Self-development vs licensing deal (TAVR)

I recently attended the CUV AGM and one of the points the CEO mentioned was the conscious decision to self-distribute their drug vs out-license. Wolgen explained that under practically all scenarios modelled this made more sense. This made me think about AHZ and the next steps for TAVR and a potential partner.

I raise this because I have some pretty serious concerns about the future path of AHZ and the decisions that Patto is likely to make in the coming year(s).

After watching the recent interview I have become more worried. I don't think that anyone has an issue with Patto's intent to get the business more focused on ADAPT and TAVR but to think where we were a few years back and where we are now I must question the strategy/execution (market cap is a fraction of what it was and massive dilution has occured).

The immunotherapies business has been put into administration, will we see any return on the money that was invested in that division over the years?

The infusions business has been sold (for a song) and BTC seem to have benefited from the addition.

The patch business has been sold (for a song) to Le Maitre, and whilst this may have been necessary to stave off a complete collapse of the company I worry that it is being seen as 'successful' rather than just ok. 20% profit on the patches manufactured over the next 3 years will barely cover business costs IMHO. I suspect the cash in the bank at the end of the year will be significantly lower than what many expect due to redundancies and ongoing lack of cost control. I'm very concerned that what cash is left will continue to be burnt through at a rapid pace. Let's wait for the next 4C, I hope I'm proven wrong.

Patto mentioned that one of the main players was conducting due diligence on the tech and he seemed 'excited' about a potential deal on his terms. I fear that his terms could be something like $20 - $50mil upfront, use of the licensors sales team and a royalty on future TAVR sales (say 20% like he negotiated with the patches). That reduces potential profit per TAVR piece to say $2k from say $10k (wild guesses here, assumes wholesale cost of $10k and retail price of $20k).

I understand that the rep. model didn't work for CardioCel, at $500/piece and the small market size, that now makes sense. But for TAVR should this be written off as an option? If a rep. can sell 50 TAVR units p.a. at $20k thats $1mil in revenue and more importantly the company isn't locked in to only one potential partner/acquirer.

Apologies if this comes across as a negative or down-ramping, I love the tech. I'm just concerned about how the company is being managed, the portfolio is being rationalised, and capital management generally.

I'm confident that Patto will land some kind of deal at the end of this (after a contract extension and couple more years on the big bucks), I think most investors will likely break even or make a small profit however I'm concerned the lions share of value will be lost/passed to a partner/acquirer.

ok rant over

(I'm interested in other's views/perspectives. I appreciate there are probably limited options for the company now and hindsight is 20:20 however I can't help feeling that a decent raise ($20mil+) back when the market cap was high from solid long term investors might have landed AHZ in a totally different position)