Member Info for WelshFalcon

@Bella, you are spot on.

We need to understand the whole picture, not just being myopic over the amount of Dox in the Tumour.

Let's assume we only get the same as normal dox (a very effective drug in it's own right), so have the same effect in the tumour. Then look at the side effects, Dox has some nasties and consequently has lifetime dose limitation. If we just remove or materially reduce the side effects and increase/eliminate the requirement for a lifetime dose limit we have a winner on our hands.

BUT, we not only have that winning formula, but we have a massive increase for dox in the tumour as well. Not only that, we are told that this will also work for other warheads......

Oh my....... !

I didn't call you anything... Just posed a question.

Should this be notified by a TR1?

You are free to think whatever you like, it just doesn't make it a fact.

Sowing a negative in this way, really!

Am I right in thinking that here are some accounts on here still trying to manipulate for their own ends? Maybe that is now a fact? Who knows?

Well, you should ask at the AGM, then....

That is a first division team too on the advisory board!

An assembly of some of the main movers and shakers in their fields.

Nice move, impressed.

No dose limiting toxicity in cohort 2, on to cohort 3 now - All on target.

Superb news..... Follow the science, guys. Look to where this is all heading!

Great minds etc... @Speedy.

The processing of HAV ore is hard wired into the JV that a new owner will be buying as part of Telfer. They have no choice but to accept HAV ore. GGP, on the other hand, have no obligation so send ore to Telfer.....

The right of last refusal is, in fact, highly valuable to us.

It is a very powerful negotiating too.. Consider what a clever CEO could do with it?

Try this one ABC company wants Telfer, but needs to talk to GGP to try and quantify what the full terms of the JV will need to be serviced. GGP wants more (all) of HAV but we don't have the finances on hand to take the full risk. An eventual deal could see us waiving our right of last refusal in exchange for an increased share in HAV (say 50/50%). This was we can increase our holding in HAV and keep our development costs diluted with a JV partner. We don't need to own Telfer, just access it for ore processing. This scenario would work with no cost to us and minimal risk to both sides.

Try looking away from a paranoid view. We do have experienced and clever people on our side.

Oh dear.

I'm not going to argue about it, it's just that you need to consider the whole picture.

Don't forget that GGP has the right of last refusal on the 70% of HAV. That destroys any predatory plans (however fanciful you make them).

All we do is wait until a deal is agreed, we then get to decide if we pick up just the remaining 70% only or is we bid to include Telfer as well.

The prospect of our contractual right to pick up the 70% (thereby controlling the flow or ore available to Telfer) is not going to give room for a Telfer buyer to play silly games. We simply take the 70% and build a processing plant tailored to our production. We leave the Telfer problem with someone else.

Your transactional/revenge 'play' will simply not happen, the risks will be off the scale.

"...starve us of a processing plant."

Well, they could, but it would be a massively stupid way to lose vast sums of money!

You own an asset, there is the ore you need to make it pay available, you say "na... Im going to not use it". you need to keep everything running while refusing the ore you need.

What happened to critical thinking? Has everyone given up an lowered themselves to the transactional/revenge model that DJT lives by?

Ploy?

Come off it. All perfectly normal, there is nothing to spin here.

What a ****

Wow, what a load of complete and utter (I dare'n't post the word).....

FUD off you numpty.

"Knocking it out of the park." A very American saying, but....

Well, the RNS wasn't wholly unexpected. News on the 2 week first cohort was expected. Progression to the second cohort is good news, and is an expected follow on from the first cohort, but hardly a "knocking it out of the park" revelation.

FAPI PET study is new, unexpected and most welcome but again......

So is there something else to come?

Something better than hitting a home run?

Something that really is "knocking it out of the park"?

Waiting with baited breath...........................

Sub group, LMFAO.

Never let the true facts stop an attempt to sow seeds of FUD.....

0/10 for that attempt.

Recognise anyone in this definition?

https://x.com/susie_dent/status/1792835482226999384

*****yawn****

Or maybe, with the cash runway putting them in a strong position there are conversations ongoing with BP, FDA, and others.

Wanting to include any 2 week data into the mix.

Possible big news all at once..

But you just keep pushing a negative viewpoint despite all the real clinical evidence to the contrary... Ho Hum!

I do love Telfer, the gift that keeps giving!

NCM had the Telfer Imperative to get some economical ore to the plant so that they could kick the ball further down the road and avoid the closing down/remediation costs. This is why HAV has had so much cash spent on it in short order. We have a (nearly) mine due to this.

Now NEM don't see Telfer /HAVas part of their going forward strategy = opportunity.

Tailings dam problems look expensive = much bigger opportunity.

NEM likely want rid of Telfer ASAP. Difficukt to sell alone - almost impossible without commercial grade ore available I would say. So it would make sense to parcel it up with HAV.

So, in short, Telfer alone is too high a risk proposition for anyone to take on.

Telfer/HAV can work as the future upside can afford the risky costs of Telfer. It now becomes an exercise in cashflow managment (how much funding is needed prior to break even on production is achieved).

The biggy is that the Telfer imperative (NCM's problem child) has given us the right os last refusal on the remaining 70% of HAV = massive opportunity.

We just need to wait it out a bit until there are some predatory bids for the package by a.n.other - then pick up all the pieces (As always, subject to funding to include cashflow funding).

Tailings dam problem are highlighting the risk and driving down the value of Telfer.

Time to Shine @SD.

Share buy backs are a multi faceted tactic.

It reduces the number of shares in issue. This should recalculate the value by spreading the same market cap over a lesser number of shares.

It uses some profit that would otherwise be available for dividends/investment in the business. This is tempered by the expected increase in value of the remaining shares.

I do not have enough knowledge to gauge if there is any tax benefit (or cost) to the company, but for PI's it will exchange some (taxable) dividend income for (only taxable if realised) capital gains.

It may have an effect on liquidity. Assuming that the II's generally see buybacks as positive and hold onto (even increase) their holdings, then the buybacks have to come from the market, thereby reducing the number of shares in the (more liquid) pool of private investors. This, in turn, can feed into increased value. Of course, if the company can negotiate a block purchase from an II, then this may well increase liquidity and reduce value.

Consideration should be given for a consolidation before a buyback scheme is implemented.

Generally, I would love a defined buyback scheme being introduced. it would encourage me to (at least) hold and likely to increase my holding.