Member Info for stock_sensei

This dip is purely a pullback caused by traders who bought at 5c. Understandable that some have decided to take profit and have become impatient. Wouldn’t surprise me if a lot of them buyback higher again once we get a solid RNS. No concerns.

I read in the Northern Engineer Basu said, ‘ In Advanced Imaging, the company reported good underlying growth through progress on long-term SPECT contracts and expansion of its photon-counting CT customer base.’ To me this indicates a couple of potential blue chips are in the mix

Would love to see some evidence of the claims from the report. My guess is it is completely fabricated and the deal with Philip’s is still firmly in place. Time will tell, but I have no concerns.

Tbh my comment was more directed at some retail investors than Ian, Mick and Nick. I am sure they want PYC to be a success in the long run I just don’t think they have the connections/knowledge to do it. I think they’ll find ways to cut costs, but I don’t think they’ll find ways to grow revenue which is the main driver to a sustainable increase in SP. To me, the current BOD have a better chance of this.

Exactly why they want a change in BoD, for a quick pump so they can exit knowing full well that the potential new BoD don’t have the knowledge or the connections to make PYC successful in the long run.

Increased revenue will be the main driver for a sustainable SP increase hence my focus on it

Chesh, does the risk of disruption the deals in the pipeline not worry you with a change in BoD? £1.4m in potential revenue is at risk here.

So far can’t why anyone would vote for a change in BoD, other than the fact they have significant skin in the game which ultimately means nothing when it comes to increasing revenue. Technicals are essential to run PYC successfully. A clearly outlined roadmap should be step 1 if the potential new BoD are serious which I am yet to see.

How do you know Jim has spent £200k? Is this just a guess? Haven’t seen anything on this.

Pretty clear the plan for the current BoD is to capitalise on as many of the 14 projects in the pipeline as possible.

Dilutions will still occur with a new BoD until the company becomes profitable. A lot of people are focusing on the wrong things. The key here is which BoD will help bring PYC to sustainable profitability?

The current BoD who have 14 projects in the pipeline which will add £1.4m if converted, or the new BoD who hold a significant % but have yet to show a clear plan on how they will increase revenue.

Without a clear LT plan from the potential new BoD why would people vote for them? Sure they have experience in entrepreneurship and accounting etc but they’re still missing the key experience that the BoD needs to help PYC become sustainably profitable.

Pretty clear that to effectively monetise the intellectual property, an experienced BoD who understands every element of the tech is essential. Not sure how the proposed board with no science background would be able to do this.

A wonder how many of the projects in the pipeline will be lost with a change in BoD. As you say Laura, at such a key inflection point why would you want to make such major changes to management. This won’t end well.

Demanding 3% of the Company each. 6% plus inflated salaries! No wonder they were turned down

Ilovesushi, dilution will occur with or without the current BoD. If anything shareholders will be diluted more with a change of BoD as bottom line will get worse.

Great question by DeBull, and highlights a key consideration most haven’t thought about. Ongoing relationships, networks and experience are vital if PYC is going to see sustainable growth/profitability. Changing the BoD is going to have a net negative impact on the bottom line and ultimately will just lead to more dilution. Give it 12 months and the same people who are looking to replace the current BoD will wish they could reverse their decision.

Having a board with zero knowledge of the technical aspect is a very dangerous idea. You need science based professionals to lead PYC. Otherwise things will deteriorate fast.

The whole concept of replacing the board in its entirety is very short sighted and shows a lack of patience imo. Why are people so convinced that this would lead to significant improvements?

Just because Mike Whitlow calls himself a Doc, doesn’t mean he knows anything about science, or how to run business. Alan Green should be transparent about his involvement in this rather than passing this off as a real piece of journalism.