Post #: 3284641 "I've been giving GSK’s “reservation method” some thought and I don't see that it is as simple as a put option. GSK does not own Relenza outright, there is BTA's interest,... the royalty. For GSK to accept to reserve Relenza it should be owned by GSK, that is to say for every "reserved" packet of Relenza the royalty should be payed immediately. If I want to reserve Relenza for my family I have to pay for ten packets of Relenza which includes BTA's royalty, it's only fair GSK has to do the same. Similarly if the use by expires on my Relenza it is arguably worthless, that is to say I would have to buy more Relenza and pay royalty again. So should GSK if the reserved Relenza is not sold.
Surely BTA has to agree to the "reservation method", or maybe Peter and the board already have. I'd like to see the original licencing agreement, and any recent ammendments.
In the mean time why don't you resign Peter?"
Post #: 3284682 "Similarly if I wanted to reserve Relenza for the whole street, I'd have to buy and store 1000 packets, paying royalty on each. I couldn't get away with buying 10 packets and claiming I had the whole street covered. Once again similar logic should be applied to GSK's "reserved" Relenza. If the pandemic never came and GSK never actually sold any Relenza to it's "reserve" customers, tough luck for them,.. the stupid scheme was their idea anyway.
Go on Peter, GO."
Post #: 3288594
"My arguement hinges on the fact GSK is not the sole owner of Relenza and BTA as a party with an interest should be consulted before an agreement to reserve can be made, or be payed the royalty on the Relenza GSK intends to reserve. Peter was right relations with GSK have been normalised. We are being screwed over as per usual, only now GSK also know management are gutless wonders."
BTA Price at posting:
58.0¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
