Member Info for SL100

Agreed BF- but we need to move away now from personal insults and fully into the realms of business. We have posters here calling others ‘scum’ and engaging in insults, insinuations and conspiracy theories. While we blame the BOD- a look closer to home is also required.

BF- you make some very good points. But unfortunately we don’t know the full details of what’s transpired to date between the SAG and the BOD. Judging by the comments on here addressed to individuals members of the BOD- the relationship is unlikely to be amicable.

It is very clear from reading through the posts today that there are a number of posters who have expressed viewpoints largely contrary to those expressed repeatedly by key members of the Action Group. These comments should be recognised and appreciated.

1. It is clear that VAL will survive as an entity if the resolutions are approved and that equity finance can be arranged.
2. Without an equity finance raising- this company is essentially finished for existing shareholders. It will either go Into administration or other such process. The outcome of this is uncertain but it seems unlikely to be beneficial for shareholders.
3. The company have we assumed looked into alternative sources of finance but without success.
4. Equity finance is all to typical for early stage biotechs as other posters have highlighted so it’s risky and dilution inevitable.
5. The product(s) are still at an early stage of development and outside partners or investors not yet ready convinced etc to take a stake.

We are now between a rock and a hard place to paraphrase statements made by other posters. I feel we have to step up discussions with the BOD and seek further clarifications around (a) current progress Val 201 and timeframes (b)cost control measures etc and (c) equity purchases by BOD.

Let’s put some pressure on them to answer a,b, c above and allow us to be better informed on the vote.

We have made an impact but as one poster mentioned - we also backed them into a corner somewhat. It’s a risky enough bargaining decision. If pushed too far people will fight rather than flight.

Suggest we regroup rethink and refocus. All us not lost- as one poster so eloquently put it - do we want a % of something or a 100% of nothing. I know what I want!

Chrisatrgd- you make some good points.

Anger and vitriolic comments - repeated incessantly over the last weeks/months have achieved little other than allow some posters get issues off their chests. No issue with that- we’re all human.

But now we need to reappraise the situation- logically calming and with purpose. The company will survive if they get these resolutions passed.

Are we happy with the price and with the limited concessions announced.?

What are the alternatives to voting NO.? Could we discuss the alternatives?

1. Action Group follow up with BOD or individual members
2. Action Group undertake a balanced assessment of the options - Pros and cons etc

Just some early thoughts - will give it more consideration etc.

You made a generalised statement about ‘scum on here’. An insulting remark to posters on here.

I’ll let the record of that remark speak for itself.

I will have no further communication with you.

BB- it all goes to show that you are unable to apologise for an appalling remark ‘...scum on here’.If you had been drinking that might give you a lame excuse but the fact that given the opportunity to retract - you didn’t oblige.

Any you have the neck to comment about ‘morals’ ?

British Bulldog- “scum in here”. I’d go easy on the pre dinner drinks if I were you. Not a really nice comment. Maybe you’re two- faced. Neither of the faces being nice.

I haven’t posted for some time now but have been monitoring events. It is clear that the Action Group have been working hard and have certainly made an impact. My primary concerns are as follows:

1. There is an over emphasis on the ‘battle’ to rid the company of the ‘famous duo’ and there are numerous posts devoted to vitriolic attacks- particularly on GM. All understandable but not effective- indeed it could backfire.

2. We appear to be losing sight of the primary objective of most shareholders- to try and preserve and protect our interests. This applies to all shareholders- LTH’s, newcomers, those who have averaged down etc. Also a desire to see effective products developed for cancer treatments.

3. We must have an overall plan in place. I’m sure the Action Group have given this some consideration and may not want to reveal their hand. If not then we are in dangerous territory in getting rid of two directors with in depth knowledge of company operations and scientific data- without a plan to restructure.

It’s only my opinions and we’re all entitled to speak but I worry that too much effort is going into ****ging over BOD and we are losing focus- to preserve and protect Our Company to see it survive and prosper under new executive management if need be.

What do we really want to achieve? It might seem obvious but it’s easy to lose sight of what we started out to achieve.

That’s great cn100.

Thanks for comments. Yeh anything over 1p
would be good.

Hi- have been here for years. Realise we’re in arbitration mode.

Assuming we get a positive result - any idea about a ball park figure of compensation price per share?

5p 10p ?

Chelsea7- a very good and thought provoking post.

Hi Kettle-,what’s your best view on what might happen here? Appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

Hi BB- have to say that was so funny I nearly fell off my favourite chair. Picked up a few but not a huge amount.

Anyway BB- if we can have a laugh about things that’s got to be good.

Anyway all the very best.

Thanks ValJu- good post. If they deal with those issues we could potentially have a great little company.

Okay Fred- thanks. This is useful.

Fred/ValJu- can we have a general summary in clear and unambiguous format what the Action Group are seeking. There is no need to release confidential information but the broad jist!

All shareholders need to know in general terms what we are looking for from the BOD.

Rightback- are you on the sauce? Look back again at that post???

Fred- I’m not. Defending anybody. Not the BOD - not you - not anybody.

I respect your posts but I do think there is something lacking in your overall approach. I’ll probably be attacked for this rather than say case learn from others?

I’m sick of all this conspiracy crap we hear from posters. It’s all rubbish.

There is no evidence to the contrary and all we are seeing are vindictiveness from some posters.

Bank fool- agreed. What I’m trying to do is narrow things down. Good post.