Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Possibly, but then you recruit them as non-exec directors, or manufacture some airy-fairy role with a very vague job description, you don't put them in one of the most crucial roles in any company in these e-commerce focussed times.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Possibly, but then you recruit them as non-exec directors, or manufacture some airy-fairy role with a very vague job description, you don't put them in one of the most crucial roles in any company in these e-commerce focussed times.

The internet is just a passing fad, remember? Like Pokemon and roleplaying games

What was I thinking!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not accusing anyone of anything, but only mentioning it because I've seen it done in other companies, but Kirby's wife could be on the books just to reduce his tax.

If Kirby's tax on his full pay = X, but if the total pay is reduced by the amount given to his wife, therefore his tax becomes = X-1, that could be the reason.

I feel so much better now.

Frankly I really don't want to think about Kirby's sex life. Is there another direction we can take this conversation please?

I wonder if she even went into the hq, and had a desk (someone must have seen her?) Or just "worked from home".

I'd be more sympathetic if she put in the regulation 260 days even if she paid more tax than her experience would earn her elsewhere. Maybe she really is a good manager.

 Vermis wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
Companies are free to define their own job position expectations, so it's entirely possible that "head of IT" is a 100% non-technical managerial position. Lots of people who work in IT answer to clueless bosses who don't actually know anything about computers or networks but minored in HR at college or whatever.

Mrs Kirby is... Jen Barber!?

Well, she is a qualified relationship manager, even if she thinks IT means "Internet Things."

One of the reasons that I no longer buy GW products is that they screw their employees. Looks like this is still going on.

Getting back on topic, maybe Kirby is trying to drive the valuation of the company down so that someone else will purchase it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Frankly I really don't want to think about Kirby's sex life. Is there another direction we can take this conversation please?

Sure! BoLS has an interesting article up comparing GW's financials to Asmodee's (gaming company that just merged with Fantasy Flight Games) financials:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/01/games-workshop-vs-asmodee-tale-2-companies.html

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Frankly I really don't want to think about Kirby's sex life. Is there another direction we can take this conversation please?

Sure! BoLS has an interesting article up comparing GW's financials to Asmodee's (gaming company that just merged with Fantasy Flight Games) financials:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/01/games-workshop-vs-asmodee-tale-2-companies.html

And with the typical BOLS type of comments too. "People have been saying GW will go out of business since 2004".

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Frankly I really don't want to think about Kirby's sex life. Is there another direction we can take this conversation please?

Sure! BoLS has an interesting article up comparing GW's financials to Asmodee's (gaming company that just merged with Fantasy Flight Games) financials:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/01/games-workshop-vs-asmodee-tale-2-companies.html

And with the typical BOLS type of comments too. "People have been saying GW will go out of business since 2004".

Same thing here. It's said on almost all the forums not just BoLS? Even on Dakka people are saying GW will be going out of business espically with 3D printing in 5 years time. Not only releated to BoLS. Dakka is notorious for it as well.

Now back to Asmodee. Isn't that a different company? Is it fair to compare to them? Only thing we know is how much they made. We don't know there expenses (or do we?) so we don't know how much profit they are making. While they are making more money than GW how much more profit are they making?

Davor wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Frankly I really don't want to think about Kirby's sex life. Is there another direction we can take this conversation please?

Sure! BoLS has an interesting article up comparing GW's financials to Asmodee's (gaming company that just merged with Fantasy Flight Games) financials:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/01/games-workshop-vs-asmodee-tale-2-companies.html

And with the typical BOLS type of comments too. "People have been saying GW will go out of business since 2004".

Same thing here. It's said on almost all the forums not just BoLS? Even on Dakka people are saying GW will be going out of business espically with 3D printing in 5 years time. Not only releated to BoLS. Dakka is notorious for it as well.

Not in my experience.

Mostly it's not "they're going bust" but "they need to change or they're going to get into serious trouble, which could eventually lead to them being taken over or going out of business."

Well, anyone who appears to be posting with any authority or credibility on the subject does anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

Now back to Asmodee. Isn't that a different company?

Of course it is.

Is it fair to compare to them?

Reasonably, they're operating in similar sectors which likely has a lot of crossover in the demographics and types of consumer they're targeting.

Only thing we know is how much they made. We don't know there expenses (or do we?) so we don't know how much profit they are making. While they are making more money than GW how much more profit are they making?

Their whole financial report is there. It isn't opening for me for some reason, but all he same info as contained in the GW report will be in there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Bringing this over from the BOLS article.

Davor has a point that only a limited amount can be inferred on revenue alone, but it pretty categorically reinforces the assertion that's been prevalent for some time that the sector is growing overall, and GW are running contrary to that, meaning they're not only shrinking, but they're shrinking in comparison to other operators.

Davor wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Frankly I really don't want to think about Kirby's sex life. Is there another direction we can take this conversation please?

Sure! BoLS has an interesting article up comparing GW's financials to Asmodee's (gaming company that just merged with Fantasy Flight Games) financials:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/01/games-workshop-vs-asmodee-tale-2-companies.html

And with the typical BOLS type of comments too. "People have been saying GW will go out of business since 2004".

Same thing here. It's said on almost all the forums not just BoLS? Even on Dakka people are saying GW will be going out of business espically with 3D printing in 5 years time. Not only releated to BoLS. Dakka is notorious for it as well.

Purposefully misreading what he said to push your "side".

That's what... the 2nd or 3rd time that's happened in this thread?

So if the High Lords of GW don't change course and the company spirals out of control, presumably they'll be opened up to a buy out? I mean shareholders aren't going to put up with a total loss right?

So, that could actually be quite good couldn't it? I mean if a company (like Asmodee) picked up GW and actually got it back on course, that could be a good move for the customers no?

Yep, it's a potential scenario that could work out well for the customer. It is a roll of the dice however, if a company recognises the unfulfilled potential and neglected areas of the Warhammer product and feels the way forward is to address those issues and strive to produce the most playable games with the best minis, we're in clover, if, however, it is a company that feels the way forward is to dump any game and produce a range of action figures and play sets, that would be less optimistic.

 spaceelf wrote:
One of the reasons that I no longer buy GW products is that they screw their employees. Looks like this is still going on.

As do many other companies throughout the world, including other wargame companies.

I'm not trying to "white knight" but I have to say GW was pretty damn good compared to other companies I've worked for. Sure there were some staff I couldn't stand and thought gave the place a bad rep but you get that everywhere.

OgrynBob wrote:
So if the High Lords of GW don't change course and the company spirals out of control, presumably they'll be opened up to a buy out? I mean shareholders aren't going to put up with a total loss right?

Exact Kirby is the majority shareholder with more than 50% ownership. And presumably he's in league with several others, so they have dominant position. And nothing at this points to him wanting to cash out.

Sheck2 wrote:

OgrynBob wrote:
So if the High Lords of GW don't change course and the company spirals out of control, presumably they'll be opened up to a buy out? I mean shareholders aren't going to put up with a total loss right?

Exact Kirby is the majority shareholder with more than 50% ownership. And presumably he's in league with several others, so they have dominant position. And nothing at this points to him wanting to cash out.

...no. Kirby is the single largest individual shareholder, but he's nowhere close to 50%.

Sheck2 wrote:

OgrynBob wrote:
So if the High Lords of GW don't change course and the company spirals out of control, presumably they'll be opened up to a buy out? I mean shareholders aren't going to put up with a total loss right?

Exact Kirby is the majority shareholder with more than 50% ownership. And presumably he's in league with several others, so they have dominant position. And nothing at this points to him wanting to cash out.

Nope. And not even close.

He owns 6.7%

http://investor.games-workshop.com/shareholder-statistics/

I can't see why Kirby would want actively to crash GW.

If he is aiming to retire he would presumably rather his shares maintain their value and rate of dividend.

OgrynBob wrote:
So if the High Lords of GW don't change course and the company spirals out of control, presumably they'll be opened up to a buy out? I mean shareholders aren't going to put up with a total loss right?

So, that could actually be quite good couldn't it? I mean if a company (like Asmodee) picked up GW and actually got it back on course, that could be a good move for the customers no?

This assumes that the property is worth taking over.

GW overvalues their IP - and would likely be looking at a lot more than would be reasonable to expect. (The IP used to be worth more than it is now - at least in proportion to the market.)

The alternative is a slow decline into bankruptcy - and that is a crap shoot at best.

The Auld Grump

 Azreal13 wrote:

Is it fair to compare to them?

Reasonably, they're operating in similar sectors which likely has a lot of crossover in the demographics and types of consumer they're targeting.

I can't get the report open either (Eurazeo website seems to be down), but Asmodee is part of a large, multi-billion conglomerate and it seems that at least some of their growth is because of acquisitions. It seems they have quite a bit of investor money behind them. It's impossible to say how much real growth they have had without seeing the report.

Davor has a point that only a limited amount can be inferred on revenue alone, but it pretty categorically reinforces the assertion that's been prevalent for some time that the sector is growing overall, and GW are running contrary to that, meaning they're not only shrinking, but they're shrinking in comparison to other operators.

Well, this has often been claimed, and probably is true to some extent, but for every successfully growing company there are also others which are stale or go bust. I've often pointed out that Hasbro, one of the largest players in the industry, has seen little to no growth over last 5-6 years or so. For 2014, their gaming division has reported slight reduction of revenue. It is harder for big companies to post large relative growth.

Backfire wrote:
For 2014, their gaming division has reported slight reduction of revenue. It is harder for big companies to post large relative growth.

Actually, Hasbro is reporting 2% growth over the same period last year in their games division for the third quarter which has reversed the losses from earlier in the year. The net result is the games division was still down 4% year-on-year in the 3rd quarter BUT considering they were down 12% in the 2nd quarter, I would say that's a very strong rally for the division.

The larger you get, the harder growth becomes, so Hasbro, being fething enormous, are a poor example in this context.

Equally, you can't make acquisitions with thin air and good intentions, and large, successful companies aren't going to put money into companies or sectors they don't see potential in, so even if the growth does come form mergers and acquisitions, it still has validity.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I can't see why Kirby would want actively to crash GW.

If he is aiming to retire he would presumably rather his shares maintain their value and rate of dividend.

I don't think Kirby wants GW to crash. But I think his primary focus is maximizing year-on profit, even if it means that the company is moving into a worse and worse long-term position. As people have been saying, GW might die a slow death over the next 5-10 years, but by then I imagine Kirby will have gotten what he wanted and be free to sail off into the sunset on his new yacht.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'm sorry, but how does requiring a multi-billion government bail out not count as "financial distress?"

I mean, I wouldn't say "Oh sure, my heart just stopped and the only chance I've got of surviving is a transplant, but otherwise I'm fine" would I?

Because cynical calous business reasons. If they KNOW they will receive a bailout, feth it take some serious risks. Same reason some companies will flagrantly break the law, apologize & pay the fines. If I make $100 billion manipulating toxic mortgages & the fed fines me $50 billion that's nothing. People will look and say "ohhh he got fined HARD $50 billion is a lot" meanwhile I'll just sit here counting the $50billion in profits I still kept.

That's close, but not accurate. What actually happened is a bank received $500 billion in loans from the Fed and then was asked to pay a fine of $1 billion from the Justice Department.

 agnosto wrote:

Backfire wrote:
For 2014, their gaming division has reported slight reduction of revenue. It is harder for big companies to post large relative growth.

Actually, Hasbro is reporting 2% growth over the same period last year in their games division for the third quarter which has reversed the losses from earlier in the year. The net result is the games division was still down 4% year-on-year in the 3rd quarter BUT considering they were down 12% in the 2nd quarter, I would say that's a very strong rally for the division.

I was talking about first 9 months (fourth quarter is yet to be released). Single quarters really don't tell much IMO, "crash" on 2nd quarter may have well been because they had some big release in 2013 Q2 which boosted numbers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
As I shareholder I intend to ask Kirby at the next AGM about employing his unqualified wife to blow a fortune on a botched website project. This is utterly disgusting. Who got the £4m for making the site, and were they related to him too?

I think they contracted with some such overly large organization to do it.

Pretty sure it is an actual Oracle site... Haven't actually spoken with anyone who was involved with this last rollout though.

It's an off-the-shelf solution, which is why it looks so boring & generic.

4 million is not actually an outrageous price, one has to remember that the site is only a forefront, and the project most likely was a comprehensive solution where they redid all their warehousing, logistics etc software and databases.

Nepotist embezzlement would have been done in opposite fashion: they'd have announced that new website is designed by some hitherto unknown company which just happened to be headed by Mrs Kirby (or some other relative or acquaintance), which has shoe-string operation, no ready templates or solutions and then there would be gradual delays and cost-increases as the company is hugely under-resourced for such an operation, because only fraction of the invested money actually goes to design and programming work, most of it is being leeched of by the owners in messy & non-transparent billing. If some of the board or stockholders, frustrated to rising costs & lack of progress, wish to terminate to deal, it would be countered with variations of 'sunken costs fallacy' and promises that the new deadline is 'just around the corner'. And when the whole is operational, it's a horrible buggy mess and takes months/years to fix.

Disclaimer: I will strongly deny that the above is based on any real world example.

 Accolade wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I can't see why Kirby would want actively to crash GW.
If he is aiming to retire he would presumably rather his shares maintain their value and rate of dividend.

I don't think Kirby wants GW to crash. But I think his primary focus is maximizing year-on profit, even if it means that the company is moving into a worse and worse long-term position. As people have been saying, GW might die a slow death over the next 5-10 years, but by then I imagine Kirby will have gotten what he wanted and be free to sail off into the sunset on his new yacht.

His main focus has been to pump out dividends to pay himself.
When that no longer becomes viable, he will shift away from a controlling position and sell his shares while the books are "ok".
Hence the short term behavior and reduction of assets and overhead to plump up profitability.
If I did not care about the company that is what I would do in his position, it only makes sense.
Only if he smells a potential buy-out he might hold on for that as some speculators point out (doubt it though).
Face-it, their management is content to manage what they have rather than deal with the unknown of an expanding market.
<edit> Which would entail spending on capital for long term payoff draining from dividends = contrary to his goals.

Backfire wrote:

Nepotist embezzlement would have been done in opposite fashion: they'd have announced that new website is designed by some hitherto unknown company which just happened to be headed by Mrs Kirby (or some other relative or acquaintance), which has shoe-string operation, no ready templates or solutions and then there would be gradual delays and cost-increases as the company is hugely under-resourced for such an operation, because only fraction of the invested money actually goes to design and programming work, most of it is being leeched of by the owners in messy & non-transparent billing. If some of the board or stockholders, frustrated to rising costs & lack of progress, wish to terminate to deal, it would be countered with variations of 'sunken costs fallacy' and promises that the new deadline is 'just around the corner'. And when the whole is operational, it's a horrible buggy mess and takes months/years to fix.

Disclaimer: I will strongly deny that the above is based on any real world example.

How do we know that's not what basically happened here? Lots of other folks have said that the 4M number is suspiciously high. In any case, we are only seeing the glossy cover of the whole deal (in the financial report) it could very well be a raging, convoluted mess underneath. If the total cost is excessive, it very well could be the result of various degrees of incompetence/sunk costs shenanigans.

weeble1000 wrote:
Lots of other folks have said that the 4M number is suspiciously high.

I wouldn't say suspiciously high - I would say stupidly high...

Again, it isn't something that I am entirely unfamiliar with. It was how I made my living for a number of years, and now I work with numerous small and medium sized businesses (which goes up past where GW is sitting). Although my primary areas of concern are on the technical side - I often work as an intermediary between the businesses and software developers dealing with inventory control, ecommerce, finances and compliance packages.

Based on my own experience - the £4 million spent would cover 600-1500 man-weeks of professional, software development. This would include all the requirement interviews, data collection, high level design, QA and testing as well as the actual development. Even on the high end of things (in terms of cost) - that will get you a years worth of development out of a top notch team. In about half that time - they could write pretty much every bit of management and inventory software GW would need for their whole company (which is not what happened).

Instead, what they needed should have cost somewhere nearer the $750K mark - including licensing costs for an off the shelf solution. That would let them pretty much have their pick of whatever software package they want to run, and a competent team of developers to write whatever bridges might be needed to link the systems together as well as handle all the data migration.

4 million is not actually an outrageous price, one has to remember that the site is only a forefront, and the project most likely was a comprehensive solution where they redid all their warehousing, logistics etc software and databases.

I have (now) good information that says the £4 million was just the website and a (pretty simple) inventory management package to go with it (that as I understand it - was part and parcel to the package used). I also have it on good information that come this July, we will see another approximately £2-3 million exceptional cost to cover a new manufacturing control system...because they can't seem to get the old one to work with the new retail system...