Member Info for SL100

Fred- nobody is going to sue you or send around the boys in blue. Who cares? Ask yourself that.

But you have not called a halt to vicious insults and insinuations from so called supporters.

You can see people here recommending ‘nasty’ aggressive posts!

But remember this and this applies to BB et al.

The market will decide the future or otherwise of Val business not a bunch of bitter shareholders!

It’s happened before and it will happen here as well.

The vitriolic rubbish posted by BB and others here will ultimately mean a big fat nothing!

Fred- if they despise him as much as you say- he must be confident of raising additional equity - assuming the resolutions on the 25th are passed.
The moral here is - don’t believe your own propaganda or message.

All this talk of It can’t say .....’ - it’s rubbish! If you have ‘insider info’ that’s illegal. I’m it saying you have but posting such info is disingenuous to say the least.

Fred- with the greatest of respect - I remain somewhat unconvinced as is my prerogative!

You’re a Philanthropist to protect us Val shareholders from the bad BOD and maybe from ourselves - as we can’t be trusted to make sound investment decisions!

First time I’ve come across such a person!

It really takes some serious credibility here.....

Hard to Handle- I looked at Advfn some time back - the intellectual quality of the posts speaks for itself.

I don’t think that anybody here would equate me with these type of posts. I don’t do insults you do!

ValJu- that’s my choice. My investment decisions.

Are you still buying? What do you know that makes you and Fred think or maybe have bought more!

Transparency from the SAG might be useful.

I don’t necessarily trust the BOD but it’s a gamble a risk. But for the SAG?

Now recommending YES- when we had this litany of insults directed at the BOD and posters who disagreed with your viewpoints.

Seriously- who can you trust totally on a BB to guide you in your investments?

It’s AIM... that’s enough said. It’s fundamentally a market for dreamers!

I disagree- ‘the bully is Valirx’. What absolute tosh!

You might say that the management at Valirx is rubbish and we should not have invested- but they are not bullying others on this BB- despite the mad conspiracy theories. So Fred- post all you like. You took on this leadership role but you allowed blatant bullying and insulting of posters .

You never once intervened to call a halt.

While some have questioned my intentions and they can do that all they like- I’m in this game to try and make a profit- not easy.

Maybe Fred you might state what is/area your objective(s).

I’m not sure I know any more- assume you’re still buying!

Rightback- I’ve been in Val for over 8 years maybe its now close to 10- forgotten. But I remember ‘ABH’, Erix Therapeutics, Regen Therapeutics, Alizyme. Had shares in all of them. So don’t tell me that I’m not a LTH. Does it matter- what do you want a medal for being a LTH. A sign with looney written on it might be more appropriate. I’m sure many posters feel the same way - so get off that high horse on the stage who are continually situated upon!

Rhd1- Well expressed - it’s good to hear differing viewpoints and not have them shouted down. All the best.

Fully agree Chrisatrdg- similar sentiment from me and I HAVE NO CONNECTION WITH THIS COMPANY - OTHER THAN AS AN ORDINARY RETAIL INVESTOR!

Hi Chrisatrdg- appreciate your comments but. Particularly welcome your views based on your significant experience in accounting/finance and knowledge of the Biotech sector. Valuable input indeed. As you say progress made by the Action Group so now let’s move forward. Thanks to all posters on this BB- all views are welcome .

Reading the most recent posts on this BB - it is clear that reality is beginning to hit home here- in particular for the Action Group. As you will recall- I have very limited faith in what can be achieved by Action Groups. Very often initial euphoria on their ability to make change ultimately leads to a reality check!
It is clear that we have to vote Yes if we are to have at a minimum short term survival.

It was always the case that we had little choice in the matter. Some other rational posters other than myself pointed that out but were ‘ shouted down’.

Nonetheless some achievements were made- the BOD might be less inclined to ignore private investors in the future.

I suggest we all vote YES but press on in the future to show that we are a force to be listened to and not be dismissed.

But reality clearly has struck home and bearing the business environment were in - let’s hope it’s not too late!

ValJu- broadly agree. But you’re dealing with scientists /academics not business experienced individuals.
Nothing wrong with that per se- we need scientific research to get the correct products. So I would incompetence is the primary fault. I don’t want to say or believe that deliberate actions were made ...

Good rational post Tired@confused.

We’re all in the blame game to some extent investing in these AIM companies. The quality of management and transparency varies across these AIM companies.

The key similarity in the need to raise equity capital in the absence of ability to sell or partner with others.

Fred et al can moan complain and **** off the BOD all they like and probably in many cases with good reason. We know the salaries etc are deemed high but apparently it’s par for the course across AIM. If we had a blockbuster drug for the big boys to acquire- we’d be singing their praises!

But regardless of who runs this company- Significant Equity raises will be required for some years to come. The hope was that these would be at a higher price.

We are between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Leadership is required as much here as it is from the BOD.

Rhd1- thanks good post and thanks for clarifications etc. All the best.

Fred- Tarquinius more like. Still relies on the quill pen to respond and then the replies are almost illiterate. Investor Relations?

Fully agree on that Fred.

Fred- rhd1 raised a very good point some posts back. It related to the fact that under company law/stock market regulations etc. the Company can’t communicate directly with a portion of the shareholders without communicating with them all via an RNS. Rhd1 raised a serious issue here but it’s not been addressed by the SAG.
BB- raised an issue in his post about the need for greater understanding around communications to date between SAG and BOD to aid decision making etc.

Members of the SAG are buying shares while this is adversarial situation is going on. BOD should communicate with some shareholders and not others?

Okay ValJu- then we have a toxic type relationship between BOD and SAG. For whatever reason it’s now firmly entrenched.

Surely we have to try and resurrect the position.

Fred- good to see you’re buying and that’s positive but it would appear that from your posts that you don’t have an amicable working relationship with the BOD. Is that true? How can we operate in that environment other than adversarial. It’s not good.

Is all the fault on their side or have we any regrets?

Hi ValJu- but you’re still buying shares in VAL and so it appears are others.

Rightback- I understand your frustration. But anger is an understandable emotion. We’re all angry - if not about this share- about others- listed and others delisted. That is AIM and we all know it.

But we have to ask ourselves- despite all- are we in Value Creation or Value Destruction.

Posters on here have specifically stated they are prepared to lose all rather than let VAL survive in its present format- rather than seek change from within.

The SAG have had a success- they may have others - but nobody wins all the time.