badly executed but get the forward plans right and she probably will then invest alongside.

My vote is to NO to Gerry, Kevin and Martin - Yes to Suzy and Stella, but Suzy needs to move over when a strong biotech experienced replacement CEO is found. Also they need to acquire PYC and add its £660k revenue to labs and add him to the board, no brainer but that’s a different discussion.

@uxm484

Not that it’s remotely of interest, if you really are desperate to know, I have reduced to a mere 25,000 shares now which I’m in for free on but enables me to vote, take part in future placing should I want to.

I believe a 5p placing is practically bolted on now but that’s only if it they can secure support, it could well go back to April 21 levels of 3.5p as I see it.

Also, with biotech funding squeeze and the outlook in this sector, with the amount of investment the labs will need to get it break even, the risk reward profile has materially changed, I consider it now to be higher risk than it was in April 21.

In addition, without board changes, I just think the current raise/spend/consolidate cycle will continue. Hence, I have zero interest in buying even at 5p. I would need to see changes, stronger fiscal control, ideally a new FD and a plan that takes us to break even without more or minimal further investor cash requirements. Sorry.

Let’s see the AGM plans. How the votes end up and go from there. Good luck

@OB

Nick knows full well the Share Price low was 3.5p in April 21 he just understandably wants to pretend its where it is now in the hope it doesn’t scale back further and reverse all his lovely gains.

Problem is there is another 40m shares, or 40% dilution heading our way in the next discounted placing due shortly.

Also, there was 65m shares in issue back then hence market cap was £ 2.25m. Today there are just over 100m shares in issue hence market cap is £ 8.2m so whilst some might not like me saying this and upset by recent events you could argue that Suzy has delivered a 300% gain from that point. albeit bigger gains and highs lost, and stupid mistakes made along the way since.

Also, for those with short memories read the results statement from April 21 when Kevin and Suzy were first appointed in their current roles: -

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/VAL/final-results-30p49u1os0trvg6.html

Key points that are surprising being: -

1. They had got cash burn under control and reduced it to £350k per quarter i.e £1.4m a year from £2.5m and were working on further reductions but now we are back up to £2.4m. I’m genuinely perplexed by that as there was genuine effort at the start to keep cash burn under control.

2. They had a collaborative deal with PYC back then but have kind of repurposed that deal now to make it look like its something more. My gut feeling is they did want to acquire PYC, it’s a logical move, just shareholders were hostile to it.

3. They were doing LOI type arrangements back then with own companies that ultimately came to nothing. Its like they know how to get positivity before a raise, but the shareholder base is now exhausted by it. Too many investors burnt.

Clearly, we need board changes, all in agreement. The change in spend attitude, money comes easy view feels like a financial institute/banker’s type mentality? Maybe the board as it is it top heavy with financial people V the shareholder base which includes grafters like @PPC who is working a six-day week and can’t relate to this wanton wastage of investor cash.

Going to get interesting. As I keep saying, the issues are not insurmountable but a change in focus is required for sure. AGM end of month should be fun.

Good Luck

Pork's

@UXM484

IF THX got funded and they paid us it would deliver to VAL exactly £1.3m less 6% to PYC in the first year. A contribution to our cash burn which would help. It was a poor deal in the first place.

However, it’s a two bit start up that couldn’t raise the cash in a boom and is unlikely to do it now in a biotech funding drought . So sorry I don’t agree. Show me some evidence, a prospectus, a website? Show me a deal that they previously did? Show me any experience where they have taken a drug from inception to commercialisation?

Further, we are not talking about £1.3m of funding, that’s the fees for VAL. They need to fund a massive amount, just to cover off early stage trials p1 and P2 you need best part of £20m, you need somewhere to stage them where you have enough patients ready to trial 201 and let’s not forget they have been trying to find support for 201 for a long time now, new innovations have hit the market since also competing for cash. Losing ground. Would you hand that sort of cash to a start up?

Look, I hope I’m proved wrong about THX but I just don’t see it. I would rather the drug go to a major biotech that can fund trials and give them it for free with a guarantee payment on a milestone if it proves to work. Two years wasted IMO and not one trial started, two years longer to get to market if it did work. The decision to give this cancer researched drug to a start up was a travesty, further VAL should have cut the exclusivity the first time they failed a timeline.

So stop pumping THX, i for one really don’t share the enthusiasm, I’m looking for results not JAM.

@UXM484

It’s your kind of baseless ramping that makes me want to post here to bring some perspective:

40m headroom shares + 10m bonus shares is 50m v 100m in issue so with a potential of 40-50% dilution to hit the SP in this next placing, so based on your posts you will be absolutely delighted to down average some more shortly. Idiotic ramping

Penny shares are high risk plays there are no guarantees

@Sooty

Was in my earlier post, here’s the link again to the Resolutions to be passed:-

HTTPS://www.valirx.com/sites/default/files/2023-06/ValiRx%20Plc%20-%20Notice%20of%20AGM%202023%20%5B28%20June%202023%5D.pdf

You need the BOD changes because the business needs the headroom shares and if we don’t secure any changes it will be business as usual, the spend raise consolidate cycle will just continue.. This next raise needs to be the last one especially if we get hit by another 40-50% dilution.

PS

Regarding hours worked, in this modern age of Zoom/Teams and the move to WFH i think its highly unlikely that Suzy will be travelling from Nuneaton to Nottingham labs every day, do you? for one thing its a pig of a journey:)

I'm less concerned about how or the hours worked and more interested in the decisions made and direction of the business agreed during those hours, you don't know what you don't know.