Moreld,With all due respect, Cash Flow do NOT have many...

Moreld,
With all due respect, Cash Flow do NOT have many definitions. Yes, Peter Cook did explain his twisted definition of “Cash Positive” just as he explained how the 07/08FY account would be a profit had it not been for the legal case for which he clearly stated was launched by Peter Molloy. The fact is that a cash balance of $62M on 30 June 07 reducing to $60M on 30 June 08 is clearly not “cash positive” to any decent minded human beings saved for some depraved twisted definition of the term “Cash positive”

Unlike you, I am definitely not confused that the cash balance is $55M on 30 Sep 08 as it is printed in black and white on page 15 of Biota’s document to the stock exchange.

You have every reason to be confused if you cannot differentiate an unaudited P&L statement from a cash flow statement. A P&L statement is not a cash flow statement.
I have no access to BTA cash flow statement but my posting is my “best estimate” from facts gleaned and or deduced/calculated from publicly available BTA document that stated that the $20M will be paid in August and BTA burned $4.95M in the 1Q buyback.

I am also not confused by Peter Cook public statement of $0.34 cents per cents cash backing per Biota share which is a LIE as the mathematics do not add up as shown in my post OR alternatively Peter Cook LIED about the cash balance on 30 September 2008.
Or are you suggesting Peter Cook has another twisted definition of “cash backing”?

Regardless of your bubbling exuberance for your perceived value in BTA, the fact remains that many of the Brokers recommendations posted on BTA website valued BTA based on the Peter Classic bulsh!ts such as future Relenza royalties of $20M to $30M per annum. The past few quarterly Relenza royalties clearly indicate the incredible statistical odds of such exuberated forecasts!

Peter Cook’s performance as the high flyer CEO of Orbital Engine (OEC) is on public record for all to see. OEC was trading around 70 cents at the time he joined the company and trading around 10 cents when Peter Cook left, taking his expertise to Biota.

I had also put on public record that some of the drugs in development has great potentials and Relenza is superior to Tamiflu. Having said this, as proven by Relenza, it is not the best drug that win the day. Backing a wanabe Biotech company is risky and the already slim chance for success evaporate further when you have a CEO and a board that have the kind of resounding past performances like Peter Cook's.