One of the resolutions they are seeking, authorisation to raise...

One of the resolutions they are seeking, authorisation to raise another 10% in addition to the standard 15% could see CYP potentially issuing another 358 million shares. That could raise some cash - but frankly that scares rather than pleases me at this point because that's likely to be a lot of dilution - the shares are unlikely to be raised at good prices they'll be at some discount to 15 day VWAP - so they'll almost inevitably be raised cheap if Ross is still incumbent and doing the raising because there isn't much reason for the price to go up.

You ask where is the cash to do the trials?

I keep saying, I don't think they can and should do the trial until they do a proper feasibility assessment.

But your question isn't a bad one. I don't know right now how much cash it would take to do the trial.

Do you? Can you offer some insight? It seems to me it would depend on which countries the trial is done in and that at least one of them is likely to be the US but I don't think until the specific question is answered where are the 60 potential patients for the trials to be found that the costing of getting those patients can be sensibly worked out. If that question isn't sort of answered before starting the trial then in my opinion it shouldn't start.

But if you want to offer some insights from MSB as to costs I've no objection - perhaps this isn't the best thread though - this thread is about resolutions to be voted on.

The cost of doing the trial will depend on the where and the how, currently, I'm not even confident it wouldn't be a mistake to try to do the trial under Ross. Or to do anything under Ross.

I'm only one shareholder I don't speak for others but I think removing Ross is just about the most urgent thing - whilst he is there the share price has lead on its feet in my opinion. Making everything harder. Raising cash without too much dilution will be hard with Ross.

I'd vote no to just about every resolution 1) remuneration report - no 2) Re elect Geoff Brookes - No - are you kidding his chairman's letter is cringeworthy and we are paying him 110,000. I don't want him re-elected. 3) Re elect Janine Rolfe - why not? - Only reservation I have is I don't know why Ross hired her - perhaps its to help them exit - she doesn't seem to have building skills related to biotech so all I've got against is her pretty much Ross hired her and her skills only seem relevant to ease the directors burden with shareholders. - But being fair - Abstain. 4) Approval of 10% placement facility - NO - this is scary under Ross - under almost anyone else new - Yes - we'll give 25% dilution power to a guy that has taken us down to where we are. I'd rather he go into a virtual comma and do nothing rather than something destructive - I don't want to give dilution power to a guy so good at value destruction - wait for OA or DFU to progress rather than have him stuff up something else by exercising his initiative. 5) Director options to Ms Rolfe - at 45% above share price they'd be okay except that 45% from here should be easy in the event of a takeover and she shouldn't get that for that. That takes almost no skill. If she's a business builder - 45% from here - except in takeovers - would be fine - a fair incentive. 6) Amendment to Constitution - I'm suspecting this is to do with meeting structures in a COVID world - but I'm almost reluctant to look at the detail because the stuff ups that are in plain sight are enough discouragement already. I'll probably abstain.

So 1. No - hell No
2 No - Brooke hasn't performed. His Annual Report intro stinks. He seems to mix up MEND which is cancelled with ARDS as though they weren't the same thing and as though ARDS is still happening as a trial.
3 Abstain
4 No
5. Abstain or Yes if 45% only applies outside of takeovers (but they aren't going to let me change the structure of the resolution) - cheap takeovers is what I suspect these directors are looking for and I don't think they deserve payments for taking cheap and easy. Any new directors deserve a chance and incentives to genuinely build but there should be no incentives to go for low ball takeovers way down here where the management have taken us.
6. Abstain.