great game play, page-11

Hi Qantum,

Compliments of the season to you as well.

Yes, I did think it would play out somewhat differently, as in we would have a Supply Agreement or two by now....but am I concerned? Not at all. I view it as a positive. The longer it goes on, the better it's going to be when we have an outcome.

IMO for anyone to suggest it's all going to fail at the last hurdle and fall over in a heap is ludicrous. These guys, and not just Alan, but the entire board who are aupporting and advising him, are playing a high stakes game for the long term benefit of all shareholders. He stated himself that thay could go for the low-hanging fruit, but why would you when there are significantly better deals to be made and returns to be had, by biding your time and negotiating harder.

Do you want a CEO who goes for short term rewards to satisfy a minority of nervous shareholders and day traders, or one who has the foresight and guts to hang out for significant long-term gains? I know what I'm looking for.

And yes, statements were made about having sufficient cash etc. At the time that's what they believed. They did a detailed analysis of forward cash requirements. Did they get it wrong? I don't believe so. What changed? It's taken longer to negotiate the deals. Why? I'd hazard a guess that it's possibly/probably because there are more deals to negotiate, that the executive as a whole under-estimated the magnitude of the opportunity. One minute they're dealing with Sanofi and one or two others, the next they're dealing with the Top 15 global Pharmas. Nice problem to have.

What else? Maybe they need more capital equipment than fist envisaged. Why? Because there are more deals to be had and the interested parties need to be satisfied that Uni can deliver their requirements. But just because we're a couple of weeks past schedule, or that the new timeline is Q1-Q2 this year is no reason at all to state that it's not going to happen, that's it's all smoke and mirrors. It just means the timeline has been pushed out for all the above reasons.

Nothing moves in a straight line. CEO's from all areas of business make statements/forecasts that come back and bite them. In the short term. But in the longer term they are often vindicated. Example, I'm in Alchemia. We've been waiting well over two years for FDA approval that was initially 'forecast' to happen in 12 months.

In this I believe Unilife has the upper hand. Look at how the game has changed. We've gone from being a one trick pony with the 1ml to a company with multiple products coming on stream, and more in the pipeline, and perhaps even more importantly, some very real emerging opportuinities to capture significant recurring revenues from injectable drugs coming of patent. Who could have foreseen that two years ago? That's a significantly expanded workload and timeline deficit in anyone's book.

Should the company say, no we can't deal with that right now, and risk losing the opportunity, or should they, in the long term interests of all shareholders, go for it? I say grab the opportunity with both hands and go for it. Or as TDA might say, bite off more than you can chew then chew like hell.

So yes, there are other stocks to be in, plenty of other opportunities to be had, but if people really are disappointed and believe they can do better elsewhere, then go elsewhere and do better! No drama from me. Make your decisions, live with the consequences. But don't come on here with all the hand-wringing and playing the blame game. And that comment is not directed at you :)

Old Buddhist saying - Men plan, God laughs.

Good luck with whatever you decide.