Member Info for Soder

Every positive rns leads to a tiny pop with no follow on buying and then a crash through the previous price to test lows.

The prob here is that the stock is in a vacuum. The only thing, and I do mean ONLY thing, that will draw a line under this is to come out and state with the ****ing dhsc is. This will allow the market to quantify it.

Without that single piece of information it does not matter what rns this company put out.

It’s the most mentally challenging stock I have ever owned. It’s horrific my depressing so see it hammered down every day on nothing.

Advisory role. But they are organising for what’s to come next. Interestingly the bonds still trading 85 area.

That’s BS. The petrol I bought before was fine. I just didn’t release that this VERY SAME petrol that I have been buying previously would not be suitable for my new need. Yes I was hasty I securing that supply and not checking the fine print, but how is that my fault. The petrol station keep invoicing me. They say I prevented them from making petrol sales to anyone else and have lost out in significant revenues that could have made elsewhere if I was not such a dipsh*t in agreeing the supply contract.

A few months back I needed petrol to power my new car that was being delivered in 6 weeks. I always buy my petrol for my then current car from the garage around the corner. There has been a bit of a petrol shortage at the moment near me and it’s in high demand but I knew when my car arrived I would make lots of journeys and need a lot of petrol. I have a big house and and tank so given I could store it in bulk I decided to sort myself out (and **** everyone else that will need petrol). I agreed a supply contract with the local petrol station that their entire supply of petrol for the 14 weeks is mine for 150k with immediate effect.

Unfortunately, when my new car was delivered and after taking delivery of petrol for 6 weeks on my petrol supply agreement I release this petrol is not suitable.... my new car is a diesel. For the remainder of my supply agreement the garage agrees to supply me diesel.

Surely that’s the garages fault for selling me petrol and not diesel? How can it be my fault that I rushed out to buy and selfishly **** all other buyers of petrol? Right? Anyone got a lawyer as the petrol station saying I still need to pay for the petrol delivered even though for the next 8 weeks they will give me diesel.

Any legal advice welcome.

Ps- wonder if unicef need a load of petrol sat in a tank in my yard for free.

Based on nothing more than a hunch but I’m thinking M&A.

And the afternoon call is to explain strategic rationale.

Do you guys know SAn Leon Energy. Both SPs struggle as don’t have scale but both v cash generative. I always thought a merger would be good for both parties.

But either way, I think the quicker way to unlock value in save is via m&a. Use that cash and a refi of existing debt to grow biz rapidly whilst the majors are practically giving away assets cos they are being forced to invest in windmills.

Come on me babies.

These tests on this contract were for nhs so all pillar 1. Look at the pillar 1 daily data for test completed. It does step up from October onwards which WILL be the ncyt contract. So the tests were obv being used.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/testing

What I said I publicly available info. So I repeat....this is from the dhsc own explanation of the contract award.

“...there are genuine reasons for extreme urgency: These tests are needed immediately in response to this crisis and need to be implemented to support the NHS’s ability to manage the increase of positive cases in hospitals, to be able to identify and treat Covid-19 positive patients and isolate them from other patients in hospitals. These allow NHS to save lives. If DHSC does not proceed with the purchase as soon as possible it is likely that this supply will be purchased by another country (due to high global demands);.......due to the urgency of the situation there is no time to run an accelerated procurement under the open, restricted or competitive procedures with negotiation that would allow the NHS to secure delivery of a suitable, compliant product at required volumes as quickly as is needed. The supplier is required to start delivery of goods and services immediately. “

The dhsc where already using exig and gensig. They knew exactly how the product worked. They then co formed that there was no time to find other compliant products and they were in a rush to secure test supply before other countries got the supply.

To then maybe turn around and say those tests were not suitable?!!! You knew the tests. You knew you were rushing the order. You stated the supplier had to deliver immediately...not when promate was live. You dont have a leg to stand on.

There was nothing rude or controversial on it. Apart from a small discussion on the dispute. There is no way anyone would report that thread unless you were the dhsc or the company.

If someone has flagged that thread then either the dhsc or the company are reading this board.

Schools is a good one but I was thinking it’s not the school threat owns but a service offered by a fit to fly or wren.

Eg you have a class field trip abroad or sports trip. You can tell all those 30 kids and teachers to go sort their pcr tests out pre and post travel or you just get a a wren or a mobile fit to fly turn up with a suitcase at the school and do everyone in a few hours.

You have to believe that all the people we sell versalab to will also take portable versalab. But also all the people we do private testing should own one. You can take that case to anywhere where there will be group travel.

This is the type of think you can see being huge to NGOs supporting field medical work in more remote locations.

https://www.genesig.com/products

In fact there are over 550 genesig testing kits. Anyone still thinking we just a one year, one customer, one product, one trick, covid pony?

It’s very important to remember that versalab is not a covid product. It’s just a diagnostics product. As such this launch is setting ncyt up for the future.

Ebola outbreak in remote African village? Versalab.
Birdflu outbreak on a large farm? Versalab.
Bacterial outbreak at a large food processing facility. Versalab.
Sars outbreak in the Middle East. Versalab.
Testing of children at birth for hiv in remote areas of developing nations. Versalab.

The futures bright.

Strength and honour :)

Welcome back.

This is some brilliant analysis and discussion everyone. Thanks. Finding it v useful.

I put this on another threat but may be worth one in its own....

The link below is the original contract award as posted with the EU with the dhsc stating its own justification for the contract award. See section IV.I.I.

The statement from the dhsc themselves below shows they were desperate and wanted to secure novacyts test supply before other countries did. Thus they awarded the contract to secure the option before anyone else could. It’s in black and white. If it transpires then that they did not need that supply later on it’s tough ****. The dhsc prevented ncyt from making sales of its capacity to other countries by taking this option. They can’t then say they didn’t need the option of that capacity as it prevented ncyt from selling the manufacturing capacity away. You owe what you owe.

https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:467857-2020:TEXT:EN:HTML&src=0

“ B. there are genuine reasons for extreme urgency: These tests are needed immediately in response to this crisis and need to be implemented to support the NHS’s ability to manage the increase of positive cases in hospitals, to be able to identify and treat Covid-19 positive patients and isolate them from other patients in hospitals. These allow NHS to save lives. If DHSC does not proceed with the purchase as soon as possible it is likely that this supply will be purchased by another country (due to high global demands);”

Chris I think you are spot on.

And that’s why ncyt announced the q1 sales number. To show the dhsc that they view those promate sales as outside of the original contract as the original co tract time frame had passed. So any further supply is in addition to the original contract and not what the dhsc wanted (part of the original contract) The April rns also specially says PROMATE. Why? Why did they say that to the mkt? Again because they were billing for exig in original contract and these promate sales were after contract expired.

I think we may have it sussed.

https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:467857-2020:TEXT:EN:HTML&src=0

There is the contract award from TED. Some point in it from the dhsc as to why it was awarded and give ncyt a very very very strong case....see section IV.1.1

“ B. there are genuine reasons for extreme urgency: These tests are needed immediately in response to this crisis and need to be implemented to support the NHS’s ability to manage the increase of positive cases in hospitals, to be able to identify and treat Covid-19 positive patients and isolate them from other patients in hospitals. These allow NHS to save lives. If DHSC does not proceed with the purchase as soon as possible it is likely that this supply will be purchased by another country (due to high global demands);”
- so they rushed out to buy and selfishly secure all test supply before other countries but then didn’t want that supply. That is horrific PR for the dhsc

And re winterplex mentioned in a previous post

“ 2) DHSC needs to acquire POC testing goods as a matter of extreme urgency. The urgency is further amplified by the approaching flu season and the need for an immediate testing solution which allows medical practitioners to distinguish common flu or Covid-19;”
- so sounds like included winterplex

I was furious with the rns on Friday. Mainly because it was a man made issue. ncyt did not need to say what q1 dhsc revs were is the April rns but they did. Why? I have given this a lot of thought over the weekend and maybe I am not giving graham credit where it MAY be due.

If we assume that the dhsc issue is re minimum order quantities in q4 last year. We invoiced for them and booked a sale. They came back after Xmas and disputed the invoice as it was probably for product they were obliged to buy but probably didnt physically order or receive. Ie they were invoiced for tests they had not ordered but were obliged to take to meet the min contract value.

By releasing q1 sales to the market ncyt made it public how ncyt viewed the contract. Ie that q1 sales were outside of the contract signed in September and were for additional quantities. Graham probably knew or suspected the dhsc would contest it but it’s a bit of game play as now the dhsc have to explain why they did not meet minimum order amounts but then kept buying after after the contract officially ended.

It strengthens ncyt position massively from a legal standpoint and puts pressure on dhsc as it’s in the public domain. The dhsc would have to explain why they didn’t order and accept minimum test quantities during the contract term but then kept on buying after.

Just thinking out loud.