Member Info for The.Italian

I've read through Dbay's announcement again and it does give the date of 10th feb when the approach was made, so i assume DD has been going on from shortly after that time. that said i feel we are probably going to have to wait some time still, as Dbay will doubtless want to finesse the situation as much as possible and won't be in a hurry. just speculation of course and only time will tell.

well it's not clearfrom the recent anouncement how long ago Dbay were able to commence the confirmatory due diligence period. no idea how long the due diligence would take,but presumably most of the groundwork was done some time ago, so perhaps not very long .i wold be surprised if we did not hear something further by end of april, but who knows. as to the figure, if we get one, something in the region of your suggestion sounds likely, as i just don't think they will make a decent offer.let us hope it is followed in short order by a more realistic offer from another party.we shall see.

GroundHogDay agree with your point re non exec remuneration and TVR rns. not so sure about results point. im no expert, but i thought aim companies had to report full year results within 6 months of end of year, which period can be extended by 3 months on request under current covid regs. similarly the 3 month requirement for half year results can be extended by one month. i appreciate they reported the full year results for 2019 on 1st april last year and they may well want to stick to the same sort of time scale this year, but if they chose not to, we may not see any results for quite some time (not personally bothered about that at all). as i say I'm no expert and more than happy to be corrected if wrong.

good man LF.well spotted.

launch due this month,but no news as yet.

very balanced and reasonable view ORLM. i no longer respond to Rikkitikki direct on any points.

yes spotted that as well.presumably all will be complete by end of next week.

morning LF. having read your post (very well expressed if i may say so) i have to say i completely agree. the need to avoid distractions from the main focus is crucial and what lies behind my comment yesterday re wireless(don't worry i expect you disagree on that particular point but we are ad idem on the central distraction issue).i suppose the thought is, if we are redesigning the app and integrating, is it appropriate to incorporate a new aspect/tchnology as part of the process.well maybe, but not isfyou don't get the main job right.

yes market seems comfortable with results and the accompanying statement is quite bullish.we need some interest from someone other than Dbay to avoid low T/O

ORLM thanks very much for such a helpful and comprehensive reply.very much appreciated.i will certainly look at the link etc ,but probably this evening.agree very interesting concept.thanks again.

sorry should have made it clear that i entirely agree with your suggestion about it being a significant attraction.not being negative about it at all.

interesting thanks.do you or anyone else know if the concept creates problems in relation to heritability? if i die can beneficiaries inherit the tokens? i assume they can as otherwise the concept seems fatally flawed in terms of ultimate value.i realise i may have missed the point as i only understand the concept vaguely.

evening bucolic.for once our views diverge.i actually think the china deal was very good news. imo the reason it did not set the s/p on fire is simply that it was just the first stage of a process which will take some time to complete before its benefits can be felt. the chinese regulatory system is no less rigorous than the eu and fda and it will be some time before regulatory approval is obtained.so apart from the upfront payments etc and the covering of trial costs (a very significant aspect in itself) it will have no near term revenue benefits, hence a relatively muted response. the most significant aspect for me is the terms of the profit sharing. a 50/50 split is,i mo,extremely generous and indicates not only that the chinese partner was vey keen to secure the deal, but also that they expect it to be very remunerative. by comparison regent pacific's deal with wangbang biopharmaceuticals (which incidentally also did very little for its share price) was a royalty payment of low to mid teen .now obviously each situation is different, but i genuinely believe the impact and significance of the chinese deal has been seriously underestimated.the news on friday is completely different of course .essentially it was saying that we will be actively marketing in europe etc within a very short period of time, with all uncertainty as to trias and approval removed, a completely different category of situation. obviously the terms of the deal for europe,which i expect to hear in the course of the next few weeks, will be the next big driver of s/p movement. i am not concerned with the ip situation. companies which want to market in china etc have to get a chinese pharma on board (or at least one withe the appropriate infrastructure and sales force etc) and if the ip situation were as hazardous as you suggest these deals would never happen. all just my opinion of course and i respect your view as always.

agreed thompi.very confident imo.

well i understand your view mel and we will have to wait and see if we are involved. if we are not i shall personally not regard it as a negative at all, as i sense that our direction of travel is now very different from last year.happy to let developments unfold in their own time.gla

this may help as wellhttps://www.shiftingshares.com/what-is-a-price-monitoring-extension/

well if they do there will be huge fuss on here, which will of course achieve absolutely nothing.it will be endorsed as in the shareholders interests etc.let us hope there re other interested parties, who will introduce a competitive element, which the board cannot ignore.

had mine at the weekend (also HL) and I've done likewise. at 50 to 1 the guaranteed entitlement is not going to achieve a great deal,l but the additional shares could make a difference.not really expecting to be allocated many of course,but interesting to see how it pans out.

sadly i have to agree moniman.it wouldn't be the first time something like that which you are suggesting occurred.we have all seen it before.not saying that is what is happening but very difficult to reconcile the board's decision to reopen the books with the content and tenor of dbay's statement.hope we are wrong

respect your view Mel,of course,although i do differ slightly.incidentally I'm certainly not advocating dropping vr. im just anxious that all efforts are focussed on app development.