Member Info for The.Italian

lead article on cell ag apparently this week.havent read it as not a subscriber but poster on advfn says references (inter alia) anic. says it is a balanced article. on a different note. very large number of pretty big delayed reporting trades now showing from yesterday

you may well be right dazzle.im not taking a negative stance and it certainly doesn't seem to have caused any ripples in the market today.

dazzle 345 thanks very much for that good of you to share.very interesting and raises some questions.as i said im not necessarily saying it's anything to be concerned about,but like you i would like some clarification of how the two entities relate.hopefully we will get this in due course.

morning all.im a little uncertain about part of today's news.perfectly happy with the every aspect.it is very much what we would have expected and i agree that it serves to broaden the portfolio base.not so certain about the new agronomics aspect.certainly not suggesting it is bad news(it may be good news)but i'm unclear as to the implications.first the company was formed on the 18th dec 2020https://opencorporates.com/companies/im/134208C presumably therefore this aspect was in contemplation many months ago.not mentioned in relation to the fundraise.secondly who are the shareholders and why has it been mentioned today in association with anic? the explanation in the rns seems a little short on detail.also if shell bay are acting as advisors to both companies,how are their fees dealt with?we know that 15%of nav increase pays shell bay for its services to anic.does this mean that anic shareholders may be paying for services to the new company?hopefully not but more clarity would be helpful.just my thoughts and as i say it may be a good move.time will tell.

evening bothwell.is there anything linking deep longevity to it?when i looked a little while ago i couldn't see anything,but it seems the programme may be updated for new contributors.

afternoon 100cups.no i haven't ,as im quite happy to wait a few more days. not sure what the regulations(if any )require,but just looking at recent announcements it looks like every quarter ,with rns coming out by end of month after the calculation date.not worried ,just interested.

don't worry dougie.it is less than 5 months till the final year results are due. i wonder if they will still be excited!lol .

at least! God is anything ever going to happen!

god i'm slow these days. just realised what you are saying .sorry had forgotten i'd suggested doing my own.couldnt understand the "ethical"reference at first.

sorry Goldenegg, you have me at a loss.are you referring to my email to young ai? as expected i have had no response and have been toying with sending a chaser in somewhat more astringent terms.totally pointless i know,but may give it a go in a day or so. the review score etc is unchanged.

are we not overdue a NAV for figures at end of september? due by end of october?

as i thought Kdonkey. thnks for the confirmation.

they re indeed planning to launch in 20222 ,buy not sure I've seen a reference to mid 2022.ive had a quick look and can't see it but if you can point to it, it would be very helpful. i can easily have missed it.

agreed bojo.think i'm going to wait until formal rns about what is actually going to be required before deciding what to do. i realise it may mean getting back in at a much higher price if outlook is very positive (or perhaps not getting back in at all), but for me that's the safer option.just my personal opinion of course.

yes he did say that. waite seems to be saying that according to richard,the fda's attitude was that the issuing of a crl was of no great significance, which is a bit odd,.whilst it is not part of the fda's remit to be concerned with the effect its decisions have on the companies concerned as such, it must surely appreciate that the issue of a crl to companies of polarean's size and type ,is an extremely significant event,which is bound to have very dramatic immediate consequences. all a bit odd.

i have no idea what the filtered one has said,but for what it is worth my take is that you need to look at the approvals and collaborations as so far RNSd.the china co high arrangement looks as though it will require full regulatory approval so not likely to see anything on the shelves there for some time.with m8 pharma for brazil and mexico it may be quicker (without the need for further clinical development),but i think formal approvals will still be required so probably some way off as well.similarly with labatec in the gulf etc,they are bearing the cost of regulatory approval etc,so again probably some time yet.that leaves eu and uk with the ce mark,which is the cornerstone of regulatory approval for this area.although individual countries and regions will have their own additional requirement these should ,imo ,be seen as relatively routine bureaucratic requirements and not insurmountable barrierto marketing.i think therefore that we will probably see the product first on the shelves in the uk and or some countries in europe.just my opinion

initial impression is that it demonstrates an increased emphasis on environmental protection and animal welfare (less so on the health aspect). if so, this fits in with the growing narrative of environmental concerns. it may well prove to be a movement which even the undoubted political clout of the farmers and dairy industry is unable to stem or withstand.

thanks for the link.very helpful.tbh I'm feeling a trifle conflicted now.on first listening i thought it was quite encouraging, but on second listening i found myself wondering why the fda would say"we don't need a last meeting"and then go on to issue the crl. the quote is what i think waite is ascribing to richard if i have heard correctly. doesnt seem to make much sense, but no doubt there are other ways of looking at it. for the record I'm looking at this from the perspective of possibly reinvesting, having sold out following the cal news.interested to hear other views.

well anything is possible of course,but whilst i have no real desire to enter the murky world of semantic nuances,personally i think they would find it very difficult to justify having made yesterdays statement if they were to come out with a placing in the next couple of weeks.i suspect therefore we are ok for a short period and perhaps may have a better idea after the presentation

thanks very much lse99.appreciate that.i hadn't seen it.