Can't disagree. It always seems though like previous deals were always " collaborations" to hopefully find something they can use, we didnt have an end product they actually wanted just some technology that looked promising. Small upfront then never actually find what they want.
It would seem now our plan is to find something clients might want but without being tied to only one customer via a collaboration. If we somehow become a major known player in the field of cell penetration i guess that becomes a whole different ball game and we could pick and choose which licensees we accept rather than tie up with collaborators for years on end with no further payments.
Regarding previous major holders i think you might agree that in the past major holders have put in the cash but have never had much control on direction, allowing the company to continue to be run as a bit of a science experiment rather than a commercial enterprise. Previously directors were being paid well i think and as long as major holders kept stumping up cash they were happy to keep researching. I guess that is how we got here in that mr Hockings was so heavily involved financially and couldnt see how we were going to get away from the science project and finally generate somethIng more than pocket money collaborations. With the board changes and buy in it feels like they have said enough messing around lets sh1t or get off the pot lol.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)