Member Info for SL100

Tired@confused

That’s an excellent contribution.

It shows the quality of ideas and contributors on this BB - many who have suffered in silence for too long.

Come on let’s here it from those who haven’t yet contributed their ideas.

We need your help.

Dracula1- you made a very informative and well written post a while ago. It highlighted some of the positives and why we are still awaiting the news we expected.
I hope you will forgive me by asking you to advise on how we should go forward to preserve and defend Your and Our Company. You appear from your posts to be an intelligent and astute person. Fred, ValJu and the Action Team would appreciate ideas. Look we’re all in this together. There are NO Institutional Investors. This is your company. If it fails it fails for all. All the best.

In your opinion. Don’t forget all these posts are just opinions! Nothing else!!!

Fred- I understand that in the heat of battle things are said that in hindsight might best be left alone.

Early in this campaign, I alerted you to the need to avoid excessive insults and derogatory comments directed towards members of the BOD et al.

Question- What is it we are trying to achieve?

1. Preserve and protect our investments
2. Support a company engaging in worthwhile research
3 Engage in a destructive ****ging match against the BOD and others who post here and engage in various conspiracy theories

1 & 2 are I would say our primary objectives.

So let’s focus on that. We can’t control what the BOD do behind the scenes as it were- hopefully it’s positive.
We can influence what they do in the public arena and they have already had a very good example of it.

Some very good work had taken place - huge effort- many tired - but nothing will be gained by engaging in (3) however temping it may be.

Objectives (1) and (2) are our concern and we need to focus on this. It’s OUR company- we don’t destroy what we own - we act to preserve and defend it.

That’s my understanding of what the Action Group are trying to achieve.

We act in accordance with the rules with integrity respect and within our rights as shareholders.

While we may feel we haven’t been afforded the same respect that furs to give us the right to shout insults etc.

If we want to win for our company then we do things by the book- there is no alternative and also no guarantee of victory. But they want a result as much as we do. Maybe more so.

Anyway just my thoughts.

ValJu - totally agree. When I read the annual report one year and saw CEO was being paid £250k I think it was I was stunned.

Dracuka1- a very good informative post and I’m not being patronising. It’s genuine.
I find it impossible to argue with you on what you say. Very few here could contradict you.

Agree we’re all old enough- sometimes and I include myself in this - are we wise enough?

I

Okay ValJu - point taken stand corrected. But even Val 201 is only at phase1/2 if I’m not mistaken.

Rightback- some deals made by the BOD were not great to say the least - the mad debt equity financing was appalling and they soon made moves to address that. Look companies on AIM make lots of mistakes. Many don’t last in the end and maybe VAL won’t either. But it’s up to them now to investigate alternative sources of finance. WE closed off the equity route - tightly or wrongly- dependent on your point of view. Okay!

Dracula1- repeating the same dogmatic messages as others have posted may be reflecting the truth as WE see it but as rhd1 has said and rightly- these shares on AIM - particularly early stage biotech are notoriously risky. Some posters have already alluded to their experience with such companies in the past.

There is no getting away from the fact that without partnerships or similar relations equity financing is the only route. That’s reality I agree with ValJu and others that they could have kept a much tighter grip on operation costs and overheads- especially executive salaries which are too high.

Financial fundamentals are however similar for most early stage AIM companies.

Rhd1- I would agree with your points and I made my views clearly known in that regard.

However- we are where we are.

My worry might be that they will negotiate alternative financial arrangements and will ultimately lead to huge dilution but maybe not consolidation. Bergen style convertible loan financing may be the only route possibly accompanied by a lean on company knowledge assets. Who knows?

Just wondering if a spell of resurrection could be underway here. If a buyer is found for the drug ... who knows.

Agreed ValJu- If VAL201 is as good as they claim- then this might explain the ‘arrogance’- their version of confidence.

I think the Action Group have stirred things up and maybe it will stimulate change- probably badly needed- on the management and administration levels.

But ultimately- this is about cancer research- can they deliver on a potential cure for prostate cancer.

The ultimate value of the company rests primarily on this fact.

Hopefully we get an update on the work done very soon.

Rightback- broadly agree. However- the key short term is the results of the VAL 201 program. Can the results be prepared and reported upon with existing financial resources.

Assuming all is fully transparent in terms of the VAL 201 program- if the results are positive- seriously positive- then could form the foundations for a resurgence.

Lb60- overall I would agree with the sentiments expressed by you, ValJu and others regarding the BOD treatment of shareholders. I’ve only recently been in touch with them but my several responses to date have not reflected well on their interpretation of investor relations. The responses are all too brief somewhat techy and badly constructed in terms of the language, punctuation and even grammar.
It might be simple but if you get a badly worded somewhat incoherent response- your bound to be somewhat alarmed.

I detect an element of bitterness among some members of the board about this turn of events. I hope they are not bitter to the point of self destruction for both themselves and shareholders.

Anyway let’s hope that sense prevails from the messages and resolution sent in by the Action Group and that the Company responds positively, effectively and most importantly a timely fashion.

ValJu- you may thank me yet for the clarification.

All the best

ValJu - ‘to all shareholders’? Or those in the so called selective few? You need to be careful here on your choice of language and terminology.

Only the company can issue a statement to all shareholders via the RNS service.

ValJu- as fellow shareholders- any chance we get to hear the gist of the info we are looking for. Setting deadlines- is this wise?

I realise we have to set some target dates and times but we need to be seen as courteous even if some feel we weren’t treated similarly in the past.

HISO- 5/6 posts in succession!!! BEWARE!!

ValJu - I’m in agreement with you.

ITS WHAT WE DO NEXT!

I put my cards on the table way back- I wasn’t in favour of the NO campaign because once we did that- we are now in a different position.

I’m entitled to express opinions whether others are happy or not.

This campaign requires UNITY from all including those who voted yes but are now willing to help out.

I reduced my holding from 10m down to 2.5m but upped it back up to 5m.

If I lose it so be it. That’s life.

Ib60- welcome and great to hear your views.

I would agree that GM should go- the quality of communications I received says volumes.

As to infiltration- personally I doubt it. But I wouldn’t rule out other corporate involvement to neutralise the NO campaign.

If GM remains in command he will want some pay back.

Wouldn’t rule it out.