First you are disappointed that we hired someone to...

First you are disappointed that we hired someone to chasepartners,

Yesbecause its too early for DFU - we haven't finished phase 1 clinicaltrials yet. OA isn't ready. GvHD isn't ready. None of them are readyfor partners until results come in on them - we'd have to give up toomuch value if a deal is done on any of them now.

Anypartner would get a discount for the lack of trial results (so the dealswould be at a discount for that risk) - but as shareholders we'vealready funded those trials - we should get to see the results ofwhat we've funded before management gifts it away.

butat the same time you are disappointed that Killian hasn’t gotten usany partners?

NoI'm disappointed that Kilian is spending money prematurely that heshould be saving.

Eitheryou think we’re too far away from partnerships and the guyshouldn’t have been hired

yes

inwhich case you have no reason to criticise Killian for not havingsigned a license agreement

But Ihaven't criticized him for that. The criticism is spending money prematurely.

Orwe’re close and it makes sense to get someone with provenexperience on board to secure the best deal/s for Cynata.

But whatproven experience are you talking about exactly ? What has the new hire actually done previouslythat specifically so impresses you?

I'm all ears. Sing his praises as specifically as you can.


Why would thebest deals for Cynata be obtained before the trial results are backrather than after when we've paid for them as shareholders (DFU especially to phase 1) already?


If there is a sniff of a partner on the way for DFU (and we know from the webinar that multiple NDA’s have been signed), then the acquisition DID need to be made prior to that been finalised.

I don't believe that. A contract with the right to acquire should have already been in Cynata's possession from Ross's time. Or Ross stuffed up. And I don't think he did on this based on recollection of prior announcements. I understand CYP has always had the right to acquire the technology since the beginning.

Just a sniff of a partner requiring racing off is too desperate. NDA's are just standard to take a look. I really hope Kilian is not disclosing trial results that the market hasn't been informed of - that existing shareholders paid for.

You are trusting Kilian's judgement on this - why? What great deals has he made previously ever?

These questions about why you trust a new hire to bring in deals and why you trust a CEO that hasn't been there all that long and hasn't so far as I can see come in with a lot of deal-making in his history are not unfair questions - those positions are supposed to be held by people that have track records that they can be answered with straight forward replies.

Its actually bad policy to trust alleged deal-makers with no knowledge of deals they've made in the past.

I can’t explain it any clearer than this: complexity kills deals.

That's too simple. I'm not saying its entirely wrong. Its just as pithy to say - haste and desperation gets you a bad deal.

Having ownership of the relevant IP is critical.

I believe they already had a contractual right to acquire that.

But what you are saying about complexity and relevant IP can also be applied to 3D manufacturing.

Potential partners of any indication currently can't acquire 3D manufacturing IP from CYP because if we don't have any.

Right now CYP has cells that should, in being more homogeneous than other MSCs be ideally suited to developing 3D processes because of that relative homogeneity. In any explored scenario
a more homogeneous supply of cells should be easier not harder to streamline production processes around than a less homogeneous supply of cells.

Entrepreneurship involves bringing resources together around a plan - why couldn't Kilian go out a gather together capital and people (in a real strategic partnership (I see no evidence that Fujifilm is working with CYP on this - it looks like they are just watching what CYP does - and if we have no 3D then that makes our acquisition so much cheaper) to prototype a 3D manufacturing model using CYP cells as the relatively homogeneous basis of that process?

If that isn't done it remains an item of potential complexity that anyone acquiring an only 2D proven solution from CYP would face - they'd have to explore for themselves IP around 3D manufacturing or wonder if others with that could overcome with a total manufacturing solution the advantages of CYP with only 2D proven and no 3D proven.

As Kilian said - the process is the product. A 3D process is a different product then to a 2D process and 2D can't give an effectively limitless supply of cells - the human handling limits it.