http://apocalypse40k.blogspot.com/2013/06/games-workshop-sold.html

I have been predicting GW would be sold for a while. All the signs point that way. Still unconfirmed.

Loken

I'm pretty sure that a publicly traded company can't keep a closed sale a secret once the transaction has been inked and signed by the involved parties. It's one thing to say that they're close to a deal, it's another to say the deal is done and they're not saying anything. I'm pretty sure that the latter would be illegal for a dozen reasons.

Seems Dodgy to me. Seems like people connecting dots to form a picture they are trying to make out

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Seems like people connecting dots to form a picture they are trying to make out

Basically this. Plus, a publicly traded company doing a massive change of hands with stock would be publicly known.

Yeah....no. I'm a stockholder and they're kind of required by law to report things like that to us....

This is not how publicly traded companies work. You can't secretly acquire a controlling interest in a publicly traded company. You have to register these types of events. Typically, the entity wishing to seize control would offer to purchase shares from shareholders in an effort to gain a majority. Hasn't happened. Believe me, when a company goes from public to private, people hear about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, have a read. You can read about majority shareholders on here.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Specifically...


Accurate as of 17 days ago.
http://investor.games-workshop.com/shareholder-statistics/

Hey! I heard from a guy who heard from a guy that Apple is buying GW. Really.

That's basically what your speculation is here bro. Anyone can make up an unsubstantiated rumor.

I think we should just lock this.

Yeah, this sounds about as reliable as the thread from a new poster about FFG buying GW with a lofty quoted source of a friend. That sounds almost as reliable as listening to a red shirt for 40k rumors 5 years ago.

 cincydooley wrote:
That's basically what your speculation is here bro. Anyone can make up an unsubstantiated rumor.

I heard GW takes all of the mail they receive from customers, shreds it, and uses it as stuffing for their couch cushions. That way when they fart, they're showing customers what they really think of their criticism.

 -Loki- wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
That's basically what your speculation is here bro. Anyone can make up an unsubstantiated rumor.

I heard GW takes all of the mail they receive from customers, shreds it, and uses it as stuffing for their couch cushions. That way when they fart, they're showing customers what they really think of their criticism.

That isn't a rumor so much as a commonly known truth.

 -Loki- wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
That's basically what your speculation is here bro. Anyone can make up an unsubstantiated rumor.

I heard GW takes all of the mail they receive from customers, shreds it, and uses it as stuffing for their couch cushions. That way when they fart, they're showing customers what they really think of their criticism.

People still send normal mail outside of wedding invites?

Sold? No.
For sale? Yes.

Couple people back from Reapercon said the buzz there was Hasbro is talking to them. As any merger/buyout goes, even if it is officially announce, it isn't necessarily a done deal. Things can fall apart.

silent25 wrote:
For sale? Yes.

Technically everything is always for sale.

For the right price.

I worked for a company that got bought out. Basically nobody knows about it until the deal is done. Lots of negotiations with the Board of Directors, everything in secret, then one day, BOOM, sold. They offer to buy stock at a certain price, above market value, with the deal being final on a certain date. There are ways to stop it from happening, but generally everybody says "hey, I get to make more money! yay!" and they sell their stock.

I bought Games Workshop today actually so I can update my Blood Angel army quicker.

 Kirasu wrote:
I bought Games Workshop today actually so I can update my Blood Angel army quicker.

Thank you.

Maybe we should do a Kickstarter to buy the company?

Nothing new or interesting in that article. Kind of hilarious he "has been telling people for a year, yadda yadda yadda GW will be sold soon". As if he was providing some insightful analysis instead of just saying what people in a hundred forum threads have posted.

Lame article, no news, no new ideas, just sprue.

silent25 wrote:

Couple people back from Reapercon said the buzz there was Hasbro is talking to them.

Great. That'd be two fandoms that are constantly kvetching about prices rising that they'd own in that case.

No great change for me, really. Hasbro already gets the majority of my spending money.

Well, if they were bought by Hasbro there would be new editions more often.

Well, it would be interesting if Hasbro gobbles them up. Do they bring Wizards of the Coast in on this in some way? Hasbro does have a huge stable of iconic properties. Oh this would be fun.

massey wrote:
I worked for a company that got bought out. Basically nobody knows about it until the deal is done. Lots of negotiations with the Board of Directors, everything in secret, then one day, BOOM, sold. They offer to buy stock at a certain price, above market value, with the deal being final on a certain date. There are ways to stop it from happening, but generally everybody says "hey, I get to make more money! yay!" and they sell their stock.

You better be careful when you actually know what you are talking about. You make too much sense. :-)

silent25 wrote:
Sold? No.
For sale? Yes.

Couple people back from Reapercon said the buzz there was Hasbro is talking to them. As any merger/buyout goes, even if it is officially announce, it isn't necessarily a done deal. Things can fall apart.

Hasbro seem a perfect compagnie to buy GW on my opinion, seeing how GW evolve thoses last years focussing more on toys soldiers than real game system perfect for young children in a Toy'R'us. Prepare to see some GW product sold next to Monopoly and Risk games... I can sell them the idea of a Risk 40k... or even a Imperial Monopoly lol. I won't be suprise to see GW product sold on a WalMart in the next decade... (sarcasm).

I'm giddy. I know this is a completely unsubstantiated rumor, but it just makes me happy as hell to think that Kirby might go away. Now I know "devil you know..." here, but honestly this company needs a massive shake-up. Such a fun rumor, better than the Riptide!

 Qcbob wrote:

silent25 wrote:
Sold? No.
For sale? Yes.

Couple people back from Reapercon said the buzz there was Hasbro is talking to them. As any merger/buyout goes, even if it is officially announce, it isn't necessarily a done deal. Things can fall apart.

Hasbro seem a perfect compagnie to buy GW on my opinion, seeing how GW evolve thoses last years focussing more on toys soldiers than real game system perfect for young children in a Toy'R'us. Prepare to see some GW product sold next to Monopoly and Risk games... I can sell them the idea of a Risk 40k... or even a Imperial Monopoly lol. I won't be suprise to see GW product sold on a WalMart in the next decade... (sarcasm).

I know you're being sarcastic, but you do know Hasbro owns Wizards of the Coast, right? They're not new to the gaming market.

Considering that both WotC as well as Hasbro have had failed attempts to enter the miniature market, I can see that they would be interested in GW. I honestly think that Wizards of the Coast would be the best thing that could possibly happen to WH40k.

 Jidmah wrote:
I honestly think that Wizards of the Coast would be the best thing that could possibly happen to WH40k.

I don't. WotC really has a horrible track record with anything other than Magic. Their business model is set up to drive cardboard crack, not support the well being of a line of plastic model kits that aren't expected to simply "phase out" after a two year product cycle.

 Breotan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I honestly think that Wizards of the Coast would be the best thing that could possibly happen to WH40k.

I don't. WotC really has a horrible track record with anything other than Magic. Their business model is set up to drive cardboard crack, not support the well being of a line of plastic model kits that aren't expected to simply "phase out" after a two year product cycle.

Thank you Breotan.

 Breotan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I honestly think that Wizards of the Coast would be the best thing that could possibly happen to WH40k.

I don't. WotC really has a horrible track record with anything other than Magic. Their business model is set up to drive cardboard crack, not support the well being of a line of plastic model kits that aren't expected to simply "phase out" after a two year product cycle.

Forcing constant updates.
Screwy prices.
Terrible FAQ's and rule consistency.

Match made in heaven(hell)

GBL wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I honestly think that Wizards of the Coast would be the best thing that could possibly happen to WH40k.

I don't. WotC really has a horrible track record with anything other than Magic. Their business model is set up to drive cardboard crack, not support the well being of a line of plastic model kits that aren't expected to simply "phase out" after a two year product cycle.

Forcing constant updates.
Screwy prices.
Terrible FAQ's and rule consistency.

Match made in heaven(hell)

Still, ya gotta admit that in these areas WotC and GW are pikers compared to WizKids. Speaking of WizKids, how are they doing? Oh, yea, they essentially closed shop after being an anchor around Topps' neck for half a decade.

 Breotan wrote:

GBL wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I honestly think that Wizards of the Coast would be the best thing that could possibly happen to WH40k.

I don't. WotC really has a horrible track record with anything other than Magic. Their business model is set up to drive cardboard crack, not support the well being of a line of plastic model kits that aren't expected to simply "phase out" after a two year product cycle.

Forcing constant updates.
Screwy prices.
Terrible FAQ's and rule consistency.

Match made in heaven(hell)

Still, ya gotta admit that in these areas WotC and GW are pikers compared to WizKids. Speaking of WizKids, how are they doing? Oh, yea, they essentially closed shop after being an anchor around Topps' neck for half a decade.

I would agree with you, but in my eyes wizkids major failing was that they were unable to get me to purchase product in the first place. Both GW and WoTC had me bite long enough to lose hundreds of dollars before realizing how terrible the game/community/prices/support really were.

Breaking News: GW is now selling Citadel FineShares.

It wouldn't surprise me if GW is being sold to a big highstreet toys company such as Hasbro, just look at how GW has been focusing solely on marketing to kids nowadays, dumbing down White Dwarf, rules, fluff and creating Hasbro-esque big miniatures.

It'd be interesting to see something happen, but until theres an announcement..................

BrotherVord wrote:
I'm pretty sure that a publicly traded company can't keep a closed sale a secret once the transaction has been inked and signed by the involved parties. It's one thing to say that they're close to a deal, it's another to say the deal is done and they're not saying anything. I'm pretty sure that the latter would be illegal for a dozen reasons.

This. As far as I'm concerned, this thread should be closed. Nothing more to say.

For:

GW has been in some investment news articles recently(last 2 years), talking about its strong growth, resilience to market conditions etc.

GW has placed itself in a great position for a buyout with one man stores, lower costs and higher returns.

No (real) price rise this year to stave off negative publicity.

Hobbit expected to take GW stock higher for the next few years.

Short of the deal being inked, there is no need to talk to everyone. As far as we know this could simply be a deal penned to bring up at the next board meeting. They could be moving quietly to not push the share price above what the potential buyer can pay.

Against:

Investment forums don't seem to be buzzing like they should if this is legit. If anyone got word, it would have been an investor, who would have been smart to tell all his friends, buy up more shares and wait for the buyout offer.


This has merit theoretically. Would love to see some proof, or a press release that even nods at this before I will think it is true.

Mentions of Hasbro sounds like internet echoes - there's been a minimum of 15 years of rumours about Hasbro being interested in buying GW.

With Hasbro comes Space Marine action figures! Pew Pew [censored]!

THIS JUST IN!


The world may or may not end.


Pretty much has more of a basis than GW being sold.

 IJW wrote:
Mentions of Hasbro sounds like internet echoes - there's been a minimum of 15 years of rumours about Hasbro being interested in buying GW.

Was going to say, I heard this rumour at least 7-8 years ago (the other name being thrown around being 'Bandai').

Not so much the guy who has written this article, but the bloggers 'Farmpunk' and 'Sandworm' add credence in the comments section (those guys have usually had their finger on the pulse in the past).

Yes the signs do point to it as a possibility (in that you can attribute some of the recent changes in policy by GW to be building up to something like this), but that's all at this point.

linnear wrote:
You better be careful when you actually know what you are talking about. You make too much sense. :-)

Unlike you.

GW is setting itself up for a sale? You know GW doesn't own itself, right? The largest shareholder is some investment group called The Nomad Investment Partnership LP and they only have 15.7%.

Sorry, but you do understand that an executive team with the board can indeed prepare a company for leveraged buyout? The board and the executive are obligated to maximize shareholder value. If they can prepare a publicly held firm for a buyout and they deem it profitable, they can and do prepare a company for sale. Stock buy outs are extremely common. Public doesn't mean "not for sale."

I heard that walmart is buying GW.


Source: Dakkanuts

I still say something is going on behind the scenes.

Several weeks ago I was up at Warhammer World and there were several guys in suits being shown around GWHQ by staff in a "what's all this about then?" type thing. I pegged it as a little odd as GWHQ is not exactly known for "random passer-by" traffic like a normal GW store is.

Potential investors perhaps?

And guys, stop with the twatty comments about random companies buying GW. They add nothing to the thread and just make you look like a boorish idiot with nothing to say other than an irrelevant comment.

I'm sure Solo will come along in a minute to tell us this is not news...

This is absolute rubbish and suffers from a delusional misunderstanding of how companies work.

Firstly, if an agreement has been made, it has be legally and officially communicated to all the stockholders.

Secondly, even if someone had done the dirty and made an agreement but had yet to reveal it, the company is owned by the current shareholders. That's a lot of people.

That would mean that you'd need a substantial number of shareholders to have already agreed to transfer their stock for an agreed price, and then hope that enough other people sell it to you. That in turn means that it can't just be a done deal with kirby and some giant organisation, they'd have to have other major shareholders on board.

And considering how many of those shareholders are investment companies with everything to lose and who have far bigger fish to fry than GW, I don't see them risking everything on Mr Kirby's word.

So, this is this a shameless advert for a personal blog hidden under the guise of an insightful analysis?

How new.

 Pacific wrote:

 IJW wrote:
Mentions of Hasbro sounds like internet echoes - there's been a minimum of 15 years of rumours about Hasbro being interested in buying GW.

Was going to say, I heard this rumour at least 7-8 years ago (the other name being thrown around being 'Bandai').

Not so much the guy who has written this article, but the bloggers 'Farmpunk' and 'Sandworm' add credence in the comments section (those guys have usually had their finger on the pulse in the past).

Yes the signs do point to it as a possibility (in that you can attribute some of the recent changes in policy by GW to be building up to something like this), but that's all at this point.

Ironically the big push for Black Reach was to have a game people could play off the shelf. There was a push to have black reach sold at stores like toys are us. Even then the "Hazbro" rumors persisted. THis is not really new news but it would not suprise me to see it happen.

Have not read the article but heard that for the first time Gw will not be increasing the price of the products they make this year. The only price increases will be with brushes and paints which they dont make.

Is this the final hoorah!

Yeah I think someone put two and two together and made five, and its stuff we've known about for a while, so moving it over to Discussions.

 Vivster wrote:
Have not read the article but heard that for the first time Gw will not be increasing the price of the products they make this year. The only price increases will be with brushes and paints which they dont make.

Is this the final hoorah!

That is if you don't count the price increase with each new codex/update. But, in betting a lot for that trick.

 Pacific wrote:

 IJW wrote:
Mentions of Hasbro sounds like internet echoes - there's been a minimum of 15 years of rumours about Hasbro being interested in buying GW.

Was going to say, I heard this rumour at least 7-8 years ago (the other name being thrown around being 'Bandai').

An ex-west coast regional manager told me that Hasbro had approached GW 3-4 times in the past. Last being during the LotR boom years which matches your claim. Claimed they never went far and GW always said "No thanks". This was several years ago.

Person telling me the current rumor mentioned the same previous approached by Hasbro but said GW's response this time was, "We're listening". Might be still be complete bull, but the current behavior does match behavior of a company gearing itself up for sale.

As for major shareholders knowing, they don't. That would be insider trading. They will find out when we find out. They however get to vote on accepting the buyout or rejecting the buyout. If there is talks going on, they are working out how much Hasbro would pay for the company and for each held share. There is likely a group of accountants pouring over GWs records looking at all the sales and volume of the last several years.

Also, if there is a buyout, don't start singing, "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead". By them buying it, that means they like what they see and will keep the current management in place for the next couple years while they transition over. Worse, you may see Kirby have expanded influence and reach should they merge WotC and GW. Not over WotC whole, but several WotC divisions may be merged with GW like their Avalon Hill line.

*edit* Just to add, Nomad and Ruffer both increased their shares in the last couple weeks. That explains the latest uptick.

GBL wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I honestly think that Wizards of the Coast would be the best thing that could possibly happen to WH40k.

I don't. WotC really has a horrible track record with anything other than Magic. Their business model is set up to drive cardboard crack, not support the well being of a line of plastic model kits that aren't expected to simply "phase out" after a two year product cycle.

Forcing constant updates.
Screwy prices.
Terrible FAQ's and rule consistency.

Match made in heaven(hell)

Is this describing GW or WotC? Genuine question.

GBL wrote:
GW has been in some investment news articles recently(last 2 years), talking about its strong growth, resilience to market conditions etc.

Good news: GW finally does advertising.
Bad news: It is to sell the company, not its products

 Ketara wrote:
This is absolute rubbish and suffers from a delusional misunderstanding of how companies work.

Firstly, if an agreement has been made, it has be legally and officially communicated to all the stockholders.

Unless the "Agreement" is a handshake agreement to pen something official. Which you acknowledge here:

 Ketara wrote:

Secondly, even if someone had done the dirty and made an agreement but had yet to reveal it, the company is owned by the current shareholders. That's a lot of people.

So it has to be a good price, one that they may be sniffing around the shareholders to discover a good buyout price.

 Ketara wrote:

That would mean that you'd need a substantial number of shareholders to have already agreed to transfer their stock for an agreed price, and then hope that enough other people sell it to you. That in turn means that it can't just be a done deal with kirby and some giant organisation, they'd have to have other major shareholders on board.

There's about 7% on the board itself. As mentioned above, another firm has 15% That's just a couple of stops for over 20% But again, this is something that happens after the paper has ink on it.

 Ketara wrote:

And considering how many of those shareholders are investment companies with everything to lose and who have far bigger fish to fry than GW, I don't see them risking everything on Mr Kirby's word.

Actually there has been a little bit of uncertainty with GW shares recently, if the buyout turns GW shares into Hasbro shares, or exceeds the current GW share price, then it is a net gain.

I agree that there is no evidence.

I agree that we got this information from the wrong source.

But that doesn't make it impossible, or even unlikely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dendarien wrote:

GBL wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I honestly think that Wizards of the Coast would be the best thing that could possibly happen to WH40k.

I don't. WotC really has a horrible track record with anything other than Magic. Their business model is set up to drive cardboard crack, not support the well being of a line of plastic model kits that aren't expected to simply "phase out" after a two year product cycle.

Forcing constant updates.
Screwy prices.
Terrible FAQ's and rule consistency.

Match made in heaven(hell)

Is this describing GW or WotC? Genuine question.

Both

 Alkasyn wrote:
So, this is this a shameless advert for a personal blog hidden under the guise of an insightful analysis?

How new.

Bingo. Inventing stories wholesale to get more traffic for their poxy blogs is a pretty hefty low.

Dont think its real, but if it is, it can only be good news.

GW company threads are always surreal.

First, we had the "GW is failing! (no citations are given)" thread.

A week or two later:

The "GW stock price is soaring. They must have sold the company! (no citations are given)" thread.

xxvaderxx wrote:
Dont think its real, but if it is, it can only be good news.

Why? Because GW has supposedly been producing crappy miniatures and overcharging their customers for them as well as treating them like crap? Have you ever considered what might happen if a big commercial company buys over GW? Worst case scenario, every boxed set becomes a snap-together pack and is now sold in Toys'R'Us pre-painted with rules to play them. That's what happens when you introduced too much commercialism, the hobby aspect is going to die.

I'm just sick of all the anti-GW sentiments - like any company they have their bad points, but it's saddening to see that sometimes people only look at their bad side.

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Dont think its real, but if it is, it can only be good news.

Why? Because GW has supposedly been producing crappy miniatures and overcharging their customers for them as well as treating them like crap? Have you ever considered what might happen if a big commercial company buys over GW? Worst case scenario, every boxed set becomes a snap-together pack and is now sold in Toys'R'Us pre-painted with rules to play them. That's what happens when you introduced too much commercialism, the hobby aspect is going to die.

I'm just sick of all the anti-GW sentiments - like any company they have their bad points, but it's saddening to see that sometimes people only look at their bad side.

They brought it on their own, if they were worthy of more, you would not come across this that often. PP does not have this PR issues, and i dont even play their games, so no i dont like them better.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Dont think its real, but if it is, it can only be good news.

Why? Because GW has supposedly been producing crappy miniatures and overcharging their customers for them as well as treating them like crap? Have you ever considered what might happen if a big commercial company buys over GW? Worst case scenario, every boxed set becomes a snap-together pack and is now sold in Toys'R'Us pre-painted with rules to play them. That's what happens when you introduced too much commercialism, the hobby aspect is going to die.

I'm just sick of all the anti-GW sentiments - like any company they have their bad points, but it's saddening to see that sometimes people only look at their bad side.

They brought it on their own, if they were worthy of more, you would not come across this that often. PP does not have this PR issues, and i dont even play their games, so no i dont like them better.

Give them 15 years.

 daedalus wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Dont think its real, but if it is, it can only be good news.

Why? Because GW has supposedly been producing crappy miniatures and overcharging their customers for them as well as treating them like crap? Have you ever considered what might happen if a big commercial company buys over GW? Worst case scenario, every boxed set becomes a snap-together pack and is now sold in Toys'R'Us pre-painted with rules to play them. That's what happens when you introduced too much commercialism, the hobby aspect is going to die.

I'm just sick of all the anti-GW sentiments - like any company they have their bad points, but it's saddening to see that sometimes people only look at their bad side.

They brought it on their own, if they were worthy of more, you would not come across this that often. PP does not have this PR issues, and i dont even play their games, so no i dont like them better.

Give them 15 years.

Sure but even if they manage make this PR gak storm them selves, that does not make GW any better thou.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Dont think its real, but if it is, it can only be good news.

Why? Because GW has supposedly been producing crappy miniatures and overcharging their customers for them as well as treating them like crap? Have you ever considered what might happen if a big commercial company buys over GW? Worst case scenario, every boxed set becomes a snap-together pack and is now sold in Toys'R'Us pre-painted with rules to play them. That's what happens when you introduced too much commercialism, the hobby aspect is going to die.

I'm just sick of all the anti-GW sentiments - like any company they have their bad points, but it's saddening to see that sometimes people only look at their bad side.

They brought it on their own, if they were worthy of more, you would not come across this that often. PP does not have this PR issues, and i dont even play their games, so no i dont like them better.

Right, and how big is Privateer Press as a company? Oh, that's right, they're not even a listed company. GW is. PP can afford to pay more attention to and listen to their customers, because they have to please their customers. GW has shareholders. GW has to please them, not us, and sometimes, this comes at cost to us (increasing costs to cover decreasing sales, for example). This is the problem of scale that happens in all large corporate entities. You learn this in Business 101. Your "if they were worthy of more" argument is so baseless that it just reeks of arrogance. If PP gets to, let alone survives, the next two decades as a company, I promise you that you'll be spouting this exact same thing about them. You often hear old-timers (including myself) talking about how "GW used to be better", and if you look at the timeline, that's before they started carrying a dozen other different lines and expanding so rapidly as a company.

GW doesn't even own themselves completely. So what if they come up with a grand new business strategy? If their stockholders vote it down, there's nothing they can do.

I'm not defending GW to say that there aren't things that they could have done better, but it's better to understand the party you're criticizing rather than making yourself look like a fool by blindly jumping on the bandwagon of "OMG GW SUX" hate.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 daedalus wrote:


Give them 15 years.

Sure, that does not make GW any better thou.

I'll give you that, but what you're hating is the nature of the beast, not the company itself. Look what happened to D&D.

 Enigwolf wrote:

Right, and how big is Privateer Press as a company? Oh, that's right, they're not even a listed company. GW is. PP can afford to pay more attention to and listen to their customers, because they have to please their customers. GW has shareholders. GW has to please them, not us, and sometimes, this comes at cost to us (increasing costs to cover decreasing sales, for example). This is the problem of scale that happens in all large corporate entities. You learn this in Business 101. Your "if they were worthy of more" argument is so baseless that it just reeks of arrogance. I'm not defending GW to say that there aren't things that they could have done better, but it's better to understand the party you're criticizing rather than making yourself look like a fool by blindly jumping on the bandwagon of "OMG GW SUX" hate.

And why would we care if they are a big company when we pass judgment on them?, what do they get a "too big to fail" pass because they have more moneys?. I regard them as high as their customer relations and their business practices deserve. To give companies a pass because they are big is idiotic and masochistic, being big is their problem not the customer´s.

 daedalus wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 daedalus wrote:


Give them 15 years.

Sure, that does not make GW any better thou.

I'll give you that, but what you're hating is the nature of the beast, not the company itself. Look what happened to D&D.

I dont care why, if the shoe fits its fits.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

Right, and how big is Privateer Press as a company? Oh, that's right, they're not even a listed company. GW is. PP can afford to pay more attention to and listen to their customers, because they have to please their customers. GW has shareholders. GW has to please them, not us, and sometimes, this comes at cost to us (increasing costs to cover decreasing sales, for example). This is the problem of scale that happens in all large corporate entities. You learn this in Business 101. Your "if they were worthy of more" argument is so baseless that it just reeks of arrogance. I'm not defending GW to say that there aren't things that they could have done better, but it's better to understand the party you're criticizing rather than making yourself look like a fool by blindly jumping on the bandwagon of "OMG GW SUX" hate.

And why would we care if they are a big company when we pass judgment on them?, what do they get a "too big to fail" pass because they have more moneys?. I regard them as high as their customer relations and their business practices deserve. To give companies a pass because they are big is idiotic and masochistic, being big is their problem not the customer´s.

Read my post again, I never said that it excuses them from poor performance. If you think you can run the company better than they can, I welcome you to become a majority shareholder and show us how it's done.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 daedalus wrote:


Give them 15 years.

Sure, that does not make GW any better thou.

I'll give you that, but what you're hating is the nature of the beast, not the company itself. Look what happened to D&D.

I dont care why, if the shoe fits its fits.

This right here further proves my point and just shows that you don't actually care about the details of what goes on. You see what happens on the surface, and then just pass ignorant judgment.

I don't need to, I am a consumer, my responsibility is not to manage the company only pass judgement on them and support them or not accordingly. I dont pay apple to solve their problems.

 Jidmah wrote:
Considering that both WotC as well as Hasbro have had failed attempts to enter the miniature market, I can see that they would be interested in GW. I honestly think that Wizards of the Coast would be the best thing that could possibly happen to WH40k.

What failed attempts are those (not being a gakker, just wondering)?

X-Wing is doing VERY well for itself since its release. And they already have a better set up tournament system





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Qcbob wrote:

silent25 wrote:
Sold? No.
For sale? Yes.

Couple people back from Reapercon said the buzz there was Hasbro is talking to them. As any merger/buyout goes, even if it is officially announce, it isn't necessarily a done deal. Things can fall apart.

Hasbro seem a perfect compagnie to buy GW on my opinion, seeing how GW evolve thoses last years focussing more on toys soldiers than real game system perfect for young children in a Toy'R'us. Prepare to see some GW product sold next to Monopoly and Risk games... I can sell them the idea of a Risk 40k... or even a Imperial Monopoly lol. I won't be suprise to see GW product sold on a WalMart in the next decade... (sarcasm).

They would probably give it to Wizards Of The Coast. 40k doesn't quite fit the Kid Friendly Hasbro Brand.

Or maybe they would keep GW itself alive. But they would also probably be smart and make Action Figures, Merch and maybe a Show or a Movie

It would be interesting to see if they took back the RPG's once FFG's licence runs out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 daedalus wrote:


Give them 15 years.

Sure, that does not make GW any better thou.

I'll give you that, but what you're hating is the nature of the beast, not the company itself. Look what happened to D&D.

At least Wizards has shown they are trying to address concerns with D&D, With a public play test for next and a republishing of the old books.

There's no public news. It hasn't been sold.

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Dont think its real, but if it is, it can only be good news.

Why? Because GW has supposedly been producing crappy miniatures and overcharging their customers for them as well as treating them like crap? Have you ever considered what might happen if a big commercial company buys over GW? Worst case scenario, every boxed set becomes a snap-together pack and is now sold in Toys'R'Us pre-painted with rules to play them. That's what happens when you introduced too much commercialism, the hobby aspect is going to die.

I'm just sick of all the anti-GW sentiments - like any company they have their bad points, but it's saddening to see that sometimes people only look at their bad side.

They still make a bunch of money on the miniatures and with buying the company they would get the manufacturing capability's aswell. There's no reason that they would destroy a VERY profitable way of making money. And 40k is too dark for Toy's R Us shelves, and too expensive. It would be easier for them to make there own Space Wars brand. OR KEEP SELLING STAR WARS TOYS.

And its hard to look at GW's good side when its practically non-existent


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Enigwolf wrote:

SNIP

Read my post again, I never said that it excuses them from poor performance. If you think you can run the company better than they can, I welcome you to become a majority shareholder and show us how it's done.

SNIP

That's so dumb. Its like someone criticizing a movie or a game and you yelling MAKE A BETTER ONE THEN!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I honestly think that Wizards of the Coast would be the best thing that could possibly happen to WH40k.

I don't. WotC really has a horrible track record with anything other than Magic. Their business model is set up to drive cardboard crack, not support the well being of a line of plastic model kits that aren't expected to simply "phase out" after a two year product cycle.

I dont think "Horrible Track Record" is quite fair

They created 3rd ED D&D which most people love.

Then they made 4th ED which half HATE.

We'll see how they go with NEXT. At least they are having a BIG public play-test. Something that GW would never do

 Enigwolf wrote:

If PP gets to, let alone survives, the next two decades as a company, I promise you that you'll be spouting this exact same thing about them. You often hear old-timers (including myself) talking about how "GW used to be better", and if you look at the timeline, that's before they started carrying a dozen other different lines and expanding so rapidly as a company.

Where GW was around 2000, PP is about there now. PP has it's own set of problems, that I got to see with my own eyes, GW isn't alone in being the "bad guy". PP is already starting to get some hate, that I've observed, mostly about lack of availability of product and quality. They have production issues they just can't seem to fix, mostly due to their own inexperience.

What PP does well is make good rules and a good game, everything else there is a mess. Other than that they are already on their way to being the next "GW" for gamers to hate on.

EDIT:

I just remembered another difference between PP and GW. When people GW bash, GW staff mostly won't come to the rescue and post anything, Some PP staff will. What I noticed when I worked at PP was that some of the staff at PP have a type of "blind obedience" to the company and will defend it no matter what, even if they don't know many facts about the issue they will still defend PP.

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Dont think its real, but if it is, it can only be good news.

Why? Because GW has supposedly been producing crappy miniatures and overcharging their customers for them as well as treating them like crap? Have you ever considered what might happen if a big commercial company buys over GW? Worst case scenario, every boxed set becomes a snap-together pack and is now sold in Toys'R'Us pre-painted with rules to play them. That's what happens when you introduced too much commercialism, the hobby aspect is going to die.

God forbid the company lowers the bar to entry into the hobby! We'll just be swamped with budding young players who got into the game with the entry skill level kits... I dread the day when the hobby store across the world are filled with prepainted fully snap assembled armies just waiting for potential games instead of the relatively empty spaces most weeknights that are largely filled with partly assembled and unpainted but ideologically pure armies. /sarcasm

If a big commercial company buys out GW, we may get *some* of the kits you're talking about but those kits haven't replaced normal ones in the older model airplane business despite being out for over a decade. Why are you chicken littling that they'll somehow do that in the wargame model industry?

ChocolateGork wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 daedalus wrote:


Give them 15 years.

Sure, that does not make GW any better thou.

I'll give you that, but what you're hating is the nature of the beast, not the company itself. Look what happened to D&D.

At least Wizards has shown they are trying to address concerns with D&D, With a public play test for next and a republishing of the old books.

They had to do something at that point. The vast majority of their player base had been undermined by what said base had considered a superior product.

Edit: quoting is hard

 Frazzled wrote:
There's no public news. It hasn't been sold.

Well, sure it has, just not in the sense of the ongoing and quite silly internet rumor-fest. It is a listed company and was sold to the public years ago. I think you mean that there are no credible takeover rumors

 prplehippo wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

If PP gets to, let alone survives, the next two decades as a company, I promise you that you'll be spouting this exact same thing about them. You often hear old-timers (including myself) talking about how "GW used to be better", and if you look at the timeline, that's before they started carrying a dozen other different lines and expanding so rapidly as a company.

Where GW was around 2000, PP is about there now. PP has it's own set of problems, that I got to see with my own eyes, GW isn't alone in being the "bad guy". PP is already starting to get some hate, that I've observed, mostly about lack of availability of product and quality. They have production issues they just can't seem to fix, mostly due to their own inexperience.

What PP does well is make good rules and a good game, everything else there is a mess. Other than that they are already on their way to being the next "GW" for gamers to hate on.

EDIT:

I just remembered another difference between PP and GW. When people GW bash, GW staff mostly won't come to the rescue and post anything, Some PP staff will. What I noticed when I worked at PP was that some of the staff at PP have a type of "blind obedience" to the company and will defend it no matter what, even if they don't know many facts about the issue they will still defend PP.

You could argue that GW doesn't need their staff to come defend the indefensible, there are already plenty of people lining up to do that for them

And, I think while PP remains a privately owned company then it's impossible for them to earn anything like the scorn that GW receives, simply because so many of the latter's policies that grate are enacted solely for the benefit of shareholders.

Hi Pacific.
''And, I think while PP remains a privately owned company then it's impossible for them to earn anything like the scorn that GW receives, simply because so many of the latter's policies that grate are enacted solely for the benefit of Tom Kirby.''

There fixed that for you...

The one thing that really grouses me about discussions like these is when someone makes the argument, 'GW has to please its shareholders.'.

Actually the shareholders do nothing for the company and most if them could care less about GW other than getting a dividend check because the GW share is in a package with other shares of other companies, most shareholders never consciously bought GW stock it was just part of the mutual package.

GW needs to please its customers, that is where the money comes from. You can only get so far on selling shares unless you are running a ponzi scheme.

xraytango wrote:

GW needs to please its customers, that is where the money comes from. You can only get so far on selling shares unless you are running a ponzi scheme.

Yes. Just like Verizon, EA, BP, Citigroup, Facebook, and Comcast, some of which are actually the most hated companies in the world.. You can actually run a profitable business simply by making sure that you stay on the correct side of the "convenience of not switching vs customer dissatisfaction" line.

More importantly, you're absolutely right to a certain extent, but if GW's customers are so dissatisfied, who keeps buying their widgets? I suspect far more people here (including the 'angry' ones) than you'd think. They simply can't be sustainable from new customers alone.

 Pacific wrote:
And, I think while PP remains a privately owned company then it's impossible for them to earn anything like the scorn that GW receives, simply because so many of the latter's policies that grate are enacted solely for the benefit of Sherry and Matt Wilson.

Secondary fix.

IMHO it isn't that GW has to please it's shareholders, it's that there are a number of staff at GW that might not be right for GW in positions of authority. If GW just stuck to making good models and games the shareholders would naturally be pleased since they are selling product.

But it seems, at least to me, that GW's policies are being made by people who aren't familiar with the industry and are "ladder climbing suits" looking for something to pad their resume till they find something better and move on.

I think that was the one real advantage PP had when I worked there is that the company is still, to a degree, dominated by gamers. Not all of them are as competent as they should be, a few should definitely be removed, but they at least are trying to do what's best for the company by producing a good game because they love what they do rather than just seeing the job as a temporary position till they find something better.

That's what I see as missing from GW now, passion for "The Game".

 daedalus wrote:

xraytango wrote:

GW needs to please its customers, that is where the money comes from. You can only get so far on selling shares unless you are running a ponzi scheme.

Yes. Just like Verizon, EA, BP, Citigroup, Facebook, and Comcast, some of which are actually the most hated companies in the world.. You can actually run a profitable business simply by making sure that you stay on the correct side of the "convenience of not switching vs customer dissatisfaction" line.

More importantly, you're absolutely right to a certain extent, but if GW's customers are so dissatisfied, who keeps buying their widgets? I suspect far more people here (including the 'angry' ones) than you'd think. They simply can't be sustainable from new customers alone.

In case you have not been following their reports, their sales have been dropping increasingly. Their sales volume has declined, their increase in revenue is not congruent with their price increases, this ofcourse does not mean it is all gloom and doom for them, but to think they have been unaffected is naive.

xraytango wrote:The one thing that really grouses me about discussions like these is when someone makes the argument, 'GW has to please its shareholders.'.

Actually the shareholders do nothing for the company and most if them could care less about GW other than getting a dividend check because the GW share is in a package with other shares of other companies, most shareholders never consciously bought GW stock it was just part of the mutual package.

GW needs to please its customers, that is where the money comes from. You can only get so far on selling shares unless you are running a ponzi scheme.

Well, if every shareholder were to suddenly go out and sell their shares... The results wouldn't be very good for GW, let's put it that way. GW needs their shareholders, and the only real reliable way to keep them in a global economy that is still uncertain is to ensure that they still get dividend payouts. A company that has been having regular dividend payouts that suddenly stops will have a lot of explaining to do in their shareholder and fiscal reports.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

xraytango wrote:

GW needs to please its customers, that is where the money comes from. You can only get so far on selling shares unless you are running a ponzi scheme.

Yes. Just like Verizon, EA, BP, Citigroup, Facebook, and Comcast, some of which are actually the most hated companies in the world.. You can actually run a profitable business simply by making sure that you stay on the correct side of the "convenience of not switching vs customer dissatisfaction" line.

More importantly, you're absolutely right to a certain extent, but if GW's customers are so dissatisfied, who keeps buying their widgets? I suspect far more people here (including the 'angry' ones) than you'd think. They simply can't be sustainable from new customers alone.

In case you have not been following their reports, their sales have been dropping increasingly. Their sales volume has declined, their increase in revenue is not congruent with their price increases, this ofcourse does not mean it is all gloom and doom for them, but to think they have been unaffected is naive.

This decrease in sales is congruent with product lines that have been axed, or slowly been axed over time. This explains your disconnect between increase in revenue and price increases, of which is a terrible assumption to make because a change in price changes all the microeconomic factors, and that's just for one product, not to mention multiple products or product lines. This isn't some simple Business 101 comparison of single-widget income statements. Next.

 Enigwolf wrote:

xraytango wrote:The one thing that really grouses me about discussions like these is when someone makes the argument, 'GW has to please its shareholders.'.

Actually the shareholders do nothing for the company and most if them could care less about GW other than getting a dividend check because the GW share is in a package with other shares of other companies, most shareholders never consciously bought GW stock it was just part of the mutual package.

GW needs to please its customers, that is where the money comes from. You can only get so far on selling shares unless you are running a ponzi scheme.

Well, if every shareholder were to suddenly go out and sell their shares... The results wouldn't be very good for GW, let's put it that way. GW needs their shareholders, and the only real reliable way to keep them in a global economy that is still uncertain is to ensure that they still get dividend payouts. A company that has been having regular dividend payouts that suddenly stops will have a lot of explaining to do in their shareholder and fiscal reports.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

xraytango wrote:

GW needs to please its customers, that is where the money comes from. You can only get so far on selling shares unless you are running a ponzi scheme.

Yes. Just like Verizon, EA, BP, Citigroup, Facebook, and Comcast, some of which are actually the most hated companies in the world.. You can actually run a profitable business simply by making sure that you stay on the correct side of the "convenience of not switching vs customer dissatisfaction" line.

More importantly, you're absolutely right to a certain extent, but if GW's customers are so dissatisfied, who keeps buying their widgets? I suspect far more people here (including the 'angry' ones) than you'd think. They simply can't be sustainable from new customers alone.

In case you have not been following their reports, their sales have been dropping increasingly. Their sales volume has declined, their increase in revenue is not congruent with their price increases, this ofcourse does not mean it is all gloom and doom for them, but to think they have been unaffected is naive.

This decrease in sales is congruent with product lines that have been axed, or slowly been axed over time. This explains your disconnect between increase in revenue and price increases, of which is a terrible assumption to make because a change in price changes all the microeconomic factors, and that's just for one product, not to mention multiple products or product lines. This isn't some simple Business 101 comparison of single-widget income statements. Next.

So your explanation for flat revenue (give or take) over the last few years, in spite of regular price increases, is what exactly?

Especially where strong anecdotal evidence suggests that more money is being spent in GWs market sector than ever before?

To him, Epic being axed today explains volume decrease over the last 10+ years. Perfectly logical.

 prplehippo wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
And, I think while PP remains a privately owned company then it's impossible for them to earn anything like the scorn that GW receives, simply because so many of the latter's policies that grate are enacted solely for the benefit of Sherry and Matt Wilson.

Secondary fix.

IMHO it isn't that GW has to please it's shareholders, it's that there are a number of staff at GW that might not be right for GW in positions of authority. If GW just stuck to making good models and games the shareholders would naturally be pleased since they are selling product.

But it seems, at least to me, that GW's policies are being made by people who aren't familiar with the industry and are "ladder climbing suits" looking for something to pad their resume till they find something better and move on.
.

That's an interesting point, and funnily enough a quote you keep reading about Atari, describing that company just before it fell on it's arse (although I'm not suggesting that the same thing will necessarily happen to GW) - "a company run by suits on all levels".

We've heard it on several occasions from big names to leave the company; the sales department now dictates what path the company follows, what is and what isn't released. I've no doubt that there is still a core of extremely talented, enthusiastic and imaginative people working in design - but, their creativity is being filtered by the 'suits' as it were, and we are left with releases that are remarkably by-the-numbers and predictable. The odds of the next codex coming out without some kind of massive robot/vehicle are the same as seeing a BMW-Mini soft top being driven by anyone other than a 30-something woman with dyed blonde hair; simply unthinkable.

So yes you can call it a loss of 'passion', 'soul' or whatever - whether it's something that is inevitability of smaller companies growing large is open to question, but I don't think that many of us who have been around for a while would argue against such a change happening.

xxvaderxx wrote:
To him, Epic being axed today explains volume decrease over the last 10+ years. Perfectly logical.

I read it that way too, but I'm willing to offer the benefit of the doubt. He use words like microeconomic factors, so he must know what he's talking about...

xxvaderxx wrote:
To him, Epic being axed today explains volume decrease over the last 10+ years. Perfectly logical.

Talk to GW staffers and every single one of them will confirm that Epic sales have steadily been decreasing over the past decade as their community's focus shifted to 40k. Microeconomically speaking, there are five classic Scenarios of Operation under the Pure Competition market model for companies to operate in (based off of the Marginal Cost, Average Total Cost, Average Variable Cost, and Average Revenue/Marginal Revenue curves):

1. Operate at profit
2. Break-even
3. Minimize losses by remaining open
4. Operate with barely enough to cover variable costs
5. Operate below coverage of variable costs AKA shutdown.

GW's Epic range has seen a shift from Scenario 1 to Scenario 5 over the past decade. Once they go from 4 to 5, it's time to shut down. You as a customer only see stage 5 when they shut down if you don't look at their financials or talk to their staff. LoTR was another range that started at 1 with the release of the movies, dropped to 3, and then went back up to 1 with The Hobbit. This isn't even factoring in their other Specialist Games range (which, hey, look, Battlefleet: Gothic and Aeronautica are also being axed) or licensing revenues, the latter of which had boomed with the Dawn of War series primarily.

It's all about market economics. Indeed, perfectly logical.

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
To him, Epic being axed today explains volume decrease over the last 10+ years. Perfectly logical.

Talk to GW staffers and every single one of them will confirm that Epic sales have steadily been decreasing over the past decade as their community's focus shifted to 40k. Microeconomically speaking, there are five classic Scenarios of Operation under the Pure Competition market model for companies to operate in (based off of the Marginal Cost, Average Total Cost, Average Variable Cost, and Average Revenue/Marginal Revenue curves):

1. Operate at profit
2. Break-even
3. Minimize losses by remaining open
4. Operate with barely enough to cover variable costs
5. Operate below coverage of variable costs AKA shutdown.

GW's Epic range has seen a shift from Scenario 1 to Scenario 5 over the past decade. Once they go from 4 to 5, it's time to shut down. You as a customer only see stage 5 when they shut down if you don't look at their financials or talk to their staff. LoTR was another range that started at 1 with the release of the movies, dropped to 3, and then went back up to 1 with The Hobbit. This isn't even factoring in their other Specialist Games range (which, hey, look, Battlefleet: Gothic and Aeronautica are also being axed) or licensing revenues, the latter of which had boomed with the Dawn of War series primarily.

It's all about market economics. Indeed, perfectly logical.

But still doesn't explain why you think this accounts for flat revenue despite price rises in an apparently growing market?

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
To him, Epic being axed today explains volume decrease over the last 10+ years. Perfectly logical.

Talk to GW staffers and every single one of them will confirm that Epic sales have steadily been decreasing over the past decade as their community's focus shifted to 40k. Microeconomically speaking, there are five classic Scenarios of Operation under the Pure Competition market model for companies to operate in (based off of the Marginal Cost, Average Total Cost, Average Variable Cost, and Average Revenue/Marginal Revenue curves):

1. Operate at profit
2. Break-even
3. Minimize losses by remaining open
4. Operate with barely enough to cover variable costs
5. Operate below coverage of variable costs AKA shutdown.

GW's Epic range has seen a shift from Scenario 1 to Scenario 5 over the past decade. Once they go from 4 to 5, it's time to shut down. You as a customer only see stage 5 when they shut down if you don't look at their financials or talk to their staff. LoTR was another range that started at 1 with the release of the movies, dropped to 3, and then went back up to 1 with The Hobbit. This isn't even factoring in their other Specialist Games range (which, hey, look, Battlefleet: Gothic and Aeronautica are also being axed) or licensing revenues, the latter of which had boomed with the Dawn of War series primarily.

It's all about market economics. Indeed, perfectly logical.

But still doesn't explain why you think this accounts for flat revenue despite price rises in an apparently growing market?

When did I ever state that? You're putting words into my mouth.

 azreal13 wrote:

But still doesn't explain why you think this accounts for flat revenue despite price rises in an apparently growing market?

First thing that comes to mind: further market expansion requiring non-linear increases in investment.

I have nothing to show that this is true in this case.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
To him, Epic being axed today explains volume decrease over the last 10+ years. Perfectly logical.

Talk to GW staffers and every single one of them will confirm that Epic sales have steadily been decreasing over the past decade as their community's focus shifted to 40k. Microeconomically speaking, there are five classic Scenarios of Operation under the Pure Competition market model for companies to operate in (based off of the Marginal Cost, Average Total Cost, Average Variable Cost, and Average Revenue/Marginal Revenue curves):

1. Operate at profit
2. Break-even
3. Minimize losses by remaining open
4. Operate with barely enough to cover variable costs
5. Operate below coverage of variable costs AKA shutdown.

GW's Epic range has seen a shift from Scenario 1 to Scenario 5 over the past decade. Once they go from 4 to 5, it's time to shut down. You as a customer only see stage 5 when they shut down if you don't look at their financials or talk to their staff. LoTR was another range that started at 1 with the release of the movies, dropped to 3, and then went back up to 1 with The Hobbit. This isn't even factoring in their other Specialist Games range (which, hey, look, Battlefleet: Gothic and Aeronautica are also being axed) or licensing revenues, the latter of which had boomed with the Dawn of War series primarily.

It's all about market economics. Indeed, perfectly logical.

But still doesn't explain why you think this accounts for flat revenue despite price rises in an apparently growing market?

When did I ever state that? You're putting words into my mouth.

This decrease in sales is congruent with product lines that have been axed, or slowly been axed over time. This explains your disconnect between increase in revenue and price increases, of which is a terrible assumption to make because a change in price changes all the microeconomic factors, and that's just for one product, not to mention multiple products or product lines. This isn't some simple Business 101 comparison of single-widget income statements. Next.

So your explanation for flat revenue (give or take) over the last few years, in spite of regular price increases, is what exactly?

Especially where strong anecdotal evidence suggests that more money is being spent in GWs market sector than ever before?

No I'm not. I'm asking you to address the question I asked you.

 prplehippo wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
And, I think while PP remains a privately owned company then it's impossible for them to earn anything like the scorn that GW receives, simply because so many of the latter's policies that grate are enacted solely for the benefit of Sherry and Matt Wilson.

Secondary fix.

No it didn't fix it at all. Unless Matt Wilson owns GW now. We get it, you've got a bee in your bonnet about PP. But the above "fix" makes you look petty for no reason at all.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
To him, Epic being axed today explains volume decrease over the last 10+ years. Perfectly logical.

Talk to GW staffers and every single one of them will confirm that Epic sales have steadily been decreasing over the past decade as their community's focus shifted to 40k. Microeconomically speaking, there are five classic Scenarios of Operation under the Pure Competition market model for companies to operate in (based off of the Marginal Cost, Average Total Cost, Average Variable Cost, and Average Revenue/Marginal Revenue curves):

1. Operate at profit
2. Break-even
3. Minimize losses by remaining open
4. Operate with barely enough to cover variable costs
5. Operate below coverage of variable costs AKA shutdown.

GW's Epic range has seen a shift from Scenario 1 to Scenario 5 over the past decade. Once they go from 4 to 5, it's time to shut down. You as a customer only see stage 5 when they shut down if you don't look at their financials or talk to their staff. LoTR was another range that started at 1 with the release of the movies, dropped to 3, and then went back up to 1 with The Hobbit. This isn't even factoring in their other Specialist Games range (which, hey, look, Battlefleet: Gothic and Aeronautica are also being axed) or licensing revenues, the latter of which had boomed with the Dawn of War series primarily.

It's all about market economics. Indeed, perfectly logical.

But still doesn't explain why you think this accounts for flat revenue despite price rises in an apparently growing market?

When did I ever state that? You're putting words into my mouth.

This decrease in sales is congruent with product lines that have been axed, or slowly been axed over time. This explains your disconnect between increase in revenue and price increases, of which is a terrible assumption to make because a change in price changes all the microeconomic factors, and that's just for one product, not to mention multiple products or product lines. This isn't some simple Business 101 comparison of single-widget income statements. Next.

So your explanation for flat revenue (give or take) over the last few years, in spite of regular price increases, is what exactly?

Especially where strong anecdotal evidence suggests that more money is being spent in GWs market sector than ever before?

No I'm not. I'm asking you to address the question I asked you.

Frankly, I can't answer that question. GW's FTSE market sector is "Leisure Goods", subcategory "Toys". And we all know how generic that is. I'd like you to provide me with the data and reports on your "strong anecdotal evidence" if you're referring to a more specific market sector than that.

Furthermore, we can only speculate unless we work in GW's finance department, because there are too many factors in play (Of which I believe there are 8?). Translated, GW could be losing customers, costs could be further increasing (as they have been), etc.

 Grimtuff wrote:
No it didn't fix it at all. Unless Matt Wilson owns GW now. We get it, you've got a bee in your bonnet about PP. But the above "fix" makes you look petty for no reason at all.

PP is a privately owned company which is owned by those two who ultimately profit from it. They take actions to increase the companies profitability. Just like shareholders profit from the company they've invested in and want to take actions to increase it's profitability. The fact that GW is public and PP is private still doesn't change the fact that both are companies in business to make a product and profit from it.

But I've got it, your one of PP "White Knights" but trying to discredit anyone who criticizes them makes you look petty.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
To him, Epic being axed today explains volume decrease over the last 10+ years. Perfectly logical.

Talk to GW staffers and every single one of them will confirm that Epic sales have steadily been decreasing over the past decade as their community's focus shifted to 40k. Microeconomically speaking, there are five classic Scenarios of Operation under the Pure Competition market model for companies to operate in (based off of the Marginal Cost, Average Total Cost, Average Variable Cost, and Average Revenue/Marginal Revenue curves):

1. Operate at profit
2. Break-even
3. Minimize losses by remaining open
4. Operate with barely enough to cover variable costs
5. Operate below coverage of variable costs AKA shutdown.

GW's Epic range has seen a shift from Scenario 1 to Scenario 5 over the past decade. Once they go from 4 to 5, it's time to shut down. You as a customer only see stage 5 when they shut down if you don't look at their financials or talk to their staff. LoTR was another range that started at 1 with the release of the movies, dropped to 3, and then went back up to 1 with The Hobbit. This isn't even factoring in their other Specialist Games range (which, hey, look, Battlefleet: Gothic and Aeronautica are also being axed) or licensing revenues, the latter of which had boomed with the Dawn of War series primarily.

It's all about market economics. Indeed, perfectly logical.

But still doesn't explain why you think this accounts for flat revenue despite price rises in an apparently growing market?

When did I ever state that? You're putting words into my mouth.

This decrease in sales is congruent with product lines that have been axed, or slowly been axed over time. This explains your disconnect between increase in revenue and price increases, of which is a terrible assumption to make because a change in price changes all the microeconomic factors, and that's just for one product, not to mention multiple products or product lines. This isn't some simple Business 101 comparison of single-widget income statements. Next.

So your explanation for flat revenue (give or take) over the last few years, in spite of regular price increases, is what exactly?

Especially where strong anecdotal evidence suggests that more money is being spent in GWs market sector than ever before?

No I'm not. I'm asking you to address the question I asked you.

Frankly, I can't answer that question. GW's FTSE market sector is "Leisure Goods", subcategory "Toys". And we all know how generic that is. I'd like you to provide me with the data and reports on your "strong anecdotal evidence" if you're referring to a more specific market sector than that.

Furthermore, we can only speculate unless we work in GW's finance department, because there are too many factors in play (Of which I believe there are 8?). Translated, GW could be losing customers, costs could be further increasing (as they have been), etc.

Well, FTSE classification isn't really relevant, I'm talking about the market as in the specific niche that GW operate in and those companies that compete directly with them, as outlined here...

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/25373.html

Also, you say "we can only speculate" about GW financials, yet your post that drew my initial response was, lets face it, a very high handed and dismissive response to another poster in itself. If we can "only speculate" how are you so confident that you are right and they were wrong? Or are you in possession of more detailed info, and in which case would you mind sharing with the class?

 prplehippo wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
No it didn't fix it at all. Unless Matt Wilson owns GW now. We get it, you've got a bee in your bonnet about PP. But the above "fix" makes you look petty for no reason at all.

PP is a privately owned company which is owned by those two who ultimately profit from it. They take actions to increase the companies profitability. Just like shareholders profit from the company they've invested in and want to take actions to increase it's profitability. The fact that GW is public and PP is private still doesn't change the fact that both are companies in business to make a product and profit from it.

But I've got it, your one of PP "White Knights" but trying to discredit anyone who criticizes them makes you look petty.

Look at the whole sentence.
Look at what you "fixed".
Look how said sentence is wrong.
Look at how YOU'RE (yes, this is the correct one in this context. Get it right) coming across as "hurr durr PP is just as the evuls as GW" even though the companies could not be more different.

So, once again, to make you understand your own sentence. Unless Matt Wilson is now the owner of Games Workshop, your sentence makes zero sense and just comes across as a petty attack on a former employer who obviously pissed in your cheerios.

@grimtuff

My statement is perfectly reasonable.

Quit being a pedantic ass.

 Grimtuff wrote:

So, once again, to make you understand your own sentence. Unless Matt Wilson is now the owner of Games Workshop, your sentence makes zero sense and just comes across as a petty attack on a former employer who obviously pissed in your cheerios.

I fear that your first sentence in the above quoted portion of your post is a loose prepositional phrase.

Just sayin' yo.

 Enigwolf wrote:
If PP gets to, let alone survives, the next two decades as a company, I promise you that you'll be spouting this exact same thing about them.

If companies turning assholish is an inevitable progression over time, then the solution is equally simple. In that case, we can always jump down to whatever the contemporary equivalent of PP-now is. Support the little guy, and when they become a big guy, abandon them and find another little guy to support.

xxvaderxx wrote:

They brought it on their own, if they were worthy of more, you would not come across this that often. PP does not have this PR issues, and i dont even play their games, so no i dont like them better.

PP also doesn't have anywhere near the customer base GW. More customers means more people that will go online and complain about something.

Personally, GW as a company hasn't done me wrong. Yes they charge a premium, but they've ALWAYS charged a premium, ever since I got into the hobby back in the late 80s. Hobby related items of good quality are always expensive. Try buying a good RC car or plane, expensive as hades, especially the planes. Anybody that has dealt with GW's customer service knows they stand behind their product like few other companies will.

All the dreamers that thing some magic price drop will happen if GW gets bought out are out of their minds. If anything, the buyer will expect the high sales rate to continue after the new codex releases have dried up, and that just means even more price hikes. The problem is, it won't be a Hasbro that buys them out, it'll be some investment group that is going to look at maximizing profits but downgrade overhead. That's never a good thing.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
To him, Epic being axed today explains volume decrease over the last 10+ years. Perfectly logical.

Talk to GW staffers and every single one of them will confirm that Epic sales have steadily been decreasing over the past decade as their community's focus shifted to 40k. Microeconomically speaking, there are five classic Scenarios of Operation under the Pure Competition market model for companies to operate in (based off of the Marginal Cost, Average Total Cost, Average Variable Cost, and Average Revenue/Marginal Revenue curves):

1. Operate at profit
2. Break-even
3. Minimize losses by remaining open
4. Operate with barely enough to cover variable costs
5. Operate below coverage of variable costs AKA shutdown.

GW's Epic range has seen a shift from Scenario 1 to Scenario 5 over the past decade. Once they go from 4 to 5, it's time to shut down. You as a customer only see stage 5 when they shut down if you don't look at their financials or talk to their staff. LoTR was another range that started at 1 with the release of the movies, dropped to 3, and then went back up to 1 with The Hobbit. This isn't even factoring in their other Specialist Games range (which, hey, look, Battlefleet: Gothic and Aeronautica are also being axed) or licensing revenues, the latter of which had boomed with the Dawn of War series primarily.

It's all about market economics. Indeed, perfectly logical.

But still doesn't explain why you think this accounts for flat revenue despite price rises in an apparently growing market?

When did I ever state that? You're putting words into my mouth.

This decrease in sales is congruent with product lines that have been axed, or slowly been axed over time. This explains your disconnect between increase in revenue and price increases, of which is a terrible assumption to make because a change in price changes all the microeconomic factors, and that's just for one product, not to mention multiple products or product lines. This isn't some simple Business 101 comparison of single-widget income statements. Next.

So your explanation for flat revenue (give or take) over the last few years, in spite of regular price increases, is what exactly?

Especially where strong anecdotal evidence suggests that more money is being spent in GWs market sector than ever before?

No I'm not. I'm asking you to address the question I asked you.

Frankly, I can't answer that question. GW's FTSE market sector is "Leisure Goods", subcategory "Toys". And we all know how generic that is. I'd like you to provide me with the data and reports on your "strong anecdotal evidence" if you're referring to a more specific market sector than that.

Furthermore, we can only speculate unless we work in GW's finance department, because there are too many factors in play (Of which I believe there are 8?). Translated, GW could be losing customers, costs could be further increasing (as they have been), etc.

Well, FTSE classification isn't really relevant, I'm talking about the market as in the specific niche that GW operate in and those companies that compete directly with them, as outlined here...

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/25373.html

Also, you say "we can only speculate" about GW financials, yet your post that drew my initial response was, lets face it, a very high handed and dismissive response to another poster in itself. If we can "only speculate" how are you so confident that you are right and they were wrong? Or are you in possession of more detailed info, and in which case would you mind sharing with the class?

FTSE classification is important because companies like ICv2 use it for their data for sales, revenues, growth, etc. Privately-held companies do not release financial reports that public-held companies do. The article you linked also includes TCGs and other card/board games. Also, it's important to note that the global economy is still recovering from the 2008 economic downturn, and as we bounce back, the market for Leisure Goods and Luxury Goods will correspondingly increase according to their company's beta-value for volativity. Furthermore, if you scroll down that page and click-through to non-collectible miniature games, Warhammer 40k lists as the top in top 5, but there is also this statement:

This chart of the Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Lines (hobby channel) reflects sales in Fall 2012. The charts are based on interviews with retailers, distributors, and manufacturers.

There is no statistical data to back this up.

As with all market economics, we can only speculate. That is the nature of business. My dismissive tone was due to the fact that I was replying to someone who, historically on Dakkadakka, has been very anti-GW without any proof to back it up. Check all of his posting history. I never stated to have an explanation, I merely disproved his ill-supported claim because it was looking at the problem in a void and did not consider nor take into context external factors. That is not an argument about his results nor conclusions, that is an argument against his method. As it was flawed, his results would have to be assumed to be flawed too.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

All the dreamers that thing some magic price drop will happen if GW gets bought out are out of their minds. If anything, the buyer will expect the high sales rate to continue after the new codex releases have dried up, and that just means even more price hikes. The problem is, it won't be a Hasbro that buys them out, it'll be some investment group that is going to look at maximizing profits but downgrade overhead. That's never a good thing.

Indeed....there are many tales of companies which went downhill once investors took over, thinking they'd profit because they were 'experts', without understanding the business they were at all.

Look at what happened to Rackham.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

All the dreamers that thing some magic price drop will happen if GW gets bought out are out of their minds. If anything, the buyer will expect the high sales rate to continue after the new codex releases have dried up, and that just means even more price hikes. The problem is, it won't be a Hasbro that buys them out, it'll be some investment group that is going to look at maximizing profits but downgrade overhead. That's never a good thing.

But here's the thing. As has been stated numerous times in countless threads, GW's revenue is flat and has been for years. This tells us one of two things: either less customers are buying the same amount of product or the same amount of customers are there but less product is being shifted.

It is quite simple. IF Mr T Kirby will make a lot more money out of the sale ,than he will if It keeps under the same owner ship.(After the current legal case ends,) then GW plc will be sold.

When the C.E.O /Chairman runs the company for HIS personal benefit, it can all go a bit pear shaped .

Lanrak wrote:
It is quite simple. IF Mr T Kirby will make a lot more money out of the sale ,than he will if It keeps under the same owner ship.(After the current legal case ends,) then GW plc will be sold.

When the C.E.O /Chairman runs the company for HIS personal benefit, it can all go a bit pear shaped .

I'm not sure how you think Tom Kirby can influence share sales, besides the 6% or so that he owns and could potentially sell. He doesn't run all those investment groups that actually own GW.

 Enigwolf wrote:

FTSE classification is important because companies like ICv2 use it for their data for sales, revenues, growth, etc. Privately-held companies do not release financial reports that public-held companies do. The article you linked also includes TCGs and other card/board games. Also, it's important to note that the global economy is still recovering from the 2008 economic downturn, and as we bounce back, the market for Leisure Goods and Luxury Goods will correspondingly increase according to their company's beta-value for volativity. Furthermore, if you scroll down that page and click-through to non-collectible miniature games, Warhammer 40k lists as the top in top 5, but there is also this statement:

This chart of the Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Lines (hobby channel) reflects sales in Fall 2012. The charts are based on interviews with retailers, distributors, and manufacturers.

There is no statistical data to back this up.

Which is why I cited it as strong anecdotal evidence! I grant that there's no numbers, but I would be interested if you could suggest an argument that the store holders don't know what's selling or how they're doing year on year? This is also interesting as, regardless of FTSE classifications, these stores are the ones that hold GW product on the shelf cheek by jowl with other products which, broadly speaking, appeal to a similar consumer, ie many tabletop gamers will play, or have played CCGs or vice versa. So if people are still willing to spend on these other products, but GWs income is static despite price rises and an increase in spending on products of a similar nature, that is an interesting debating point at best, pretty scary for GW at worst.

As with all market economics, we can only speculate. That is the nature of business. My dismissive tone was due to the fact that I was replying to someone who, historically on Dakkadakka, has been very anti-GW without any proof to back it up. Check all of his posting history. I never stated to have an explanation, I merely disproved his ill-supported claim because it was looking at the problem in a void and did not consider nor take into context external factors. That is not an argument about his results nor conclusions, that is an argument against his method. As it was flawed, his results would have to be assumed to be flawed too.

Fair enough, hopefully our discussion has shown that there may be a kernel of truth to his accusations, if by no means cut and dried.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

FTSE classification is important because companies like ICv2 use it for their data for sales, revenues, growth, etc. Privately-held companies do not release financial reports that public-held companies do. The article you linked also includes TCGs and other card/board games. Also, it's important to note that the global economy is still recovering from the 2008 economic downturn, and as we bounce back, the market for Leisure Goods and Luxury Goods will correspondingly increase according to their company's beta-value for volativity. Furthermore, if you scroll down that page and click-through to non-collectible miniature games, Warhammer 40k lists as the top in top 5, but there is also this statement:

This chart of the Top 5 Non-Collectible Miniature Lines (hobby channel) reflects sales in Fall 2012. The charts are based on interviews with retailers, distributors, and manufacturers.

There is no statistical data to back this up.

Which is why I cited it as strong anecdotal evidence! I grant that there's no numbers, but I would be interested if you could suggest an argument that the store holders don't know what's selling or how they're doing year on year? This is also interesting as, regardless of FTSE classifications, these stores are the ones that hold GW product on the shelf cheek by jowl with other products which, broadly speaking, appeal to a similar consumer, ie many tabletop gamers will play, or have played CCGs or vice versa. So if people are still willing to spend on these other products, but GWs income is static despite price rises and an increase in spending on products of a similar nature, that is an interesting debating point at best, pretty scary for GW at worst.

I see no flaw with this, as long as we're acknowledging it as anecdotal evidence, in which case I would wholeheartedly agree with you. You asked earlier for my opinions, and after giving it a day of thought, my personal postulation is that GW's costs are increasing on one hand, and that their playerbase is slowly seeping out from them. This goes hand-in-hand with their recent (last decade) change in business strategy where they are looking to cycle through new players rather than pay heed to their committed veterans. As a result, they compete for the former with their competitors, and simultaneously lose the latter to their competitors. However, it does seem to appear that they are aware of this, and have been for a long time (if anyone at GW doesn't know of all the hate that is directed to them, they're living under a rock). Whether they can do anything about it or not is a different story. We have seen a better release schedule now, what with new casts being released with the 'dex release, for example, and better-balanced 'dexes, as well as faster FAQ updates. I used to drink the GW haterade, but I'm of the opinion that we should give GW a few years for the bullwhip effect to kick in and their actions now to be realized then. And that's what I'm trying to convince people - give GW some hope and some time, and we may well be pleasantly surprised. They may not listen to us as their customers, but they will sure well listen to competition and the flow of money, and that may be all it takes for GW to get back on its feet.

As with all market economics, we can only speculate. That is the nature of business. My dismissive tone was due to the fact that I was replying to someone who, historically on Dakkadakka, has been very anti-GW without any proof to back it up. Check all of his posting history. I never stated to have an explanation, I merely disproved his ill-supported claim because it was looking at the problem in a void and did not consider nor take into context external factors. That is not an argument about his results nor conclusions, that is an argument against his method. As it was flawed, his results would have to be assumed to be flawed too.

Fair enough, hopefully our discussion has shown that there may be a kernel of truth to his accusations, if by no means cut and dried.

There may be a kernel of truth, as we have discussed, it cannot be attributed to one factor and only one factor alone, which was what he was insinuating. What I was trying to prove was that that was not the case.

Well Apocalypse 40l seems to think that the sale has happened.
http://apocalypse40k.blogspot.com/2013/06/games-workshop-change-of-control-coming.html

And I think he is right.
Per GW's shareholder statistics page:
http://investor.games-workshop.com/shareholder-statistics/
Putting the hard numbers here in case they change.
Shareholder-------------------------------------------Number of shares------Percentage
The Nomad Investment Partnership LP-------4,999,141----------------15.7
Investec Asset Management Limited-----------3,087,765-----------------9.7
Ruffer LLP----------------------------------------------2,492,260-----------------7.8
Tom Kirby-----------------------------------------------2,131,394-----------------6.7
Phoenix Asset Management Partners Limited---1,865,218-------------5.9
FIL Limited---------------------------------------------1,753,900-----------------5.5
Artemis Investment Management LLP---------1,620,001-----------------5.1

However, per one of the comments on the Apocalypse 40k post, pointed to the Morningstar.com statistics:
http://investors.morningstar.com/ownership/shareholders-overview.html?t=GAW®ion=GBR&culture=en-us

The largest institutional shareholder is listed as Investec at only 5.01%. Nomad, Ruffer, Phoenix, and Artemis are not listed. Taking the shares that have disappeared and Kirby's into account, that is nearly 45% of GW shares. Looking at several of GW's shareholder change announcements, there can be a delay due to the weekend. We may discover in several hours GW is under new ownership.

Only flaw in this logic I will point out, the dates on the Morningstar.com are not all recent. It may be they don't list companies that have owned the stock for more than 2 years.

Just because the shares are changing hands doesn't mean it has to be another company (Hasbro etc) taking over does it? Can't it just mean that the shares are changing hands, not necessarily that the new majority holders are intending to make changes and what not?

At current value, in order to buy up all the stock it would cost in the neighborhood of 300 million dollars to buy GW. Based on GW's current earnings it is going to take decades to pay off the loan needed to buy GW.

If someone buys GW I think it will be rather astonishing. None of the things people keep yakking about that are supposedly preparing GW to be sold are in the vicinity of the financial stratosphere of cash needed to buy GW or make GW "look good" to some prospective buyer.

JWhex wrote:
At current value, in order to buy up all the stock it would cost in the neighborhood of 300 million dollars to buy GW. Based on GW's current earnings it is going to take decades to pay off the loan needed to buy GW.

If someone buys GW I think it will be rather astonishing. None of the things people keep yakking about that are supposedly preparing GW to be sold are in the vicinity of the financial stratosphere of cash needed to buy GW or make GW "look good" to some prospective buyer.

Correct. When it comes to large companies such as GW, buyouts typically happen over time with quantities of shares being purchased over time and ending with a take-over. The indication in the previous (skim-read) blog post is that the shares have been changing hands in large quantities. You don't usually see this happen unless it's a company like Google buying someone out.

They don't actually have to buy all the shares. They can buy a controlling interest (or simply lobby those votes to vote for a merger) and then issue their own stock to replace GW stock. So if Hasbro did want to buy out GW, many shareholders would find their GW shares replaced by Hasbro ones.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just wanted to also add that the sale of GW would be a fine feather in the cap of Tom Kirby. A last accomplishment in his fine career of making tons of money from what was thought to be a niche hobby. He's nearing retirement age and successfully negotiating the sale or merger of GW would be an excellent way to begin retirement-- and likely with even more money than he already has. Perhaps with a fat wad of Hasbro shares that kick off dividends more consistently than GW does (GW has cut their dividend in the past while Hasbro has been rock solid with theirs).

silent25 wrote:

The largest institutional shareholder is listed as Investec at only 5.01%. Nomad, Ruffer, Phoenix, and Artemis are not listed. Taking the shares that have disappeared and Kirby's into account, that is nearly 45% of GW shares. Looking at several of GW's shareholder change announcements, there can be a delay due to the weekend. We may discover in several hours GW is under new ownership.

Such a massive change in stock ownership and voting rights should be immediately notified: if you look at GW's investor relationship page, there are two such notifications over last month, both which seem rather mundane.

In other words, no such ownership change has taken place yet.

Backfire wrote:

silent25 wrote:

The largest institutional shareholder is listed as Investec at only 5.01%. Nomad, Ruffer, Phoenix, and Artemis are not listed. Taking the shares that have disappeared and Kirby's into account, that is nearly 45% of GW shares. Looking at several of GW's shareholder change announcements, there can be a delay due to the weekend. We may discover in several hours GW is under new ownership.

Such a massive change in stock ownership and voting rights should be immediately notified: if you look at GW's investor relationship page, there are two such notifications over last month, both which seem rather mundane.

In other words, no such ownership change has taken place yet.

The only explanation I can come up with is the shares traded hands on Friday. Based off previous declarations, transactions on Friday can be reported on Monday. Hence my comment of when markets open up in several hours.

Again, take this with some salt.

Concerning the shares, this have been the changes this year so far:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210/528503.page#5664661

Kroothawk wrote:I would also like to point at this thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/519620.page

In March this year, within one week of CEO Mark Wells stepping down, large investors massively sold GW stock, while a few bought it:
The Nomad Investment Partnership LP 16.2% (- 645,859 shares, January 18.7%)
Investec Asset Management Ltd 9.7% (- 2,612,235 shares, January 18.3%)
Ruffer LLP 8.1% (+ 1,757,260 shares, January 2.5%)
Tom Kirby 6.7% (same)
Phoenix Asset Management Partners Ltd. 5.9% (- 1,034,782 shares, January 9.3%)
FIL Limited 5.5% (+ 953,900 shares, January 2.5%)

(Sold 4,292,876 , bought 2,711,160)

This is going on in May:
The Nomad Investment Partnership L.P. selling another 105,000 shares (9th may)
Ruffer LLP selling again 75,000 shares (17th may)
although in April:
Artemis Investment Management LLP bought 50,001shares.

The morningstar numbers seem totally off, not even listing the registered changes.

Just out of curiosity, but what is the possibility that a couple of those investment companies might merge?

I know it happens, but not how common it is.

If two of them merged it makes sense that the new entity would own more shares, but when would that have to be declared?

I was just thinking if someone wanted to take over GW, or any other company for that matter, without them knowing it was a takeover one way would be to take over the companies that hold the "money" as it were.

Pretty far fetched but I wouldn't doubt this happens, especially with a small-ish company like GW.

Buying controlling interest is not out of the real of possibility, those not listed (each owning under 3% of the shares) make up nearly 50% of the total shares, so there is always the possibility a company addressed that first and then approached one of the larger shareholders to complete controlling interest.

Having said that, i doubt they would not announce it and bask on it. So to me it is not impossible but highly unlikely.

They have to be officially listed when they pass certain thresholds though, a.o. 9% and 18% IIRC.

 Kroothawk wrote:
They have to be officially listed when they pass certain thresholds though, a.o. 9% and 18% IIRC.

I am sure they can find ways around it.

Well London markets have been open for a while now and no posting of change in controlling or ownership of stocks changing hands on GW's page. If anything is happening, it is still in the works.

The morningstar numbers are likely bunk as Kroot pointed out with his numbers. Though whoever may be buying them out is likely getting the major holders buy-in so that when they announce it, there are no hiccups.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
They have to be officially listed when they pass certain thresholds though, a.o. 9% and 18% IIRC.

I am sure they can find ways around it.

Why would anyone bother? What anyone could possibly win there? If someone really is interested in buying out GW, why not be honest & upfront about it?

Something to remember is that talks can happen and arrangements can be made and negotiations can occur and deals can be agreed on without them having to announce a damn thing.

They only have to announce it and tell everyone once paperwork has actually been signed.

Backfire wrote:
Why would anyone bother? What anyone could possibly win there? If someone really is interested in buying out GW, why not be honest & upfront about it?

No, the real question is why would anyone want to announce it openly. If you're pursuing a deal to take over a company I would imagine the default would be to keep everything as secret as possible until you have a final deal. Less embarrassment if the deal doesn't work out, less chance of your competition interfering, etc.

 Micky wrote:
Something to remember is that talks can happen and arrangements can be made and negotiations can occur and deals can be agreed on without them having to announce a damn thing.

They only have to announce it and tell everyone once paperwork has actually been signed.

Last I checked the non-PE shareholders were, combined, holding a greater percentage of shares than the PE groups were. The non-PE shareholders would've heard something by now if they had tried to reach out to them, and we would've heard something on the forums. Even if they make deals with the PE groups (which is the easiest way to go) they still don't have majority control.