I only read part of the annual report this time -but the part I...

I only read part of the annual report this time -but the part I read specifically included the part where they talk about short term options and it being linked to company performance and so they argue to shareholders interests - boy are they kidding themselves (in my opinion) - what they have is a formula for retaining non performers and resetting the new options in each period so as to re-incentivize the same hang around non performers for hanging around.

Why am I commenting to this effect in your post - because I agree with your main theme - yes even a pithy poster like you has mayor and minor themes in your short posts. Main theme CR coming. Minor theme its coming because "would be less than $4m at q end" - I don't care enough about the financial specifics to care whether is say $3m or $6m or in that range - that doesn't matter to me - what matters is that the same or near same set of people are likely to do the same set of dumb but rewarding to themselves things over and over.

This bunch of aspiring to mediocre management no hopers always emphasize the few positives they achieve looking out the rear view window and calling them milestones rather than measuring themselves and remunerating themselves against transparent objective milestones told to shareholders ahead of time. Shareholders aren't told about the making of the short term incentive sausage incentives - it might turn their stomachs to see how un-objective and un-aligned with accountabilty - they are.

My mahor theme - the board successfully persuaded enough shareholders that had to be discouraged to share with them in an absolution excercise by taking along with them some options - it was a hey guys - join us in diluting the ones that don't trust us and don't want to add more good money to the already poorly stewarded by us (the board and management over quite a few years - its the Ross culture to which Kilian was heir apparent - of no hard kpis - Peter Webse I believe factors and benefits in that culture also - its money for jam - if you don't have to perform against objective metrics because the shareholders you have don't require you do that - and if some want you too - you can disregard them by buying off enough of the others to join in a dilution exercise done on the unbelievers in management.

Whenever I see CYPs share price moving into a zone where I think the directors can rationalise that the market thinks they've done some improving - they get ready for another cash raise because they are consistently falling short of the estimated times on the delivery of real value adding material - like trial results - hard data.

Yet even the hard data - because we are a platform technology whose time may never ever come - other tech may make a path around it - eg embryonic stem cells were hailed as a break through - but then iPSCs came along. Better MSCs from better iPSC tech can come along. Cheaper personalised meds may come along because with all the bs management and bs clinical trial shenanigans it can turn out that the waste payments in paying non performers makes what might have been cheaper actually more expensive because the management is that wasteful.

I didn't really trust that CYP had sufficient funding to get to the other side of GVHD trial - but they certainly suggested that was the intention and they haven't said its not - but they never were hard committed - do or die obligated to make sure they could do the trial with the funds they had or to just not do it at all. If they need to put up their hands for money before the CYP Gvhd trial is done I think they should be taken out an shot (metaphorically)because they are robbing Peter to pay Paul - where Peter and Paul are both shareholders (the happy stupid or bribeable ones are the Pauls) the Peters want to see performance with funds already trusted - alternatively Peter is the OA trial - its already running - largely if CYP doesn't stuff up - it can run to conclusion and not need much by way of CYP dollars to keep it on track - some cells etc - but thats' spent cost - a trick CYP management can use is to cross subsidize their dumb spending by not siloing the spent for particualar indications - so Peter and Paul are the dumb and the good spends - raise funds promising to spend it on one thing - then spend it on a dumb hire or spend shareholder funds - dilute them more with options that come good if OA lands and then the new hire gets the benefit of OA landing and had nothing to do with setting it up.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul. The why and the how of CYPs cash raising.