First of all, I did not reassert the argument I made on a first reading of the very first discussion, days ago, you did however need to bring it up out of nowhere to reassert your claims rather than to respond to my actual post to Hoffmann. It's a useful way to retrace back to what you want to discuss rather than to address what I said, in fact, on this round. Given the intensity of your answer, I know you want to focus entirely on just the lease, and that allows you to presume it is all that is relevant here, but it's not. Kind of a misdirection. Additionally, in the end, depending on their other contracts and the capacity requirements for DCVax, I expect that if it required all being dedicated to DCVax production, that would be the deal. But we don't know, you do not know and I don't know. All you have is a simple lease and you're screaming your fraud narrative.
Secondly, nothing you said changes my point that documents can be interwoven without that being obvious in subdocuments like leases, which are typically quite matter of fact, but can be part of an overall plan or structure of a deal. I've said for some time that it seemed as though they were creating a kind of opportunity for this facility to provide symbiotic opportunities for both companies and thus to gain some subsidies from that opportunity. The Human Resources to scale the rest of Sawston to its entirety from day one would be large, and if they were only planning on specials, probably economically not feasible.
The lease is in fact for a portion of the factory. Yes, the initial announcements were for the specifically developed clean rooms, but that actually doesn't mean the full facility is not licensed and incorporated in a good deal of the expense nor does it mean that what was spent was ONLY FOR the 2 clean suites. I think you over interpret the implications of having a factory versus what they said about developing in stages. The rest of the factory can't be a shambles while the 2 clean suites are spectacularly developed, it is all a part of the same facility and so despite developing for clean room implementation a small portion, it's a misnomer to suggest that all monies were spent only on that. The entire system has to work, and the costs involve laying out the process and of course it is the contract manufacturer doing that process. They had to have experts, personnel on staff, had to account for long-term costs for those people, document their processes, get licenses, etc. But this is, in fact, only a sublease form which you've basically made all manner of conclusions. Leases can be bought out. They can be sold to the lessee, you can do a lot of things with them. It enables flexibility and stability and it reassures partners that help you to have contracts. And a sublease can fit into an overall contract structure that shapes the relationship, as it would likely here with a contract manufacturer, between the lessor and lessee. They can, for instance, potentially shape what activities occur in the space, and when and how, and what approvals need to be gotten. It really depends on a set of documents to determine the picture, not just the sublease.
This is an 88,000 square foot facility, as I recall. With Flaskworks implemented in the remaining portion of the factory, it can either be run ultimately by NWBO, an acquirer of NWBO or it can all be sold off as real estate with an existing lessee (Advent, paying enough to cover the lease cost for twice the pace leased) with likely a successful business as a long-term resident. If I had a deal in my pocket, subject to certain milestones, I might implement the deal as we see it here in this lease and describing the manufacturing related matters in the financials as we see NWBO has done there as well. Again, flexibility seems to be the name of the game here. They've been able to take windfalls from the original property sale, and turn that into a facility useful and fit for their purposes and to keep their costs relatively low, including human resource requirements, in the overall totality of the picture, not just the space... which was a fixed cost versus a variable one with personnel and all that entails.
As for the contracts between the parties, we have the manufacturing arrangement AND the lease, and again this is a contract manufacturer, running a facility being capitalized on the balance sheet of NWBO. Unless their accountants and lawyers are in on some sort of conspiracy again, I'm not seeing anything that rings alarm bells for me. I am seeing a reasonable arrangement for shared costs, and of course Advent needs to build a real business to in fact support the scale up of staff and to provide the range of services that would subsidize it having all that highly qualified staff, not currently on NWBO's payrolls. They need space to house the employees, and to do the work that NWBO requires. It can be prioritized however the manufacturing contract arrangements might require. After doing their numbers and working through their negotiations, these are the details that were required for that and for the sublease. But the end result is, despite your suggestion otherwise, they have space in which to manufacture and create substantial potential revenue, much more than was spent, they have access to space subject to contract, to develop Flaskworks in the same factory, and they have substantial further area to do with as they see fit in terms of further expanding capacity. A lot was gained for not that much and for lower ongoing costs than would be the case to have to scale up and have a complete factory with clean rooms now, given that is the current technology, and with all of the staff on NWBO's balance sheet only. It is a win-win. But if someone has an agenda of turning any complexity into an unknowable conspiracy of fraud, then anything that can be spun, will be spun into such a narrative.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
