The only comments offered have been along the "save money to...

The only comments offered have been along the "save money to survive longer" line of thought.

Why, then, did they resign as directors?

To me, the maneuver strikes me as "freeing up of options". If you are a director, you are constrained in your ability to deal in the equity of the company.

It is quite clear both Watt and Woolf maintain significant interests in this company.

Either they have been sidelined for some massive breach of probity (which I do not believe and certainly have no evidence of) or there is some reason why these gentlemen want to remove their director constraints.

Maybe they want to take Phylogica private? (Which I would view as a betrayal of existing holders)

Maybe there is some kind of restructure in the wind?

Every discovery biotech needs money. If they are close to be self sustaining, in capital terms - this would be nothing short of a miracle. However, they are still talking about this ... and the shareprice is 1.8c (clearly the market is 100% convinced this will not be an achievable goal).

I remain convinced of the high value of the technology ... just puzzled by recent developments, which prima facie look bad?!?