Member Info for Spacman

I meant to add that I don't think there is a strategy behind the silence, I don't think RM is that capable even with relatively unlimited funds to engage advisors. Synairgen do everything sequentially... Marsden is a draughts player at a chess tournament. One other explanation is that he's simply a puppet now?

What is mystifying is his steadfast refusal to promote the company and the absolute neglect of the SP (the take-private option is the only thing consistent with that strategy). Whilst a capital raise isn't an option, therefore rendering the shareholders an irrelevance as far as RM is concerned, there are the reputations of the wider BoD members that are also getting trashed by association here. Simon Shaw is the CFO of Savills for goodness sake, why would he risk this?

Gunto - what thread was that?

As for take-private or whatever, you can postulate anything because we are told nothing.

You (T-G-F) post some good stuff, but you all lose credibility when you defend Marsden. Why is it left to you to promote the company on an anonymous BB? Bizarre.

I do understand their view is that shareholders are disposable and of no use to Synairgen now (might be interesting if they ever need a vote though), immoral as that is.

However, Marsden's silence damages the company's prospects. What kind of reaction is there in the BP world, on whom we are totally dependent, when a known "voice" like Brooke Clarke is allowed to leave having done some great work (with the US conference and Rick Bright as the standout piece) and Marsden eschews it all, oh, and leaves her hubby STILL nursing a £16k write-down because he refuses to promote the company.

Brazen stupidity doesn't begin to describe Marsden's antics.

Professional has a point on the fiduciary duties breach too.

Or more specifically in Synairgen’s case, how many accountants does it take to process Marsden’s monthly expenses claim?

As our intrepid new CFO toils through the year-end, he is ably assisted by a new Financial Controller who joined the payroll (which perhaps he now proudly runs as the other key monthly task) in November with his boss.

Being less facetious, there is something potentially quite interesting here. Thus far, our SVP Finance is still in situ. Now, she may just be serving a notice period and have agreed to help the two raw recruits cover off year-end before she goes. If, on the other hand, she isn’t going anywhere, then we now have five chartered accountants on the payroll – one Chair, one NED, one CFO, one SVP and now one Financial Controller. Methinks that JV/spinout thing might be the next gig for our current SVP and that’s why she’s still here – HOORAY! Or she is actually going, boo…

But certainly, a situation worth monitoring as we sit out this increasingly frustrating information vacuum.

If our SVP sticks around these next few weeks, time to get excited LTHs!

That Consilium response was really giving "disposable" shareholders the finger, but there are still clues out there as to what is potentially going on.

If you have a roam around in J&J's Innovation website, you can see that hand-holding Synairgen through the next trials, including funding them, is exactly one of the types of opportunity that J&J are actively pursuing (advertising for!):

https://jnjinnovation.com/late-stage-partnerships/pharmaceuticals

PIPE funding (SPAC) is even advertised (pity that ship has sailed), and they will look at the full suite of funding options, which underlines their appetite:

https://jnjinnovation.com/venture-investing-jjdc/how-we-invest

The main takeaway here is that J&J, on the evidence from the Universal collaboration, must be looking to come in now, surely? I would hope that this is part of the delay, with Casanovalabs also in the mix adding complexity.

As Doc Dan (I think) stated, an RNS could hit anytime between tomorrow and June 30th. Synairgen appointed a Chief Commercial Officer before Sprinter results; I just cannot believe that Synairgen would be doing nothing with J&J right now.

AIMHO

GLALTHs

Doc83 - Quite right, TFG are in for c.£60m (we think), my apologies.

I couldn't see a BP making an offer without the BoD's recommendation, they would want that buy-in. Do you think any offers have gone in at all, or is Synairgen management still perceived by BP as resistant (or maybe unattractive) since the pre-Sprinter decision to go it alone?

Tommy - we will never know about potential offers that have been made. TFG might well have been in favour but it's still the BoD's decision whether to put it to the shareholders. With a current SP of 5/6p, a sale at anything north of £200m is now a twentyfold return and should be accepted (and surely acceptable to TFG who would double their money?)... SURELY they can get it away for that, there must be a level of BP FOMO that can be stimulated at £200m?

DD - Synairgen have had 18 months on Universal to develop the relationship with J&J, they SHOULD have snared them. I'm hoping that the delay is partly down to signing them up, although I suspect the delay is more focused on the "secret sauce" of Casanovalabs or whoever is providing the vital triage mechanism (I must say that I don't properly understand the assay science but I realise the importance).

Thanks Prof.

I agree on the hand-holding for the P2s; culturally the company has an inability to admit weakness or acknowledge failure, which probably means they don't learn.

Personally, I think the least-risk option for shareholders is to get the "For Sale" board up on the front lawn. But again, hubris...

If the company didn't have such an arrogant attitude then I think they would have received sympathy (there are lots of factors outside their control in clinical development, shareholders understand) but instead we've been treated as disposable, hence the ceaseless outcry on here.

Doc83 - you're looking at asset sale time I think (the patents still hold value - the nut to crack here is the right trials approach and BP have unlimited resources and unlimited time to do that). Having some working capital left avoids a fire sale. If not, in practice then TFG would probably step in to elicit value somehow (now I'm sure THEY will have a detailed strategic plan).

Doc83 - My point is that we get a co-funder for the P2s, that's all, so as to leave working capital to explore options beyond in case of failure.

Gunto - "What do you think the official announcement of the trials will do?"

I'm only guessing of course, certainly a rise in the SP, but it depends... announcement of an unchaperoned trial/s with no promotion of the commercial benefit beyond and it might be muted, but announce J&J as the co-funder and it should fly. But really, from 5p, what is deemed "fly" lol.

The SP is on the floor, they cannot raise capital, the cash is finite and shouldn't all be gambled away on the P2s (even T-F-G seem to buy into a "do or die" outcome, strange) there should be a co-funding partner. What is that funding strategy? What SPECIFICALLY is the business strategy if the P2s succeed - is it over to the US, is it to JV etc. In the event of the P2s failing, what is the Risk Management strategy (has a buyer of last resort been put in place?) etc. etc.

That p.5 of the AR is a year-old "strategy" (and very light tbh), trials dates have been repeatedly missed since, the SP is now in further crisis. The shareholders need a proper update that shows a clearly defined path forwards (based on certain assumptions, sure) not some "anything is possible" menu.

The market is valuing the company at zero because it cannot see a plan for value creation.

Yes DD, but they also need to articulate what they see as the optimum path to value creation from all those strategic options. If the directors cannot specify that, then they need to get to get advisors in to do it for them. They can't just "not have" a defined strategic plan. It's nuts.

Tommy - I think SS's comment was more fundamental, it's about asset ownership strategy, and the structure of the business. All of the work that they've described in your extract will need to happen, sure, but that's just a clinical path description.

Simon Shaw said that the drug and the company may go down different paths. As far as I’m aware, that was a one-liner and he didn’t elaborate, unless others heard more? However, the potential implications of that one-liner probably constitute the most fundamental driver of shareholder value for this company, so an understanding of the BoD’s current thinking is an absolute necessity. It’s over 7 months since the AGM, the SP is in crisis, and an immediate update (with the appropriate level of detail) is vital.

This is NOT about the clinical path of SNG001 in isolation with its various milestones, it is about the overall company strategy that we need information on.

Don't be ridiculous Tommy, you just want me off this board because I dare to criticise the management.

Two observations (NOT theory):

1) You seem to think you own this board.

2) You are defending the indefensible in a company where the SP has dropped 97%. Why criticise other shareholders when your target should be the management?

Btw - what's your valuation?

Goodnight Tommy.

Goodnight Gunto, til the next time...