Looted wagons were pulled from the codex because of the CHS case (no models). The WD rules were a bandaid for vet players who owned their own converted models.
Scions are in the Guard codex.
And I don't really feel his example works because Codex Assassins was not a supplement to add them back into the Inq book like he claimed. It took them from the Inq and gave them to ALL the armies. Also if you're feeling silly you can run something like a 15 Vindicare list at 1500pts.
Torga_DW wrote: I think it's more likely that they know *something* is wrong, and they'd like to fix it (without changing what they do).
They're very clear in the report about this under the prospects section:
GW Report wrote: For this reason, the principal risks and uncertainties for the balance of the year lie in the ability of the sales channel managers to deliver sales growth and for the product and supply chain to maintain gross margin.
As discussed in the 2014 annual report, for Games Workshop to continue to be successful we need motivated, hard-working managers in all parts of the business who understand Games Workshop’s niche business model, are aligned with its values and are committed to getting things done. The biggest risk for Games Workshop is that we don’t have enough of these managers to continue to grow the business globally.
This risk has been mitigated by recruiting people who fit with our culture, helping them to develop and to fulfil their potential and training them with the skills we need. During the six months to 30 November 2014, we closed a net four stores (12 opened and 16 closed). We need to improve the rate of recruitment of competent new store managers on a consistent basis.
Emphasis mine.
They think that what is wrong is that the managers aren't hitting their sales targets and sales channel managers aren't delivering that growth they want. They want the product and supply chain to hit its margins, so that means cutting costs and raising prices to protect the margins. I'd also expect sales targets for store managers and trade sales reps to be increased and staff turn over to increase as they fail to meet them.
I don't think they'll ever admit that there might be an issue with the product, their pricing model or their policies. Not when there's incompetent store managers and sales channel managers to blame.
I admire your optimism Zion, but frankly what you're saying speaks to a level of wishful thinking rather than looking at the facts of who's running GW and the recent trends with their business practices. They're not acknowledging and fixing problems, they're putting fingers in the damn whilst proclaiming, as my sig always says, that everything is fine and that nothing is broken.
When you solution to flat/falling sales and stores not making targets is "raise prices/fire managers", leading to worse sales and even more missed targets, then you have a systemic problem.
H.B.M.C. wrote: How can licensing cost them more than it takes in, especially given GW's rather "hands-off" approach?
People sitting in chairs...
I'm not trying to be a dick, but can you explain that a little further? As someone who works quite often with one of the companies using the GW IP, I am genuinley interested in what this means.
Alpharius wrote: The People In Charge of the department (IP?) costing more than the department makes?
If so, that's daft. That's like a gold mine costing more to run than the gold it extracts*.
*This could be a terrible analogy. I know next to nothing about gold mines other than glum sounding peasants use them to help me build human footmen and seemingly sentient catapults.
Clockworkziion, I think some of GW's actions can actually be attributed to malice. They've shown malice before in the past so it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that they continue to do so.
And where's RunicFin's super secret evidence that proves GW isn't actually in a decline? He said he'd PM it to Musashi.
Kanluwen wrote: It could be that they were expecting to have actually made money from some of the licensed video games and the like.
In which case it is once again a problem of their own creation. Want to make money off video games? Find a developer worth a damn and a publisher willing to publish it. Do not hand out the license to every two-bit mobile shovelware creator from here 'til the end of the earth.
MWHistorian wrote: And where's RunicFin's super secret evidence that proves GW isn't actually in a decline? He said he'd PM it to Musashi.
The IP team making a loss sounds unlikely, but is perfectly plausible.
IP licences are contracts, so GW will need some legal heads in order to draw them up etc, now, despite the fact that law students seem more common than cockroaches, solicitors still aren't cheap. Plus you'll need some admin staff, GW is a medium-sized organisation so almost definitely there'll be some essentially irrelevant middle managers in the dept trying desperately to justify their salary by fiddling with things that don't need changing, plus all the associated tech, furniture etc, etc.
It doesn't take a huge leap for the combined salary and capital investment of the department to be higher than the income it generates. Especially if they anticipated an uptick in income from the dept and invested in expanding it, only for things to fall through.
Azreal13 wrote: The IP team making a loss sounds unlikely, but is perfectly plausible.
Well, in the last half year report they made £700,000 and £1,400,000 in the year before that.
So how likely is it that the total cost of salaries, offices, supplies, travel to meetings, legal fees, etc., are high enough for the department to not make money? I honestly have no idea how many people they have in that department. There would be a contract/legal person, a manager, admin staff, sales people who negotiate deals and sell people on the idea of using 40k or WFB for their project. People who review and sign off on what their licensees create. I'm sure I'm missing a few more.
It's also possible that through the magic of inter-departmental billing, part of the cost of the chapter house case got foisted onto them because the protection of their properties might be part of that department's role in the company. "We protecting 40k trademarks in court so you can license them out, so your department gets to pay for part of it!" That sort of thing.
Alpharius wrote: The People In Charge of the department (IP?) costing more than the department makes?
If so, that's daft. That's like a gold mine costing more to run than the gold it extracts*.
*This could be a terrible analogy. I know next to nothing about gold mines other than glum sounding peasants use them to help me build human footmen and seemingly sentient catapults.
That's actually not a bad analogy. There's a former mining town in the deserts of California that has a large rock with something like $5,000,000 worth of silver in it. The reason the rock hadn't been crushed into powder at the time I heard the story was it would cost $7,000,000 to get all the silver out (numbers may be off somewhat- I heard about it 20 years ago).
Azreal13 wrote: The IP team making a loss sounds unlikely, but is perfectly plausible.
IP licences are contracts, so GW will need some legal heads in order to draw them up etc, now, despite the fact that law students seem more common than cockroaches, solicitors still aren't cheap. Plus you'll need some admin staff, GW is a medium-sized organisation so almost definitely there'll be some essentially irrelevant middle managers in the dept trying desperately to justify their salary by fiddling with things that don't need changing, plus all the associated tech, furniture etc, etc.
It doesn't take a huge leap for the combined salary and capital investment of the department to be higher than the income it generates. Especially if they anticipated an uptick in income from the dept and invested in expanding it, only for things to fall through.
Pretty much. Most of GW's internal legal falls under the Licensing department. They handle both outside licensing (to shovelware companies and to respectable companies like FFG) as well as inside licensing (LotR). You have a pretty good sized staff who are largely higher up on the internal corporate ladder, with a combined salary and benefits of around £2.5 million. When you add in peripheral costs (office supplies, equipment, communications, outside legal...pretty sure it doesn't include litigation, just a US expert for a contract dealing with a US company for example...) the total budget is just shy of £3 million. When they were getting £2.75-3 million a year from THQ (and a bit more from some others), it was a pretty good return...no one really noticed. Now, not so much.
They still are operating under the premise that they have a £3 million plus property to license out. Unfortunately for them, no one has stepped forward wanting to pay that. Most those who picked the bones of THQ have not shown any interest, and just before that went to pot - they had increased the department size counting on the IP becoming more valuable with the Dark Millenium MMO, a couple of possible Space Marine Sequels and as I understand it, the next Dawn of War installment. 3 years later...bunch of people twiddling their thumbs, surfing Dice and Monster looking for their new jobs instead of shopping around the IP to companies who can actually pay a decent amount.
Not sure if they have canned enough of them to get back in the black though. I would be surprised if they have - that isn't the way GW does things. If anything, they probably expanded the department even more...since it is obvious that the only reason no one is buying is because they don't have enough people selling it.
Why do I think the solution to the "problem" with the managers will be GW firing any manger than isn't short term sales oriented. Customer Lifetime Value, bah!
MWHistorian wrote: And where's RunicFin's super secret evidence that proves GW isn't actually in a decline? He said he'd PM it to Musashi.
Kanluwen wrote: It could be that they were expecting to have actually made money from some of the licensed video games and the like.
In which case it is once again a problem of their own creation. Want to make money off video games? Find a developer worth a damn and a publisher willing to publish it. Do not hand out the license to every two-bit mobile shovelware creator from here 'til the end of the earth.
As it was described to me, their licensing department works a bit like so:
You have the people who are working on the Tolkien license. They deal with the movie studio and the inside studio to make sure what they make passes the approval of the movie studio. They have there own management team, and contract specialist who have been working it for over 10 years now.
You have a group who try to sell the IP. These are the ones who are attempting to resuscitate the IP in a AAA video game title for the most part, though as I understand it, there is at least one who is trying to sell a movie...with an actual budget...
The bulk of it are types who receive people who come calling though. Mostly shovelware, the occasional serious video game developer - though no one with a real budget and publisher to back it up with (that I have heard of at least).
Over them all, you have a pretty good stack of management types and IP specialists. These are the ones who sign off on content to make sure it fits the grand vision.
Top of that heap is Jones, who has his own lackeys. Above him (outside the department though) is Merret. And finally Kirby.
The people who are trying to sell, are not familiar with the process of selling an IP. Most of them are, from what I have gathered, promoted from within with no real experience dealing with those sorts of things or regular off the street sales people. It is a bit of a different process to sell a studio on dropping 7 figures on your idea to develop a product than it is to sell a super market to carry your brand of paper towel... The Tolkien team is probably best placed to actually do the job, but they are also most likely to get canned and or leave right now.
MWHistorian wrote: Clockworkziion, I think some of GW's actions can actually be attributed to malice. They've shown malice before in the past so it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that they continue to do so.
Well that's the first time someone has mispelt my name.
I know I'm more optimistic than some of the rest of the people here, and I freely admit that. I guess it's because I've seen enough stuff that's starting to move in a positive direction to go "I'm willing to see if they're pulling their head out of their ass finally" and am waiting to see what the next move is. I'm not going to claim they're perfect (maybe when they bribe me with plastic Sisters but not until then), but at the same time I don't see them as a malicous entity where everyone involved is just running the company into the ground. Honestly I'm not even sure that Kirby is. Are they making a lot of decisions I don't agree with? Sure. But at the same time that doesn't mean it's a sinking ship either. We've come out of a recession with more wargames than we went in with and with a wide range of variety. And that's great for the player, but a lot less great for GW since they're going to lose market share as new things catch player's attention.
As for the financial statement, I can't really say if they truly believe it or not. Maybe there is something internally that shows that they need more competent sales people who can help sell the game better than they have. But at the same time I really just don't buy the idea that they're 100% ignorant of what's going on. I won't claim that there is a greater plan going on we just can't fathom or anything, but I just feel that there is probably more going on behind the scenes that we're giving credit for right now.
Either way rumors of Sisters getting an update finally got me to get off my butt and start painting them again (and pick up a Knight Errant because the army is sorely lacking something to balance out it's weaknesses right now) and I like what I see from 7th edition so far. So I'm not leaving the game just yet. And if GW really does fold I've got an X-Wing Imperial Fleet now (5 TIEs, 3 Interceptors (two from Imperial Aces), 1 TIE Advance, 1 TIE Bomber, 1 TIE Phantom, 1 TIE Defender, 1 Shuttle and 1 Decimator and plans to pick up some Scum stuff when it gets released) and maybe it'll be the thing that makes me finally sit down and play Warmachine.
So basically what I'm saying is while I want GW to get better and I'd love to see them reverse course on some things under this new CEO (as I haven't really seen enough of GW under him so far to know if he's like Kirby or not) if they really do go down the crapper I've got stuff to play with (or at least make look nice and put in a display case) and there is other stuff out there I'd either pick up, or will keep playing.
That said I still want to see BFG using the X-Wing system.
ClockworkZion wrote: So basically what I'm saying is while I want GW to get better and I'd love to see them reverse course on some things under this new CEO (as I haven't really seen enough of GW under him so far to know if he's like Kirby or not) if they really do go down the crapper I've got stuff to play with (or at least make look nice and put in a display case) and there is other stuff out there I'd either pick up, or will keep playing.
But you have.
Rountree has been COO since 2011. That made him the #2 (or 3 depending on how you view Kirby's hold on things) from then till 2013 when Wells retired. When wells retired, he moved solidly into the #2 spot behind Kirby. He has been a Chief since 2009, so working hand in hand, on a daily basis with Kirby for the last 5 years.
As COO, he has been the one who has spearheaded...well, pretty much everything since then. Sort of what the COO does. As a former CFO, that makes him a bean counter...so it is less likely that we will see anything change in the value added direction, as the cost/benefit calculation is difficult to figure. With his background, it is unlikely that you will see anything new - or even adjust course at all...since it is the course he happily plotted during his time as CFO and COO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Achaylus72 wrote: I have been privy to a leaked internal report that shows the damning and shocking state that Games Workshop doesn't want folks to know.
If anyone wants to know and i'll post here.
Make sure to sanitize it as needed (no reason to get your mole fired by accident).
Achaylus72 wrote: I have been privy to a leaked internal report that shows the damning and shocking state that Games Workshop doesn't want folks to know.
If anyone wants to know and i'll post here.
This sounds suspiciously like click-bait or a tabloid headline...
Achaylus72 wrote: I have been privy to a leaked internal report that shows the damning and shocking state that Games Workshop doesn't want folks to know.
If anyone wants to know and i'll post here.
Why can't this site be like Neo-Gaf, where anyone who claims to be an insider but can't back it up gets perma-banned...
Achaylus72 wrote: I have been privy to a leaked internal report that shows the damning and shocking state that Games Workshop doesn't want folks to know.
If anyone wants to know and i'll post here.
This sounds suspiciously like click-bait or a tabloid headline...
I don't care. It'll be entertaining satire, or entertaining schadenfreude, either way.
Alpharius wrote: The People In Charge of the department (IP?) costing more than the department makes?
If so, that's daft. That's like a gold mine costing more to run than the gold it extracts*.
*This could be a terrible analogy. I know next to nothing about gold mines other than glum sounding peasants use them to help me build human footmen and seemingly sentient catapults.
How about 'like using mercury to extract gold from rivers'? Sure, you get the gold, but you poison the river for miles downstream....
And where's RunicFin's super secret evidence that proves GW isn't actually in a decline? He said he'd PM it to Musashi.
Seconded.
Runic, the Ball's in your court.
Achaylus72 wrote:I have been privy to a leaked internal report that shows the damning and shocking state that Games Workshop doesn't want folks to know.
Yeah, I'm still waiting for Runic's PM disproving GW's own financial reports. Just to re-cap...Runic claimed to have secret knowledge with documented proof that GW's sales are increasing.
The faith that some people put in GW seems equivalent to the blind fanaticism the citizens of the Imperium have in the Emperor. It's actually quite impressive.
Achaylus72 wrote:I have been privy to a leaked internal report that shows the damning and shocking state that Games Workshop doesn't want folks to know.
If anyone wants to know and i'll post here.
This I would like to see.
You and me both, but I think we'll see it as soon as we see Runic's proof...
Even if such a report existed, it would only be privy to the board of directors. The chances that something like that leaked to a random guy in the internet are minuscule.
You do know they're locked into a deal with LotR right? It's not the same thing as fantasy. Plus they can't just run off and remake LotR into something else if they feel it's not working as is anymore.
And personally I think you're putting too much malice into their actions.
It is the same thing as Fantasy, sure they can't remake the LoTR IP, but they sure as hell could revitalize it in other ways, the least of wall would be trying to return to the model that made the original LoTR game into the astounding financial success that it was in its time.
And I'm not putting any malice in their actions, what I am putting is greed and incompetence, both of which we have more than enough proof of from all of their previous actions.
As a last stab at the IP team costing more than it took-in: those filling chairs maybe they are lawyers?
That could explain how money can be used up so fast, interesting way to categorize that form of overhead as well.
I love it when someone says "I can post damning evidence if you like", yeah, make us beg, just do it or keep quiet about it.
It pains me to read their report.
Their main "prospects" continues to be hiring "motivated one man store managers".
How does a store manager grow sales?
Some form of advertising is needed to get people to enter the door, what, is the budget for advertising or expanding the IP in electronic games not even thought of?
Their "income" certainly shows what a new rule book can do to increase sales.
Usually around Xmas should be the main income time period.
To be down 10% in gross profit from last year's period is not good.
Looking like rule-book releases may be the tried but true panic button to hit if revenue is tanking.
"Assets" are still going down by "5,000" each half, it still looks like they are losing on "deferred tax assets" and cash.
It really boils down to they are willing to look bad overall in order to pump-out dividends. They are spending the same in product development as last year so no new rule book for a while yet!
They are running out of wiggle-room since they have slowed selling stuff off so true revenue from sales or choosing to hold off on dividends is all they can do to make "profit" look good.
Yeah, no death of GW, just a slow downward spiral, nice for Kirby to change the names of who is in charge around December: I suspect this year is going to be an ugly one: they are backed into a corner financially unless they can stimulate people to buy other than "highly motivated managers".
Seems like a no brainer that the IP dept costs more than it makes; do they sell anything? ... not really (granted theres been a surge of ip rights sold to frankly garbage phone/tablet games that I assumed no one bought)
All I really see them do, is sue people over intellectual property, that costs money and doesnt directly make anything in return, its hard to pinpoint a sale as because they successfully sued and stopped such n such a guy from selling something. Unless they win damages in court, theres no gains to be spoken of from it.
Things like the chapterhouse case, gw spent lots on (fair enough that wasnt this year) and gained nothing. (except bad will)
If they had successfully stopped chatperhouse from operating entirely, thats nothing but lost sales for GW.
Anyone buying a upgrade part from Chapterhouse for a GW model... had to buy a GW model to need the upgrade part.
But GW sued them to stop it becasue.... yeah...shut up!... thats why!
With a dept like that, I doubt anyone ever expected to see any black on this particular dept's books.
The IP department save GW a fortune. The UK government offer fairly substantial tax breaks for IP's based within the UK. The higher the value you can attach to your IP the more you can put down as an intangible asset.
The CHS case may well significantly damage the future value of their IP.
Knockagh wrote: The IP department save GW a fortune. The UK government offer fairly substantial tax breaks for IP's based within the UK. The higher the value you can attach to your IP the more you can put down as an intangible asset.
The CHS case may well significantly damage the future value of their IP.
Especially if the Fantasy rumors are true of all limited releases, all the time. 3rd party casters (not recasters) are primed to make a good amount of money providing models that GW has made limited quantities of. Can't wait for that to blow up in GWs face.
Knockagh wrote: The IP department save GW a fortune. The UK government offer fairly substantial tax breaks for IP's based within the UK. The higher the value you can attach to your IP the more you can put down as an intangible asset.
The CHS case may well significantly damage the future value of their IP.
Especially if the Fantasy rumors are true of all limited releases, all the time. 3rd party casters (not recasters) are primed to make a good amount of money providing models that GW has made limited quantities of. Can't wait for that to blow up in GWs face.
I wouldnt gloat too much laddie. If I had a crystal ball I wager it would predict the outcome of all this mess that GW are in at the minute will be the digitizing of the game. If GW can no longer control the game and it's components I think they will be looking down some more tightly controlled realms. But these wheels will move slowly and markets will dictate.....
Knockagh wrote: I wouldnt gloat too much laddie. If I had a crystal ball I wager it would predict the outcome of all this mess that GW are in at the minute will be the digitizing of the game. If GW can no longer control the game and it's components I think they will be looking down some more tightly controlled realms. But these wheels will move slowly and markets will dictate.....
That would be a suicidally stupid plan. Digitising the game as a form of DLC means removing all backwards compatibility, which in turn means that you have replaced your only product with Ex Illis - a game which has already crashed and burned once - except this time produced by a consumer-hostile company people actively resent.
GW is already controlling the way miniatures are released to prevent being ninja'ed on them.
Supplements, digital editions and rules in the model box all help to prevent other suppliers from getting an anticipated unit model out first.
They either have to release with paperwork in stages or all at once for new models while stuff already out there they do not need to be so careful.
They are kinda sucking in the computer game department lately, too bad.
Could you imagine a Wasteland 2 style game with any character type from their IP?
They have such good stuff to draw from but seem tight fisted in getting it out there.
Knockagh wrote: I wouldnt gloat too much laddie. If I had a crystal ball I wager it would predict the outcome of all this mess that GW are in at the minute will be the digitizing of the game. If GW can no longer control the game and it's components I think they will be looking down some more tightly controlled realms. But these wheels will move slowly and markets will dictate.....
That would be a suicidally stupid plan. Digitising the game as a form of DLC means removing all backwards compatibility, which in turn means that you have replaced your only product with Ex Illis - a game which has already crashed and burned once - except this time produced by a consumer-hostile company people actively resent.
I didnt understand a thing you said there I'm afraid! Technologys not my thing, but I know a little about controlling markets and how important it is (I'm a farmer and we dream everyday of market control!) and regardless of all the technical issues you see I'm sure GW will be looking towards avenues were they can more tightly control the market they created. They would be crazy not too.
Knockagh wrote: I didnt understand a thing you said there I'm afraid!
You have a pre-DLC army. GW says you aren't allowed to use your pre-DLC army to play post-DLC Warhammer. Do you (a) throw them all out and buy a new army so you can play post-DLC Warhammer or (b) use your hundreds of dollars of miniatures to play some other game than post-DLC Warhammer?
Warhammer is already so expensive that people are refusing to start new armies. Tell everyone they have to start a new army and you destroy the sunk costs that were letting you keep them as customers.
Knockagh wrote: I wouldnt gloat too much laddie. If I had a crystal ball I wager it would predict the outcome of all this mess that GW are in at the minute will be the digitizing of the game. If GW can no longer control the game and it's components I think they will be looking down some more tightly controlled realms. But these wheels will move slowly and markets will dictate.....
That would be a suicidally stupid plan. Digitising the game as a form of DLC means removing all backwards compatibility, which in turn means that you have replaced your only product with Ex Illis - a game which has already crashed and burned once - except this time produced by a consumer-hostile company people actively resent.
I didnt understand a thing you said there I'm afraid! Technologys not my thing, but I know a little about controlling markets and how important it is (I'm a farmer and we dream everyday of market control!) and regardless of all the technical issues you see I'm sure GW will be looking towards avenues were they can more tightly control the market they created. They would be crazy not too.
GW can only attempt to control the market in Warhammer. I think that is one of their problems. Their core problem is that the market in Warhammer has been shrinking for years.
The report I was privy to explains that GW is bleeding to death on key points and they are.
Customer base: Since the reporting period from 2012 to 2014 GW has been bleeding globally 4,000 customer per month, that takes into consideration of new customers coming into the GW scene and those leaving the GW scene, result is that
GW has a negative customer growth of 4,000 customer per month, total loss of net global customers in the last 2.5 years is 144,000 customers. This is unrecoverable.
Sales of Product: Since the reporting period of 2013/14 to half year report 2014 GW is bleeding 615,500 British Pounds per month in lost sales. GW has racked up more than 15 million pounds in sales losses since the reporting period of 2013/14. This is unrecoverable.
Stock Market Value: From Oct 2013 GW shares were 820p per share, at the time of the report in Nov 2014 shares were 550p per share. The report indicated that GW shares are on a downward trend, this is reflected as of the 22nd January 2015 they have dropped to 495p per share.
GW shares in the last two years have fallen 23.66%. The report indicated that loss of the two key points above will contribute in future share prices.
Stock: The report indicates that at anyone time up to 40% of stock currently on shelves in GW stores and Trade Partners is 6 months and older. In main distribution centres it is 12 months and older. GW has tried to shed older stock by removing the contents from older boxes and repacked them
into multi unit box sets, this has failed. GW refuses to have stock clearance sales to recover lost revenue.
Achaylus72 wrote: The report I was privy to explains that GW is bleeding to death on key points and they are.
Customer base: Since the reporting period from 2012 to 2014 GW has been bleeding globally 4,000 customer per month, that takes into consideration of new customers coming into the GW scene and those leaving the GW scene, result is that
GW has a negative customer growth of 4,000 customer per month, total loss of net global customers in the last 2.5 years is 144,000 customers. This is unrecoverable.
Sales of Product: Since the reporting period of 2013/14 to half year report 2014 GW is bleeding 615,500 British Pounds per month in lost sales. GW has racked up more than 15 million pounds in sales losses since the reporting period of 2013/14. This is unrecoverable.
Stock Market Value: From Oct 2013 GW shares were 820p per share, at the time of the report in Nov 2014 shares were 550p per share. The report indicated that GW shares are on a downward trend, this is reflected as of the 22nd January 2015 they have dropped to 495p per share.
GW shares in the last two years have fallen 23.66%. The report indicated that loss of the two key points above will contribute in future share prices.
Stock: The report indicates that at anyone time up to 40% of stock currently on shelves in GW stores and Trade Partners is 6 months and older. In main distribution centres it is 12 months and older. GW has tried to shed older stock by removing the contents from older boxes and repacked them
into multi unit box sets, this has failed. GW refuses to have stock clearance sales to recover lost revenue.
Spoiler:
I'm sorry, but you've cried wolf on more than one occasion, presenting your opinion as "facts" phrased in a way to imply that you have some sort of inside knowledge.
Coupled with the fact your "insights" are nothing more than facts on public record, very simple extrapolations based on those facts and assertions which, frankly, even with all the information at your disposal, would be difficult to quantify.
Achaylus72 wrote: The report I was privy to explains that GW is bleeding to death on key points and they are.
Customer base: Since the reporting period from 2012 to 2014 GW has been bleeding globally 4,000 customer per month, that takes into consideration of new customers coming into the GW scene and those leaving the GW scene, result is that
GW has a negative customer growth of 4,000 customer per month, total loss of net global customers in the last 2.5 years is 144,000 customers. This is unrecoverable.
Sales of Product: Since the reporting period of 2013/14 to half year report 2014 GW is bleeding 615,500 British Pounds per month in lost sales. GW has racked up more than 15 million pounds in sales losses since the reporting period of 2013/14. This is unrecoverable.
Stock Market Value: From Oct 2013 GW shares were 820p per share, at the time of the report in Nov 2014 shares were 550p per share. The report indicated that GW shares are on a downward trend, this is reflected as of the 22nd January 2015 they have dropped to 495p per share.
GW shares in the last two years have fallen 23.66%. The report indicated that loss of the two key points above will contribute in future share prices.
Stock: The report indicates that at anyone time up to 40% of stock currently on shelves in GW stores and Trade Partners is 6 months and older. In main distribution centres it is 12 months and older. GW has tried to shed older stock by removing the contents from older boxes and repacked them
into multi unit box sets, this has failed. GW refuses to have stock clearance sales to recover lost revenue.
Well, its a rumour and i'm treating it with a grain of salt. But the things you've written don't surprise me, and certainly seem to fit what we're seeing. On the other hand, where does an ozzie get confidential Nottingham reports from? Grain of salt.
Achaylus72 wrote: The report I was privy to explains that GW is bleeding to death on key points and they are.
Customer base: Since the reporting period from 2012 to 2014 GW has been bleeding globally 4,000 customer per month, that takes into consideration of new customers coming into the GW scene and those leaving the GW scene, result is that
GW has a negative customer growth of 4,000 customer per month, total loss of net global customers in the last 2.5 years is 144,000 customers. This is unrecoverable.
Sales of Product: Since the reporting period of 2013/14 to half year report 2014 GW is bleeding 615,500 British Pounds per month in lost sales. GW has racked up more than 15 million pounds in sales losses since the reporting period of 2013/14. This is unrecoverable.
Stock Market Value: From Oct 2013 GW shares were 820p per share, at the time of the report in Nov 2014 shares were 550p per share. The report indicated that GW shares are on a downward trend, this is reflected as of the 22nd January 2015 they have dropped to 495p per share.
GW shares in the last two years have fallen 23.66%. The report indicated that loss of the two key points above will contribute in future share prices.
Stock: The report indicates that at anyone time up to 40% of stock currently on shelves in GW stores and Trade Partners is 6 months and older. In main distribution centres it is 12 months and older. GW has tried to shed older stock by removing the contents from older boxes and repacked them
into multi unit box sets, this has failed. GW refuses to have stock clearance sales to recover lost revenue.
Well, its a rumour and i'm treating it with a grain of salt. But the things you've written don't surprise me, and certainly seem to fit what we're seeing. On the other hand, where does an ozzie get confidential Nottingham reports from? Grain of salt.
Ex-Game developer Rules/Codex/Army writer, too whom shall remain nameless.
Aww. I was hoping for some new cringe worthy quotes of senior GW figures comparable to those in the Chapter House Studios case giving further insights into the GW mindset. Not just a statement of the obvious.
H.B.M.C. wrote: That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence...
Aren't his middle 2 points verifiable from the financial reports? Though that would hardly make them privileged info. And perhaps some indys on this board could comment on the last one. The first is admittedly impossible to verify so far as I know, but doesn't exactly sound beyond the realm of possibility.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Aww. I was hoping for some new cringe worthy quotes of senior GW figures comparable to those in the Chapter House Studios case giving further insights into the GW mindset. .....
Those come in the annual reports when kirby does his preamble. Its a long wait, but always worth it.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Aww. I was hoping for some new cringe worthy quotes of senior GW figures comparable to those in the Chapter House Studios case giving further insights into the GW mindset. .....
Those come in the annual reports when kirby does his preamble. Its a long wait, but always worth it.
Could be several people- they seem to shed a few every couple years. Although Ward is the most recent, but I'm not sure why he would be privy to corporate emails or whatever about sales numbers.
That would all line up with what folks have been seeing in the financials. This, of course, means that it could be fabricated, but honestly it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.
I don't think anyone is going to take that info, unverified, and say 'I told you so' but that doesn't mean it isn't good fodder for hypothetical discussion.
I'd like to see some 'if it were true' projections. E.g. if it were true, and those rates remain constant, what is GW looking at in a year, two years, etc.?
Sinful Hero wrote: Could be several people- they seem to shed a few every couple years. Although Ward is the most recent, but I'm not sure why he would be privy to corporate emails or whatever about sales numbers.
Unless they give that sort of information to ex-employees, ward was the only one there in 2014 that is now gone. Its either that or the rumour is suspect.
Sinful Hero wrote: Could be several people- they seem to shed a few every couple years. Although Ward is the most recent, but I'm not sure why he would be privy to corporate emails or whatever about sales numbers.
Unless they give that sort of information to ex-employees, ward was the only one there in 2014 that is now gone. Its either that or the rumour is suspect.
I was thinking the same thing. But I don't know why they would share that information with working employees either. It's neat to know, but doesn't really change anything.
Yeah, BS on inventory levels. GW's Days Inventory actually fell year-on-year which is the opposite of holding onto 6 month-old, or older stock.
May 2013 - 87.58
May 2014 - 80.44
Their Inventory Turnover for the two periods was:
May 2013 - 4.17
May 2014 - 4.54
Which indicates a small uptick in how quickly units are sold, year-on-year.
The rest of the statement is entirely plausible...except the number of GW customers seems high. I still think management is engineering a controlled slide because they care more about stock price than the company brand.
Achaylus72 wrote: The report I was privy to explains that GW is bleeding to death on key points and they are.
Customer base: Since the reporting period from 2012 to 2014 GW has been bleeding globally 4,000 customer per month, that takes into consideration of new customers coming into the GW scene and those leaving the GW scene, result is that
GW has a negative customer growth of 4,000 customer per month, total loss of net global customers in the last 2.5 years is 144,000 customers. This is unrecoverable.
Sales of Product: Since the reporting period of 2013/14 to half year report 2014 GW is bleeding 615,500 British Pounds per month in lost sales. GW has racked up more than 15 million pounds in sales losses since the reporting period of 2013/14. This is unrecoverable.
Stock Market Value: From Oct 2013 GW shares were 820p per share, at the time of the report in Nov 2014 shares were 550p per share. The report indicated that GW shares are on a downward trend, this is reflected as of the 22nd January 2015 they have dropped to 495p per share.
GW shares in the last two years have fallen 23.66%. The report indicated that loss of the two key points above will contribute in future share prices.
Stock: The report indicates that at anyone time up to 40% of stock currently on shelves in GW stores and Trade Partners is 6 months and older. In main distribution centres it is 12 months and older. GW has tried to shed older stock by removing the contents from older boxes and repacked them
into multi unit box sets, this has failed. GW refuses to have stock clearance sales to recover lost revenue.
Spoiler:
I'm sorry, but you've cried wolf on more than one occasion, presenting your opinion as "facts" phrased in a way to imply that you have some sort of inside knowledge.
Coupled with the fact your "insights" are nothing more than facts on public record, very simple extrapolations based on those facts and assertions which, frankly, even with all the information at your disposal, would be difficult to quantify.
So....
Nope.
...but, there is an air of truth to some of it...and a duh to some of it...and a, meh, I could see that to the rest.
The loss of customers is a bit of a large number. Not unbelievably so. That would account for roughly 20% of the customer base from 5 years ago. Would also be roughly inline with the price hike versus lack of corresponding sales generation.
Sales losses are one of those things that you can't really prove (or disprove). How do you prove that you lost a sale? How do you prove that you gained a sale? In theory, it would be tied to the above loss of customers, but in practice it is an issue where most customers have a budget (either in stone, or just due to the way they spend) and that budget is in money spent...not items bought. When the price of items goes up - fewer of them would be bought, even though they may spend roughly the same amount of money year over year. By simply not driving off a customer, it is no guarantee that they will get more money from that customer.
Stock Value...pretty much what it says on the wrapper. You can go back and look at GWs share prices since their IPO...no real news there.
Inventory Stock... Quite likely to be honest. Not sure if the same rules are in play in the UK, but there is some tax benefit to repackaging old stock in new containers for carrying over from year to year. It would explain a bit the reasoning behind the shiny new wrappers that GW has rolled out these past few years. Would also explain a good bit why they have had crippled production runs for so many of their new releases too. Paranoid about having stock pile up that they have to carry year over year.
All of that said - it also isn't anything that can not be gotten by reading the tea leaves. The big issue I have is really the source. Everyone I have talked to at GW have fairly consistently explained it to be a bit paranoid in their compartmentalization of things. People normally do not know too much regarding things outside their own realm of influence, and someone from the studio will very rarely have knowledge of what is going on on the business side of things. Some of the best information I have gotten comes from their HR department, they are well positioned to see various comings and goings...as well as the paperwork that follows them. However, I wouldn't have expected N.C. to have been able to provide me with sales data - though I might get some release information from him. Same goes for the design studio. They get marching orders, they don't know why - they just know that they are to go in that direction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
agnosto wrote: Yeah, BS on inventory levels. GW's Days Inventory actually fell year-on-year which is the opposite of holding onto 6 month-old, or older stock.
May 2013 - 87.58
May 2014 - 80.44
Their Inventory Turnover for the two periods was:
May 2013 - 4.17
May 2014 - 4.54
Which indicates a small uptick in how quickly units are sold, year-on-year.
Not really defending his rumor/leak - but without knowing what is being held, or what is being sold...it still falls in the plausible category. If the bulk of their transactions are newer items - that could still mean that a significant amount of stock is collecting dust. Just have to move enough of the new product fast enough (by having things like the fire sale, limited edition, get them while they last...type things being had quite frequently now).
Also would be curious to see how they are actually managing inventories. When they rolled out the new website, I though it was odd that they had multiple entries for a single kit that made multiple items... A creative accountant could use that to make the numbers flow in a bit more appealing manner...without necessarily cooking the books...
Things are only going to get tougher on GW. Model printing for example, still a few years off in quality and accessibility. Changing natures on IP rights/practicalities of enforcement, as well as outdated information presentation and delivery, are other points to worry about.
GW is going to need to adapt as such:
1. Innovate in plastic casting technology, or outsource to China. Beat everyone to the cost of your own product, and failing that, join them.
2. (and what I'm really writing in to say) Utilize a kickstarter sort of payment for 40k editions. If we want a new edition, or brand new set of rules, we have to be profitable and guaranteed for any company. Meet the desired bracket beforehand, and they release the developed product for free online. This is not how I desire it to work, being old fashioned and favouring brick and mortar over clicks myself, but it is the most adaptable change in light of information exchange realities.
Other points are more obvious, such as diversify (a mood GW is definitely not in right now), take community feedback at a fast pace, and advertize to a new generation. There was that absolutely horrendous statement a while ago, admitting how they settled only on milking their current fan base, rather than expanding, going as far as to criticize the nature and scope of advertisement.
I speak with my money, but I fear the company will still not adapt in time.
EDIT: I am apparently now a "Brainless Servitor." Yay
Also would be curious to see how they are actually managing inventories. When they rolled out the new website, I though it was odd that they had multiple entries for a single kit that made multiple items... A creative accountant could use that to make the numbers flow in a bit more appealing manner...without necessarily cooking the books...
Now that's an interesting thought. I always figured it was strange, and the only reason I could come up with for the practice that felt satisfying was in making it easier for new customers/gift buyers to find the thing they were looking for more easily.
The new site would have been in play for a month or two for the 2014 inventory numbers. There were other factors that would play into a higher burn rate on the inventory as well (not the least of which was an extra large number of new releases...all of which seemed to have supply issues).
The multi purpose kits still do carry the same SKU...but it is a bit odd to have both kits as separate entries in the catalog.
Could be several people- they seem to shed a few every couple years. Although Ward is the most recent, but I'm not sure why he would be privy to corporate emails or whatever about sales numbers.
Sometimes they forget to take people of the mailing list, and server privileges may take some time to revoke.
Which would be consistent with the idea (which isn't new) that only new product sells, and when lots of it is limited release it sells quickly.
This is completely true. Not only that, but people will buy multiples of limited release product, whereas they may only buy one of (or wait on) a core product. For instance, I did not buy Sanguinary Priest; I won't pick him up until I need him (I just use an old Corbulo model atm), but I'll get him at some point. If I thought he were released as limited, I'd buy two.
However, it does backfire. For example, if I were to start a *new* faction, I wouldn't have access to many of the OOP units, and that would mean I'd either have to ebay or substitute, neither of which help the manufacturer. When new Necron stuff comes out, I probably won't buy any at all (I don't own a single Necron model). In a year or two, though, I might decide to collect them -- but GW would miss out on any discountinued/limited items as sales to me.
The "internal" information rumor is sort of worthless because of how data is slanted within companies.
1) Number of customers is a relative number. What defines a customer? Does this take into account typical attrition? Are some customers more valuable than others? Head count numbers are completely worthless without definition and then put in context.
Blizzard speaks about how many copies WoW has sold, which means nothing if I log on to a server and no one is on. People also look at concurrent users, which speaks more to how many players you can play with at the same time, but also not a good metric because a person may play 1 hour a week or 10 hours a day. What really matters to the company is paying subscribers per month and initial box sales.
2) Sales can be calculated off the bi-annual reports, so not much new here and companies always play around with book keeping to make things look better or worse in their favor.
3) Stock price can be calculated of public information, so nothing new here.
4) Stocking volume is kind of worthless without knowing the trend of that data. It also makes sense that if you loose sales, then your going to build up back stock. I am also unsurprised that they don't want to have sales.
With all the above being said, I would also like to point out that just because someone doesn't work at a company anymore doesn't mean that still don't have friends there. This also goes for cross department relationships. There is a lot of company business that is discussed over a beer after hours, especially if it involves job security or poor management decisions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: This is completely true. Not only that, but people will buy multiples of limited release product, whereas they may only buy one of (or wait on) a core product. For instance, I did not buy Sanguinary Priest; I won't pick him up until I need him (I just use an old Corbulo model atm), but I'll get him at some point. If I thought he were released as limited, I'd buy two.
However, it does backfire. For example, if I were to start a *new* faction, I wouldn't have access to many of the OOP units, and that would mean I'd either have to ebay or substitute, neither of which help the manufacturer. When new Necron stuff comes out, I probably won't buy any at all (I don't own a single Necron model). In a year or two, though, I might decide to collect them -- but GW would miss out on any discountinued/limited items as sales to me.
Or just throw their hands up and quit. WarmaHordes has been out for a while. I can still buy anything that has been released with the exception of some alternate sculpts of existing models.
agnosto wrote: Which indicates a small uptick in how quickly units are sold, year-on-year.
Which would be consistent with the idea (which isn't new) that only new product sells, and when lots of it is limited release it sells quickly.
COGS goes up and average inventory goes down so inventory turnover goes up.
That's correct. GW is astute enough in their inventory management to let existing stock dwindle while new stock sits, briefly, on the top layer. This is primarily the reason that I think the stock levels are pretty stagnant over the last three financial years.
The problem GW has, and this is why I think it's a managed decline, is they don't know what demand for new product is going to be because they don't bother to perform more than the most perfunctory research resulting in shortages of new product. They have the manufacturing capacity and even if the boxes are made in China and they don't have enough printed, they can always use those white boxes that we've all seen at one time or another. The only reasonable explanation for shortages of models (books are a separate issue since they don't own their own printers) is that they are trying to control stock levels too aggressively and the end result is being unable to meet demand.
Sean_OBrien wrote: The multi purpose kits still do carry the same SKU...but it is a bit odd to have both kits as separate entries in the catalog.
It would also give interesting information of what version of the kit people prefer or are looking for.
I think the multiple entries make sense since many people who do not play 40k may be looking for a requested item for someone and could miss it due to being a multi-kit.
I approve of the multiple entries (makes their choices look huge too).
Also would be curious to see how they are actually managing inventories. When they rolled out the new website, I though it was odd that they had multiple entries for a single kit that made multiple items... A creative accountant could use that to make the numbers flow in a bit more appealing manner...without necessarily cooking the books...
Now that's an interesting thought. I always figured it was strange, and the only reason I could come up with for the practice that felt satisfying was in making it easier for new customers/gift buyers to find the thing they were looking for more easily.
Alternatively simple incompetence.
It's easy to sniff a browser that hits your site, see what language it is set to and avoid displaying to the user the products that aren't in his language.
But it's easier still to not fething well bother, especially if you are technically incompetent.
Also would be curious to see how they are actually managing inventories. When they rolled out the new website, I though it was odd that they had multiple entries for a single kit that made multiple items... A creative accountant could use that to make the numbers flow in a bit more appealing manner...without necessarily cooking the books...
Now that's an interesting thought. I always figured it was strange, and the only reason I could come up with for the practice that felt satisfying was in making it easier for new customers/gift buyers to find the thing they were looking for more easily.
Alternatively simple incompetence.
It's easy to sniff a browser that hits your site, see what language it is set to and avoid displaying to the user the products that aren't in his language.
But it's easier still to not fething well bother, especially if you are technically incompetent.
That is what you get when you spend £4 million on a new website, headed up by the Chairman and CEO's wife...who's past work experience IIRC was gym coach...
(True story, Kirby's wife was the IT director during the largest IT changeover GW ever did...and if my memory serves me correctly, she was a gym teacher before Kirby's nepotism began placing her in various positions within GW...none of which she was qualified to fill).
As to the idea of a leaked internal report, there's nothing there that can't be extrapolated from their public numbers. The sales numbers declining over the two and a half years is a matter of division. The share price is public record and if you make some assumptions about what the average customer might spend you'd come up with some numbers very close to those.
It's actually 100% irrelevant whether or not the numbers in the post are leaked or extrapolated from their public filings. We have known for the last few years that some combination of less customers and less sales per customer causes a fall in revenue despite higher prices. Taking the difference in sales and dividing it by the number of months that has passed is good enough for determining the rate of revenue decline.
You can't have your sales drop like they have and your dividend cut back like that, more stores closing than opening and managers not hitting their sales targets and not be talking and communicating about it internally. I have no doubt that after GW's internal compiling of the last half's (and likely quarter's) result they had board meetings about it. Of course they did.
Also would be curious to see how they are actually managing inventories. When they rolled out the new website, I though it was odd that they had multiple entries for a single kit that made multiple items... A creative accountant could use that to make the numbers flow in a bit more appealing manner...without necessarily cooking the books...
Now that's an interesting thought. I always figured it was strange, and the only reason I could come up with for the practice that felt satisfying was in making it easier for new customers/gift buyers to find the thing they were looking for more easily.
I think your initial thought is correct here Weeble. If they tried to add extra rows in their reports by duplicating sales of particular items, their totals wouldn't add up correctly at the end.
It MIGHT be a form of tracking purchasing habits: if more people search for / buy a Hammerhead over a Skyray, then GW could potentially use that information to influence future product design. But to me, it seems more likely that its so Little Timmy can tell his mum he wants a Skyray without having to tell her that even though he wants a skyray can she please buy the Hammerhead box.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sean_OBrien wrote: That is what you get when you spend £4 million on a new website, headed up by the Chairman and CEO's wife...who's past work experience IIRC was gym coach...
(True story, Kirby's wife was the IT director during the largest IT changeover GW ever did...and if my memory serves me correctly, she was a gym teacher before Kirby's nepotism began placing her in various positions within GW...none of which she was qualified to fill).
While it is a ridiculous amount of money, I don't think anything untoward happened here: it was simply a botched project. I work in software development, and I can see that project being mid 6 figures if they built it from the ground up and everything went well; and if something goes wrong then it is unfortunately all too common for cost to spiral out of control and end up many times the initial amount. As to if/why they would build it from the ground up is a different question....
Sean_OBrien wrote: That is what you get when you spend £4 million on a new website, headed up by the Chairman and CEO's wife...who's past work experience IIRC was gym coach...
(True story, Kirby's wife was the IT director during the largest IT changeover GW ever did...and if my memory serves me correctly, she was a gym teacher before Kirby's nepotism began placing her in various positions within GW...none of which she was qualified to fill).
While it is a ridiculous amount of money, I don't think anything untoward happened here: it was simply a botched project. I work in software development, and I can see that project being mid 6 figures if they built it from the ground up and everything went well; and if something goes wrong then it is unfortunately all too common for cost to spiral out of control and end up many times the initial amount. As to if/why they would build it from the ground up is a different question....
You clearly missed the point...
It was a ridiculous amount of money for what they got. It was also a botched product for the type of company they are.
The point however, was tongue in cheek for the cost (at that price point...you can pretty much get whatever you want...twice - including the fairly simple switches mentioned by Killkrazy). The bigger issue was who was in charge of the project for GW...
Sean_OBrien wrote: That is what you get when you spend £4 million on a new website, headed up by the Chairman and CEO's wife...who's past work experience IIRC was gym coach...
(True story, Kirby's wife was the IT director during the largest IT changeover GW ever did...and if my memory serves me correctly, she was a gym teacher before Kirby's nepotism began placing her in various positions within GW...none of which she was qualified to fill).
While it is a ridiculous amount of money, I don't think anything untoward happened here: it was simply a botched project. I work in software development, and I can see that project being mid 6 figures if they built it from the ground up and everything went well; and if something goes wrong then it is unfortunately all too common for cost to spiral out of control and end up many times the initial amount. As to if/why they would build it from the ground up is a different question....
You clearly missed the point...
It was a ridiculous amount of money for what they got. It was also a botched product for the type of company they are.
The point however, was tongue in cheek for the cost (at that price point...you can pretty much get whatever you want...twice - including the fairly simple switches mentioned by Killkrazy). The bigger issue was who was in charge of the project for GW...
I've heard that before, but has it ever been documented that Kirby's wife was in charge?
Sean_OBrien wrote: That is what you get when you spend £4 million on a new website, headed up by the Chairman and CEO's wife...who's past work experience IIRC was gym coach...
(True story, Kirby's wife was the IT director during the largest IT changeover GW ever did...and if my memory serves me correctly, she was a gym teacher before Kirby's nepotism began placing her in various positions within GW...none of which she was qualified to fill).
While it is a ridiculous amount of money, I don't think anything untoward happened here: it was simply a botched project. I work in software development, and I can see that project being mid 6 figures if they built it from the ground up and everything went well; and if something goes wrong then it is unfortunately all too common for cost to spiral out of control and end up many times the initial amount. As to if/why they would build it from the ground up is a different question....
You clearly missed the point...
It was a ridiculous amount of money for what they got. It was also a botched product for the type of company they are.
The point however, was tongue in cheek for the cost (at that price point...you can pretty much get whatever you want...twice - including the fairly simple switches mentioned by Killkrazy). The bigger issue was who was in charge of the project for GW...
I've heard that before, but has it ever been documented that Kirby's wife was in charge?
Valete,
JohnS
The new web store allows us to sell online more efficiently. It cost around £4 million.
Back office functions are run largely from Nottingham. They are Accounts (Tim Wilson), IT (Karen Lathbury), Personnel (Vicki King), Lenton site (Dave Holmes), Legal and Compliance (Rachel Tongue), Projects (Helen Surgey) and they report to Kevin Rountree, qua COO.
In addition, Mrs K Kirby (Lathbury) received £117,461 (2013: £73,620) during the year from the Group for her work as interim head of IT.
The new web store allows us to sell online more efficiently. It cost around £4 million.
Back office functions are run largely from Nottingham. They are Accounts (Tim Wilson), IT (Karen Lathbury), Personnel (Vicki King), Lenton site (Dave Holmes), Legal and Compliance (Rachel Tongue), Projects (Helen Surgey) and they report to Kevin Rountree, qua COO.
In addition, Mrs K Kirby (Lathbury) received £117,461 (2013: £73,620) during the year from the Group for her work as interim head of IT.
In a company where they hire for attitude rather than ability, no one else is going to argue either. The first person to say "err is she entirely qualified to run our IT dep...." would get stuffed in a large Special Edition model case and thrown out the back door.
Companies are free to define their own job position expectations, so it's entirely possible that "head of IT" is a 100% non-technical managerial position. Lots of people who work in IT answer to clueless bosses who don't actually know anything about computers or networks but minored in HR at college or whatever. And with each lay off, her job becomes progressively easier. Less people to supply computers to, less people to do tech support for. Smaller, more manageable networks. Less people using databases. Then she can lay off technicians and high five everyone on the board of directors for saving money for GW.
Indeed they are, at least to the extent that the board would define the expectations for high level staff subject to agreement by non-executive directors.
Funnily enough at my last company the ultimate head of IT was the head of accounts, who of course was clueless technically. The IT department was so piss-poor that their acronym MIS, for Management Information Services, gave rise to the nickname "Make It Stop".
As I shareholder I intend to ask Kirby at the next AGM about employing his unqualified wife to blow a fortune on a botched website project. This is utterly disgusting. Who got the £4m for making the site, and were they related to him too?
phantajisto wrote: As I shareholder I intend to ask Kirby at the next AGM about employing his unqualified wife to blow a fortune on a botched website project. This is utterly disgusting. Who got the £4m for making the site, and were they related to him too?
I think they contracted with some such overly large organization to do it.
frozenwastes wrote: Companies are free to define their own job position expectations, so it's entirely possible that "head of IT" is a 100% non-technical managerial position. Lots of people who work in IT answer to clueless bosses who don't actually know anything about computers or networks but minored in HR at college or whatever. And with each lay off, her job becomes progressively easier. Less people to supply computers to, less people to do tech support for. Smaller, more manageable networks. Less people using databases. Then she can lay off technicians and high five everyone on the board of directors for saving money for GW.
True enough that she needn't have the technical acumen to actually do anything - but she does need enough to give guidance and direction as well as to know when she is on the receiving end of a metric ton of BS.
I do a good bit of consulting work, and often it puts me in contact with the IT departments of various companies. You can very quickly identify those who have a manager at their head versus those who have an IT person who became the manager (as well as those who have a family member at the head...who are often put there, since people believe that they can't do any 'real' damage there...).
For a large project like this - you also have the issue of...who will tell her it is a stupid idea to make a game manufacturer's website look like ASOS... Yes Tom, your wife is an incompetent twit. She has no clue what she is doing and is costing us millions with this website...
BTW - for those who are interested in that sort of thing, I think ATG did the previous one was done for around $450K. When Red reworked both the Black Library and Forge World websites - both were done for around $300K. Both of covered the complete roll out costs and migration fees (as GW felt fit to pay them).
phantajisto wrote: As I shareholder I intend to ask Kirby at the next AGM about employing his unqualified wife to blow a fortune on a botched website project. This is utterly disgusting. Who got the £4m for making the site, and were they related to him too?
I think they contracted with some such overly large organization to do it.
Pretty sure it is an actual Oracle site... Haven't actually spoken with anyone who was involved with this last rollout though.
frozenwastes wrote: Companies are free to define their own job position expectations, so it's entirely possible that "head of IT" is a 100% non-technical managerial position. Lots of people who work in IT answer to clueless bosses who don't actually know anything about computers or networks but minored in HR at college or whatever.
OK you bunch of immature sexist numbnuts. It is entirely possible that a woman can be qualified for such a senior position regardless of who she is married to. As for the dumbass who said at least she gets paid --- grow up. Shame on the Mods for not stopping this, shame on the Mod for join in.
fullheadofhair wrote: OK you bunch of immature sexist numbnuts. It is entirely possible that a woman can be qualified for such a senior position regardless of who she is married to. As for the dumbass who said at least she gets paid --- grow up. Shame on the Mods for not stopping this, shame on the Mod for join in.
A woman can most certainly be qualified to run an IT department. But that's not what's going on here. That website cost 4 MILLION pounds- I believe it was stated that the previous one cost in the order of $450k pounds, so almost nine times the original for a program that has way less material compared to the old one (aka things other than shopping).
Kirby has done a great job finding ways to bleed GW dry, and I suspect this was just another one of those things. Even if his wife did have excellent IT background, she was being paid significantly more than a physician makes for a website for a relatively small miniatures company. I personally think putting your spouse in a high up position is questionable even if they are qualified. And to my current understanding, Mrs. Kirby has no IT background at all, which begs the question of why she was being paid so much money, or even in this role to start with.
This is on the level of mustache twirling, how can I run this company into the ground while making sure me and mine are taken care of. Call it what you want, it's obvious. Dunno, maybe a chairman hiring his wife as head of a department is kosher business practice these days.....
I am just appalled at how you all assumed that she has no qualifications for the job. Does anyone know if she has a profession or did you all just assume she lies on her back for money? I hope none of you are bring up daughters with this very modern day attitude you are showing.
If you'll actually go back and read instead of focusing on comments that you didn't like, you'll find a discussion of her actual qualifications, or lack thereof. I know, its much easier to get bent out of shape and focus on the negative but there IS actual information in this thread. Surprisingly, most of which has nothing to do with Mrs. Kirby.
fullheadofhair wrote: I am just appalled at how you all assumed that she has no qualifications for the job. Does anyone know if she has a profession or did you all just assume she lies on her back for money? I hope none of you are bring up daughters with this very modern day attitude you are showing.
Before accusing others of jumping to conclusions, you may want to avoid jumping to conclusions yourself.
fullheadofhair wrote: I am just appalled at how you all assumed that she has no qualifications for the job. Does anyone know if she has a profession or did you all just assume she lies on her back for money? I hope none of you are bring up daughters with this very modern day attitude you are showing.
Well, let's approach this from another perspective..
On the balance of probability, how likely do you think Mrs Tom Kirby was the best qualified candidate for the position of IT manager in her husband's multi-million pound, global PLC?
If you can, with a straight face, suggest that she was the best person available for the job, despite no evidence I'm aware of to suggest she had any substantive experience, then fair enough.
Nobody, to my mind, was casting any more scorn on the appointment than they would if it was Kirby's brother, daughter or cousin. It has nothing to do with her gender, and everything to do with a relationship to the Chairman. The nature of the comments merely reflected the nature of the relationship, just as if it was his child they would likely have been along the lines of "daddy's little girl" or "trust fund brat" or similar.
agnosto wrote: This is on the level of mustache twirling, how can I run this company into the ground while making sure me and mine are taken care of. Call it what you want, it's obvious. Dunno, maybe a chairman hiring his wife as head of a department is kosher business practice these days.....
British MP's regularly hire their family members (on public expenses). Its more or less part of British culture.
fullheadofhair wrote: OK you bunch of immature sexist numbnuts. It is entirely possible that a woman can be qualified for such a senior position regardless of who she is married to. As for the dumbass who said at least she gets paid --- grow up. Shame on the Mods for not stopping this, shame on the Mod for join in.
Kirby, is that you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
fullheadofhair wrote: I am just appalled at how you all assumed that she has no qualifications for the job. Does anyone know if she has a profession or did you all just assume she lies on her back for money? I hope none of you are bring up daughters with this very modern day attitude you are showing.
Seriously, take your white knight bollocks somewhere else.
agnosto wrote: This is on the level of mustache twirling, how can I run this company into the ground while making sure me and mine are taken care of. Call it what you want, it's obvious. Dunno, maybe a chairman hiring his wife as head of a department is kosher business practice these days.....
British MP's regularly hire their family members (on public expenses). Its more or less part of British culture.
Not especially British, it goes on everywhere, doesn't make it any more palatable.
Making an ass of yourself on an internet board, priceless.
Her prior work appears to be as Lead Contact for the Staffordshire Athletics Network...juniors development action group. So, she appears to have experience as a coordinator of athletic activities for kiddies. I'm sorry, I take it all back, she's obviously more qualified to head the IT department of an international PLC than someone with an MIS background. I've been such a churl to suggest that she was not more qualified than numerous potential other candidates. I've been a sexist pig. The hire obviously had nothing to do with who she is married to and a gym class coordinator is well deserving of the post that pays over 100,000 pounds per annum. Stupid me.
fullheadofhair wrote: I am just appalled at how you all assumed that she has no qualifications for the job. Does anyone know if she has a profession or did you all just assume she lies on her back for money? I hope none of you are bring up daughters with this very modern day attitude you are showing.
Our "modern attitude" has nothing to do with assuming anything. That's your attitude.
Making an ass of yourself on an internet board, priceless.
Her prior work appears to be as Lead Contact for the Staffordshire Athletics Network...juniors development action group. So, she appears to have experience as a coordinator of athletic activities for kiddies. I'm sorry, I take it all back, she's obviously more qualified to head the IT department of an international PLC than someone with an MIS background. I've been such a churl to suggest that she was not more qualified than numerous potential other candidates. I've been a sexist pig. The hire obviously had nothing to do with who she is married to and a gym class coordinator is well deserving of the post that pays over 100,000 pounds per annum. Stupid me.
Plus her only directorship on record was as company secretary for Warrior Associates Ltd, a now dissolved company which I can't readily find any description of, both as Ms K E Lathbury and subsequently Mrs K E Kirby.
I'm doubtful "Warrior Associates" is some sort of IT consultation firm, but am open to being proved wrong...
Making an ass of yourself on an internet board, priceless.
Her prior work appears to be as Lead Contact for the Staffordshire Athletics Network...juniors development action group. So, she appears to have experience as a coordinator of athletic activities for kiddies. I'm sorry, I take it all back, she's obviously more qualified to head the IT department of an international PLC than someone with an MIS background. I've been such a churl to suggest that she was not more qualified than numerous potential other candidates. I've been a sexist pig. The hire obviously had nothing to do with who she is married to and a gym class coordinator is well deserving of the post that pays over 100,000 pounds per annum. Stupid me.
agnosto wrote: If you'll actually go back and read instead of focusing on comments that you didn't like, you'll find a discussion of her actual qualifications, or lack thereof. I know, its much easier to get bent out of shape and focus on the negative but there IS actual information in this thread. Surprisingly, most of which has nothing to do with Mrs. Kirby.
Oh I am sorry - I missed the bit where you all went through her resume and last 4 or 5 jobs and analyzed her weaknesses etc. I just saw afew snide comments people most of whom have no idea how to manage a big project or costs involved. Apologies for my misreading.
Plus her only directorship on record was as company secretary for Warrior Associates Ltd, a now dissolved company which I can't readily find any description of, both as Ms K E Lathbury and subsequently Mrs K E Kirby.
I'm doubtful "Warrior Associates" is some sort of IT consultation firm, but am open to being proved wrong...
Found a "Thomas Henry Felix Kirby" listed as Director of that now defunct company...
inactive KAREN ELIZABETH KIRBY, secretary, 17 Mar 2010-
inactive KAREN ELIZABETH LATHBURY, secretary, 5 Nov 2008-
inactive THOMAS HENRY FELIX KIRBY, director, 14 Mar 1996-
Ahh....young love and the destruction of small companies.
Edit: Digging a bit deeper, I found that a Katharine Kirby worked as Secretary at that company, left and then the future Mrs. Kirby became employed there. History of marrying the secretary or just coincidence? I need to work for a tabloid.
Mrs Karen Elizabeth Kirby 17 March 2010 Secretary
Karen Elizabeth Lathbury 5 November 2008 Secretary
Thomas Henry Felix Kirby 14 March 1996 Director
Suzanne Brewer 18 April 1995 14 March 1996 Nominee Secretary
Katharine Kirby 14 March 1996 17 March 2010 Secretary
Dr Kevin Brewer 1952 18 April 1995 14 March 1996 Nominee Director
agnosto wrote: If you'll actually go back and read instead of focusing on comments that you didn't like, you'll find a discussion of her actual qualifications, or lack thereof. I know, its much easier to get bent out of shape and focus on the negative but there IS actual information in this thread. Surprisingly, most of which has nothing to do with Mrs. Kirby.
Oh I am sorry - I missed the bit where you all went through her resume and last 4 or 5 jobs and analyzed her weaknesses etc. I just saw afew snide comments people most of whom have no idea how to manage a big project or costs involved. Apologies for my misreading.
The snide comments came after the discussion of her previous job as a gym class coordinator. If it helps, she was a secretary before that.
agnosto wrote: This is on the level of mustache twirling, how can I run this company into the ground while making sure me and mine are taken care of. Call it what you want, it's obvious. Dunno, maybe a chairman hiring his wife as head of a department is kosher business practice these days.....
British MP's regularly hire their family members (on public expenses). Its more or less part of British culture.
Although that does tend to be as PA/Secretary which is at least (in part) justifiable in that they are around when the MP works odd hours at home which is not uncommon, whereas you don';t need your website designer to take notes from you at midnight just because you've had an idea or need to answer a constituents email
fullheadofhair wrote: Company secretary dudes, company secretary. It is a very senoir position with a lot of legal responsibility. Nothing to do with an admin secretary.
fullheadofhair wrote: Company secretary dudes, company secretary. It is a very senoir position with a lot of legal responsibility. Nothing to do with an admin secretary.
Dude, you've lost. Give it up.
This is GW, just forge the narrative until there is no winner.
Warrior Associates was a family corporation setup to hide money from the tax man. The last real job (outside of GW) that she held that I know of was when she was a gym teacher. She did that for a few years, then mostly doing things that CEO wives do...charities and what not that interest them.
You can dig a bit deeper into the process - and someone who is experienced with UK tax law can explain things a bit more precisely than I can...but yeah, tax shelter, not a real business.
Company secretary is a position that companies legally are obliged to have on their board. It doesn't have to be a "real" position though of course it often is. I mean it can be a purely nominal appointment.
As for the lack of Mods on a Saturday, I was out at the Weybridge Head of the River for most of the day.
If someone feels people are transgressing the site rules they should click the yellow alert button.
fullheadofhair wrote: Company secretary dudes, company secretary. It is a very senoir position with a lot of legal responsibility. Nothing to do with an admin secretary.
Just for giggles...how about you take a look at the documents available for the company...that she was a very senior position in...
The one day appointments exist only to fulfill corporate governance requirements. And as the one with the legal responsibility of filing the paperwork...she managed to foul that up more often than not (pay close attention to the names used in the filings...).
Not accusing anyone of anything, but only mentioning it because I've seen it done in other companies, but Kirby's wife could be on the books just to reduce his tax.
If Kirby's tax on his full pay = X, but if the total pay is reduced by the amount given to his wife, therefore his tax becomes = X-1, that could be the reason.
Possibly, but then you recruit them as non-exec directors, or manufacture some airy-fairy role with a very vague job description, you don't put them in one of the most crucial roles in any company in these e-commerce focussed times.
Azreal13 wrote: Possibly, but then you recruit them as non-exec directors, or manufacture some airy-fairy role with a very vague job description, you don't put them in one of the most crucial roles in any company in these e-commerce focussed times.
The internet is just a passing fad, remember? Like Pokemon and roleplaying games
H.B.M.C. wrote: Not accusing anyone of anything, but only mentioning it because I've seen it done in other companies, but Kirby's wife could be on the books just to reduce his tax.
If Kirby's tax on his full pay = X, but if the total pay is reduced by the amount given to his wife, therefore his tax becomes = X-1, that could be the reason.
I wonder if she even went into the hq, and had a desk (someone must have seen her?) Or just "worked from home".
I'd be more sympathetic if she put in the regulation 260 days even if she paid more tax than her experience would earn her elsewhere. Maybe she really is a good manager.
frozenwastes wrote: Companies are free to define their own job position expectations, so it's entirely possible that "head of IT" is a 100% non-technical managerial position. Lots of people who work in IT answer to clueless bosses who don't actually know anything about computers or networks but minored in HR at college or whatever.
Mrs Kirby is... Jen Barber!?
Well, she is a qualified relationship manager, even if she thinks IT means "Internet Things."
And with the typical BOLS type of comments too. "People have been saying GW will go out of business since 2004".
Same thing here. It's said on almost all the forums not just BoLS? Even on Dakka people are saying GW will be going out of business espically with 3D printing in 5 years time. Not only releated to BoLS. Dakka is notorious for it as well.
Now back to Asmodee. Isn't that a different company? Is it fair to compare to them? Only thing we know is how much they made. We don't know there expenses (or do we?) so we don't know how much profit they are making. While they are making more money than GW how much more profit are they making?
And with the typical BOLS type of comments too. "People have been saying GW will go out of business since 2004".
Same thing here. It's said on almost all the forums not just BoLS? Even on Dakka people are saying GW will be going out of business espically with 3D printing in 5 years time. Not only releated to BoLS. Dakka is notorious for it as well.
Not in my experience.
Mostly it's not "they're going bust" but "they need to change or they're going to get into serious trouble, which could eventually lead to them being taken over or going out of business."
Well, anyone who appears to be posting with any authority or credibility on the subject does anyway.
Now back to Asmodee. Isn't that a different company?
Of course it is.
Is it fair to compare to them?
Reasonably, they're operating in similar sectors which likely has a lot of crossover in the demographics and types of consumer they're targeting.
Only thing we know is how much they made. We don't know there expenses (or do we?) so we don't know how much profit they are making. While they are making more money than GW how much more profit are they making?
Their whole financial report is there. It isn't opening for me for some reason, but all he same info as contained in the GW report will be in there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bringing this over from the BOLS article.
Davor has a point that only a limited amount can be inferred on revenue alone, but it pretty categorically reinforces the assertion that's been prevalent for some time that the sector is growing overall, and GW are running contrary to that, meaning they're not only shrinking, but they're shrinking in comparison to other operators.
And with the typical BOLS type of comments too. "People have been saying GW will go out of business since 2004".
Same thing here. It's said on almost all the forums not just BoLS? Even on Dakka people are saying GW will be going out of business espically with 3D printing in 5 years time. Not only releated to BoLS. Dakka is notorious for it as well.
Purposefully misreading what he said to push your "side".
That's what... the 2nd or 3rd time that's happened in this thread?
So if the High Lords of GW don't change course and the company spirals out of control, presumably they'll be opened up to a buy out? I mean shareholders aren't going to put up with a total loss right?
So, that could actually be quite good couldn't it? I mean if a company (like Asmodee) picked up GW and actually got it back on course, that could be a good move for the customers no?
Yep, it's a potential scenario that could work out well for the customer. It is a roll of the dice however, if a company recognises the unfulfilled potential and neglected areas of the Warhammer product and feels the way forward is to address those issues and strive to produce the most playable games with the best minis, we're in clover, if, however, it is a company that feels the way forward is to dump any game and produce a range of action figures and play sets, that would be less optimistic.
spaceelf wrote: One of the reasons that I no longer buy GW products is that they screw their employees. Looks like this is still going on.
As do many other companies throughout the world, including other wargame companies.
I'm not trying to "white knight" but I have to say GW was pretty damn good compared to other companies I've worked for. Sure there were some staff I couldn't stand and thought gave the place a bad rep but you get that everywhere.
OgrynBob wrote: So if the High Lords of GW don't change course and the company spirals out of control, presumably they'll be opened up to a buy out? I mean shareholders aren't going to put up with a total loss right?
Exact Kirby is the majority shareholder with more than 50% ownership. And presumably he's in league with several others, so they have dominant position. And nothing at this points to him wanting to cash out.
OgrynBob wrote: So if the High Lords of GW don't change course and the company spirals out of control, presumably they'll be opened up to a buy out? I mean shareholders aren't going to put up with a total loss right?
Exact Kirby is the majority shareholder with more than 50% ownership. And presumably he's in league with several others, so they have dominant position. And nothing at this points to him wanting to cash out.
...no. Kirby is the single largest individual shareholder, but he's nowhere close to 50%.
OgrynBob wrote: So if the High Lords of GW don't change course and the company spirals out of control, presumably they'll be opened up to a buy out? I mean shareholders aren't going to put up with a total loss right?
Exact Kirby is the majority shareholder with more than 50% ownership. And presumably he's in league with several others, so they have dominant position. And nothing at this points to him wanting to cash out.
OgrynBob wrote: So if the High Lords of GW don't change course and the company spirals out of control, presumably they'll be opened up to a buy out? I mean shareholders aren't going to put up with a total loss right?
So, that could actually be quite good couldn't it? I mean if a company (like Asmodee) picked up GW and actually got it back on course, that could be a good move for the customers no?
This assumes that the property is worth taking over.
GW overvalues their IP - and would likely be looking at a lot more than would be reasonable to expect. (The IP used to be worth more than it is now - at least in proportion to the market.)
The alternative is a slow decline into bankruptcy - and that is a crap shoot at best.
Reasonably, they're operating in similar sectors which likely has a lot of crossover in the demographics and types of consumer they're targeting.
I can't get the report open either (Eurazeo website seems to be down), but Asmodee is part of a large, multi-billion conglomerate and it seems that at least some of their growth is because of acquisitions. It seems they have quite a bit of investor money behind them. It's impossible to say how much real growth they have had without seeing the report.
Davor has a point that only a limited amount can be inferred on revenue alone, but it pretty categorically reinforces the assertion that's been prevalent for some time that the sector is growing overall, and GW are running contrary to that, meaning they're not only shrinking, but they're shrinking in comparison to other operators.
Well, this has often been claimed, and probably is true to some extent, but for every successfully growing company there are also others which are stale or go bust. I've often pointed out that Hasbro, one of the largest players in the industry, has seen little to no growth over last 5-6 years or so. For 2014, their gaming division has reported slight reduction of revenue. It is harder for big companies to post large relative growth.
Backfire wrote: For 2014, their gaming division has reported slight reduction of revenue. It is harder for big companies to post large relative growth.
Actually, Hasbro is reporting 2% growth over the same period last year in their games division for the third quarter which has reversed the losses from earlier in the year. The net result is the games division was still down 4% year-on-year in the 3rd quarter BUT considering they were down 12% in the 2nd quarter, I would say that's a very strong rally for the division.
The larger you get, the harder growth becomes, so Hasbro, being fething enormous, are a poor example in this context.
Equally, you can't make acquisitions with thin air and good intentions, and large, successful companies aren't going to put money into companies or sectors they don't see potential in, so even if the growth does come form mergers and acquisitions, it still has validity.
Kilkrazy wrote: I can't see why Kirby would want actively to crash GW.
If he is aiming to retire he would presumably rather his shares maintain their value and rate of dividend.
I don't think Kirby wants GW to crash. But I think his primary focus is maximizing year-on profit, even if it means that the company is moving into a worse and worse long-term position. As people have been saying, GW might die a slow death over the next 5-10 years, but by then I imagine Kirby will have gotten what he wanted and be free to sail off into the sunset on his new yacht.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm sorry, but how does requiring a multi-billion government bail out not count as "financial distress?"
I mean, I wouldn't say "Oh sure, my heart just stopped and the only chance I've got of surviving is a transplant, but otherwise I'm fine" would I?
Because cynical calous business reasons. If they KNOW they will receive a bailout, feth it take some serious risks. Same reason some companies will flagrantly break the law, apologize & pay the fines. If I make $100 billion manipulating toxic mortgages & the fed fines me $50 billion that's nothing. People will look and say "ohhh he got fined HARD $50 billion is a lot" meanwhile I'll just sit here counting the $50billion in profits I still kept.
That's close, but not accurate. What actually happened is a bank received $500 billion in loans from the Fed and then was asked to pay a fine of $1 billion from the Justice Department.
Backfire wrote: For 2014, their gaming division has reported slight reduction of revenue. It is harder for big companies to post large relative growth.
Actually, Hasbro is reporting 2% growth over the same period last year in their games division for the third quarter which has reversed the losses from earlier in the year. The net result is the games division was still down 4% year-on-year in the 3rd quarter BUT considering they were down 12% in the 2nd quarter, I would say that's a very strong rally for the division.
I was talking about first 9 months (fourth quarter is yet to be released). Single quarters really don't tell much IMO, "crash" on 2nd quarter may have well been because they had some big release in 2013 Q2 which boosted numbers.
agnosto wrote: As I shareholder I intend to ask Kirby at the next AGM about employing his unqualified wife to blow a fortune on a botched website project. This is utterly disgusting. Who got the £4m for making the site, and were they related to him too?
I think they contracted with some such overly large organization to do it.
Pretty sure it is an actual Oracle site... Haven't actually spoken with anyone who was involved with this last rollout though.
It's an off-the-shelf solution, which is why it looks so boring & generic.
4 million is not actually an outrageous price, one has to remember that the site is only a forefront, and the project most likely was a comprehensive solution where they redid all their warehousing, logistics etc software and databases.
Nepotist embezzlement would have been done in opposite fashion: they'd have announced that new website is designed by some hitherto unknown company which just happened to be headed by Mrs Kirby (or some other relative or acquaintance), which has shoe-string operation, no ready templates or solutions and then there would be gradual delays and cost-increases as the company is hugely under-resourced for such an operation, because only fraction of the invested money actually goes to design and programming work, most of it is being leeched of by the owners in messy & non-transparent billing. If some of the board or stockholders, frustrated to rising costs & lack of progress, wish to terminate to deal, it would be countered with variations of 'sunken costs fallacy' and promises that the new deadline is 'just around the corner'. And when the whole is operational, it's a horrible buggy mess and takes months/years to fix.
Disclaimer: I will strongly deny that the above is based on any real world example.
Kilkrazy wrote: I can't see why Kirby would want actively to crash GW.
If he is aiming to retire he would presumably rather his shares maintain their value and rate of dividend.
I don't think Kirby wants GW to crash. But I think his primary focus is maximizing year-on profit, even if it means that the company is moving into a worse and worse long-term position. As people have been saying, GW might die a slow death over the next 5-10 years, but by then I imagine Kirby will have gotten what he wanted and be free to sail off into the sunset on his new yacht.
His main focus has been to pump out dividends to pay himself.
When that no longer becomes viable, he will shift away from a controlling position and sell his shares while the books are "ok".
Hence the short term behavior and reduction of assets and overhead to plump up profitability.
If I did not care about the company that is what I would do in his position, it only makes sense.
Only if he smells a potential buy-out he might hold on for that as some speculators point out (doubt it though).
Face-it, their management is content to manage what they have rather than deal with the unknown of an expanding market.
<edit> Which would entail spending on capital for long term payoff draining from dividends = contrary to his goals.
Nepotist embezzlement would have been done in opposite fashion: they'd have announced that new website is designed by some hitherto unknown company which just happened to be headed by Mrs Kirby (or some other relative or acquaintance), which has shoe-string operation, no ready templates or solutions and then there would be gradual delays and cost-increases as the company is hugely under-resourced for such an operation, because only fraction of the invested money actually goes to design and programming work, most of it is being leeched of by the owners in messy & non-transparent billing. If some of the board or stockholders, frustrated to rising costs & lack of progress, wish to terminate to deal, it would be countered with variations of 'sunken costs fallacy' and promises that the new deadline is 'just around the corner'. And when the whole is operational, it's a horrible buggy mess and takes months/years to fix.
Disclaimer: I will strongly deny that the above is based on any real world example.
How do we know that's not what basically happened here? Lots of other folks have said that the 4M number is suspiciously high. In any case, we are only seeing the glossy cover of the whole deal (in the financial report) it could very well be a raging, convoluted mess underneath. If the total cost is excessive, it very well could be the result of various degrees of incompetence/sunk costs shenanigans.
weeble1000 wrote: Lots of other folks have said that the 4M number is suspiciously high.
I wouldn't say suspiciously high - I would say stupidly high...
Again, it isn't something that I am entirely unfamiliar with. It was how I made my living for a number of years, and now I work with numerous small and medium sized businesses (which goes up past where GW is sitting). Although my primary areas of concern are on the technical side - I often work as an intermediary between the businesses and software developers dealing with inventory control, ecommerce, finances and compliance packages.
Based on my own experience - the £4 million spent would cover 600-1500 man-weeks of professional, software development. This would include all the requirement interviews, data collection, high level design, QA and testing as well as the actual development. Even on the high end of things (in terms of cost) - that will get you a years worth of development out of a top notch team. In about half that time - they could write pretty much every bit of management and inventory software GW would need for their whole company (which is not what happened).
Instead, what they needed should have cost somewhere nearer the $750K mark - including licensing costs for an off the shelf solution. That would let them pretty much have their pick of whatever software package they want to run, and a competent team of developers to write whatever bridges might be needed to link the systems together as well as handle all the data migration.
4 million is not actually an outrageous price, one has to remember that the site is only a forefront, and the project most likely was a comprehensive solution where they redid all their warehousing, logistics etc software and databases.
I have (now) good information that says the £4 million was just the website and a (pretty simple) inventory management package to go with it (that as I understand it - was part and parcel to the package used). I also have it on good information that come this July, we will see another approximately £2-3 million exceptional cost to cover a new manufacturing control system...because they can't seem to get the old one to work with the new retail system...
I have (now) good information that says the £4 million was just the website and a (pretty simple) inventory management package to go with it (that as I understand it - was part and parcel to the package used). I also have it on good information that come this July, we will see another approximately £2-3 million exceptional cost to cover a new manufacturing control system...because they can't seem to get the old one to work with the new retail system...
That seems to me to be a hallmark of terrible management. At some point a competent executive has to step in and decide to stop throwing money down a hole. There comes a time when cutting something off, even if it means a waste of time, money, and effort, is preferable to proceeding with it.
The GW v CHS case comes to mind as another example, but litigation is contentious and emotional. A new website...at some point you just have to stop throwing good money after bad. If you don't have the foresight to do that, it will cause problems.
GW can't very easily weather another 3M extraordinary expenditure with the way its revenue and costs are situated. The company doesn't have any debt, per say, but with the way things are going, GW needs that 3M, even if only to help pay dividends.
Kilkrazy wrote:I can't see why Kirby would want actively to crash GW.
If he is aiming to retire he would presumably rather his shares maintain their value and rate of dividend.
One thing Kirby has been able to do is get a pay out ratio for his dividends that is way higher than the amount of money he would have gotten had the board approved dividends anything close to industry averages or the pay out rates of the LOTR boom days. During the last few years GW has had both a higher earnings per share and a higher dividend pay out ratio than during their best year during the LOTR boom. He's already helped himself to more cash than he should have gotten by any sane metric.
He owns almost 7% of the company. If he ever decides to sell there is absolutely no way those shares are going on the open market. They would crash the share price and he'd get less for them than he would if he went about it another way. One thing that gets voted on at each annual meeting is the approval of a share buy back of more than sufficient size to buy him out. It hasn't been used yet, but right now the board of directors has the right to buy the shares if he wants to sell them. The other option he has is to personally call each of the investment funds that also owns a large amount of GW and explain he obviously doesn't want to dump 7% of the company on the open market and they don't want the share price pushed down either, so maybe they'll work out a share purchase, possibly to a single fund or perhaps broken up to a handful of buyers.
Kirby will get out with a good amount of cash and he's not going to intentionally crash the share price.
4 million is not actually an outrageous price, one has to remember that the site is only a forefront, and the project most likely was a comprehensive solution where they redid all their warehousing, logistics etc software and databases.
I have (now) good information that says the £4 million was just the website and a (pretty simple) inventory management package to go with it (that as I understand it - was part and parcel to the package used). I also have it on good information that come this July, we will see another approximately £2-3 million exceptional cost to cover a new manufacturing control system...because they can't seem to get the old one to work with the new retail system...
Ouch. I'd have quite happily accepted that a £4m site and back end was possible, if the back end was substantial and whoever negotiated the contract sucked at it, but that's an off the shelf webstore with almost no personalization, and should have cost something at least an order of magnitude less. I mean, these projects often work out significantly more than expected once you factor in changes (I bet GW are terrible to get decent specifications out of), staffing, licenses and overheads, but it's still a bread-and-butter off the shelf e-commerce site and stock management back-end. There shouldn't be that much work to it, even if you add in a few layers of bureaucracy.
weeble1000 wrote: GW can't very easily weather another 3M extraordinary expenditure with the way its revenue and costs are situated. The company doesn't have any debt, per say, but with the way things are going, GW needs that 3M, even if only to help pay dividends.
I can't help but think that the annual extrordinary expenditures are done to mask the bad financials - "the numbers might look bad this year, but that's only because we spent £3m on a new inventory system", and so on. I'm surprised they didn't make a big deal about WHW in the last report.
Nepotist embezzlement would have been done in opposite fashion: they'd have announced that new website is designed by some hitherto unknown company which just happened to be headed by Mrs Kirby (or some other relative or acquaintance), which has shoe-string operation, no ready templates or solutions and then there would be gradual delays and cost-increases as the company is hugely under-resourced for such an operation, because only fraction of the invested money actually goes to design and programming work, most of it is being leeched of by the owners in messy & non-transparent billing. If some of the board or stockholders, frustrated to rising costs & lack of progress, wish to terminate to deal, it would be countered with variations of 'sunken costs fallacy' and promises that the new deadline is 'just around the corner'. And when the whole is operational, it's a horrible buggy mess and takes months/years to fix.
Disclaimer: I will strongly deny that the above is based on any real world example.
How do we know that's not what basically happened here? Lots of other folks have said that the 4M number is suspiciously high.
Well, usually in those cases they do not select OTS solution from large, estabilished company. Because that makes it very easy to compare costs and schedules with other projects where same software company has been involved. It's much more difficult to hide all kinds of consultations, billing etc. superfluous costs there. I don't say it's impossible, just that usually this sort of thing would come out differently.
Webstores for major companies tend to be expensive. Most expensive ones cost 100+ million. This costed 15 million euros and was a slow, horrible buggy mess upon introduction which took months and much money to rectify. Now granted, their back-end is probably at least order of magnitude more complicated than for GW, but it gives you an idea.
Nepotist embezzlement would have been done in opposite fashion: they'd have announced that new website is designed by some hitherto unknown company which just happened to be headed by Mrs Kirby (or some other relative or acquaintance), which has shoe-string operation, no ready templates or solutions and then there would be gradual delays and cost-increases as the company is hugely under-resourced for such an operation, because only fraction of the invested money actually goes to design and programming work, most of it is being leeched of by the owners in messy & non-transparent billing. If some of the board or stockholders, frustrated to rising costs & lack of progress, wish to terminate to deal, it would be countered with variations of 'sunken costs fallacy' and promises that the new deadline is 'just around the corner'. And when the whole is operational, it's a horrible buggy mess and takes months/years to fix.
Disclaimer: I will strongly deny that the above is based on any real world example.
How do we know that's not what basically happened here? Lots of other folks have said that the 4M number is suspiciously high.
Well, usually in those cases they do not select OTS solution from large, estabilished company. Because that makes it very easy to compare costs and schedules with other projects where same software company has been involved. It's much more difficult to hide all kinds of consultations, billing etc. superfluous costs there. I don't say it's impossible, just that usually this sort of thing would come out differently.
Webstores for major companies tend to be expensive. Most expensive ones cost 100+ million. This costed 15 million euros and was a slow, horrible buggy mess upon introduction which took months and much money to rectify. Now granted, their back-end is probably at least order of magnitude more complicated than for GW, but it gives you an idea.
No.
5 million GBP is an impossible number for web store with the size and complexity of GW's. And trying to compare something with the complexity of a real-time ticket selling capacity to a web store is a bit ridiculous. And please stop throwing that 100+ million number round, that is simply not true for any web store.
Yeah that must be dealing with lots of train operators.
The GW system essentially lets you put items in a cart, pass it via some online payment system, and no doubt doesn't do anything more complicated than changing the stock level and sending an email to the warehouse packers.
I did that for a uni project back in 2004, admittedly on a much smaller scale, and without any considerations to internationalization, security or browser compatibility. But it's a long solved problem. Every mail order company in the world has something that does this.
Unless it's interfacing to the machinery or warehouse to get real-time updates on stock, I don't see where the money went.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PhantomViper wrote: 5 million GBP is an impossible number for web store with the size and complexity of GW's. And trying to compare something with the complexity of a real-time ticket selling capacity to a web store is a bit ridiculous. And please stop throwing that 100+ million number round, that is simply not true for any web store.
I'm sure there will be webstores that cost 100million GBP, but they'd be several orders of magnitude bigger than GW's, like Amazon or eBay.
The GW site at the front end looks like a re-skin of Warlord Games site, which I'm sure didn't cost them anything like that much. It doesn't do anything differently do Dark Sphere, Wayland, or any other webstore in the world.
I'm sure there will be webstores that cost 100million GBP, but they'd be several orders of magnitude bigger than GW's, like Amazon or eBay.
Neither Amazon or eBay are what usually would be called web stores. Both of them have unique requirements and capabilities that no ordinary web store has.
I don't know if Backfire works in IT or not, but what he is doing is the equivalent of pointing at the Space Shuttle mentioning that it costs several billion and using that as the reason why that small RC plane that he bought at Toys R' Us can be pretty reasonably bought for 1 million.
Nepotist embezzlement would have been done in opposite fashion: they'd have announced that new website is designed by some hitherto unknown company which just happened to be headed by Mrs Kirby (or some other relative or acquaintance), which has shoe-string operation, no ready templates or solutions and then there would be gradual delays and cost-increases as the company is hugely under-resourced for such an operation, because only fraction of the invested money actually goes to design and programming work, most of it is being leeched of by the owners in messy & non-transparent billing. If some of the board or stockholders, frustrated to rising costs & lack of progress, wish to terminate to deal, it would be countered with variations of 'sunken costs fallacy' and promises that the new deadline is 'just around the corner'. And when the whole is operational, it's a horrible buggy mess and takes months/years to fix.
Disclaimer: I will strongly deny that the above is based on any real world example.
How do we know that's not what basically happened here? Lots of other folks have said that the 4M number is suspiciously high.
Well, usually in those cases they do not select OTS solution from large, estabilished company. Because that makes it very easy to compare costs and schedules with other projects where same software company has been involved. It's much more difficult to hide all kinds of consultations, billing etc. superfluous costs there. I don't say it's impossible, just that usually this sort of thing would come out differently.
Webstores for major companies tend to be expensive. Most expensive ones cost 100+ million. This costed 15 million euros and was a slow, horrible buggy mess upon introduction which took months and much money to rectify. Now granted, their back-end is probably at least order of magnitude more complicated than for GW, but it gives you an idea.
GW are not a "major" company.
I worked as a management accountant for a UK high street retailer with similar turnover to GW with a website shipping internationally. £1.5m including "aftercare" and forums (that was 5 years ago and in London so inflation should be a wash on the comparison).
Backfire wrote: For 2014, their gaming division has reported slight reduction of revenue. It is harder for big companies to post large relative growth.
Actually, Hasbro is reporting 2% growth over the same period last year in their games division for the third quarter which has reversed the losses from earlier in the year. The net result is the games division was still down 4% year-on-year in the 3rd quarter BUT considering they were down 12% in the 2nd quarter, I would say that's a very strong rally for the division.
I was talking about first 9 months (fourth quarter is yet to be released). Single quarters really don't tell much IMO, "crash" on 2nd quarter may have well been because they had some big release in 2013 Q2 which boosted numbers.
As someone who does a fair bit of investing, I generally don't make long-term decisions based on quarters or even 9 month reports but in hard data and long-term trends. I just quoted the short-term data because that's all that I could find that was negative for Hasbro in the Games division and since you were saying that were having a tough time, I tried to see things your way. If you look at the long-term outlook, they were up 2% in Games from 2011 to 2012 and another 10% from 2012 to 2013. So, Games division of a very large firm growing substantially during the same periods that a smaller, should be more agile firm such as GW is declining.
Source: http://investor.hasbro.com/financials.cfm
PhantomViper wrote: 5 million GBP is an impossible number for web store with the size and complexity of GW's. And trying to compare something with the complexity of a real-time ticket selling capacity to a web store is a bit ridiculous. And please stop throwing that 100+ million number round, that is simply not true for any web store.
I'm sure there will be webstores that cost 100million GBP, but they'd be several orders of magnitude bigger than GW's, like Amazon or eBay.
Marks & Spencer webstore costed £150 million.
I don't work in IT, but I have seen comments from people who do, and have said that GW price tag is not really exceptional.
As someone who does a fair bit of investing, I generally don't make long-term decisions based on quarters or even 9 month reports but in hard data and long-term trends. I just quoted the short-term data because that's all that I could find that was negative for Hasbro in the Games division and since you were saying that were having a tough time, I tried to see things your way. If you look at the long-term outlook, they were up 2% in Games from 2011 to 2012 and another 10% from 2012 to 2013. So, Games division of a very large firm growing substantially during the same periods that a smaller, should be more agile firm such as GW is declining.
Source: http://investor.hasbro.com/financials.cfm
Well, if you want even longer terms, it could be pointed out that Hasbro's gaming division shrank from 2008 to 2010. Post-2010 growth has taken it back to 2008 level.
Don't think I ever said they had 'tough times', I believe their gaming division is quite profitable. However, in terms of revenue, it has not really grown over the last 5-6 years, and since they represent much larger slice of the gaming industry than company like FFG or even GW, probably gives better idea of how the industry is doing as a whole.
PhantomViper wrote: 5 million GBP is an impossible number for web store with the size and complexity of GW's. And trying to compare something with the complexity of a real-time ticket selling capacity to a web store is a bit ridiculous. And please stop throwing that 100+ million number round, that is simply not true for any web store.
I'm sure there will be webstores that cost 100million GBP, but they'd be several orders of magnitude bigger than GW's, like Amazon or eBay.
Marks & Spencer webstore costed £150 million.
Marks & Spencer also run a bank. It's far more than a simple webstore.
And even if X cost £150m, that doesn't mean Y can't be overpriced at £4m.
Marks & Spencer also run a bank. It's far more than a simple webstore.
Sure. Which is why it costed £150 million and not £4 million. I just brought it up as an example of a more extreme end of the scale.
Of course M&S is much bigger than GW, but similarly, GW is bigger and their needs more complicated than someone like Warlord Games or Wayland. It's delusional to claim that "oh, I could do that as my university project".
Marks & Spencer also run a bank. It's far more than a simple webstore.
Sure. Which is why it costed £150 million and not £4 million. I just brought it up as an example of a more extreme end of the scale.
Of course M&S is much bigger than GW, but similarly, GW is bigger and their needs more complicated than someone like Warlord Games or Wayland. It's delusional to claim that "oh, I could do that as my university project".
How are GW's needs more complicated than the average web store?
If anything I would say that they are less complicated since they only need to deal with one fixed supplier instead of multiple ones in several different countries.
Also, no it is not delusional that someone can make a web store with the same functionalities as GW's has as a university project. It would have less polish, certainly, but the functionalities would all be there.
Marks & Spencer also run a bank. It's far more than a simple webstore.
Sure. Which is why it costed £150 million and not £4 million. I just brought it up as an example of a more extreme end of the scale.
Of course M&S is much bigger than GW, but similarly, GW is bigger and their needs more complicated than someone like Warlord Games or Wayland. It's delusional to claim that "oh, I could do that as my university project".
The Warlord store is more complicated; it even has a newsletter and articles (that you can search). It won't get as much traffic, but bandwidth is cheap. It doesn't do anything mechanically different.
I'm also not saying I could do that as my university project. I literally did. I can even show you it when I dig it out. Again it's not as refined, but it does all the same stuff. The basic web store system has existed for well over a decade. GW's is a particularly poor example of it and there's no way it should cost £4m unless it's got a lot of stuff in the back end, is used to hide some other costs (like a huge legal bill) or they got ripped off (because they hire for attitude).
If anything it'd delusional to think that that store was worth the money.
Marks & Spencer also run a bank. It's far more than a simple webstore.
Sure. Which is why it costed £150 million and not £4 million. I just brought it up as an example of a more extreme end of the scale.
Of course M&S is much bigger than GW, but similarly, GW is bigger and their needs more complicated than someone like Warlord Games or Wayland. It's delusional to claim that "oh, I could do that as my university project".
How are GW's needs more complicated than the average web store?
If anything I would say that they are less complicated since they only need to deal with one fixed supplier instead of multiple ones in several different countries.
Also, no it is not delusional that someone can make a web store with the same functionalities as GW's has as a university project. It would have less polish, certainly, but the functionalities would all be there.
Hell, GW's old website had more functionality.
What they have right now looks off the shelf - little to no customization, not a whole lot of bells and whistles. Just a vanilla shopping cart.
I would not even expect the university project to have less by way of polish - as a project it would be intended to showcase the student's ability, while this... looks like a purely off the shelf product. Nothing special - and certainly not 4 Million worth of special.
My question is - did Mrs. Kirby get a percentage of that 4 Million?
Speaking as a web developer, their site is pretty basic on the front end. It's literally just a glorified catalog. The old site at least was a HOBBY site that also had a store, this is literally an online catalog.
WayneTheGame wrote: Speaking as a web developer, their site is pretty basic on the front end. It's literally just a glorified catalog. The old site at least was a HOBBY site that also had a store, this is literally an online catalog.
Obligatory reminder that GW see's buying GW product as the core of the hobby.
As someone who does a fair bit of investing, I generally don't make long-term decisions based on quarters or even 9 month reports but in hard data and long-term trends. I just quoted the short-term data because that's all that I could find that was negative for Hasbro in the Games division and since you were saying that were having a tough time, I tried to see things your way. If you look at the long-term outlook, they were up 2% in Games from 2011 to 2012 and another 10% from 2012 to 2013. So, Games division of a very large firm growing substantially during the same periods that a smaller, should be more agile firm such as GW is declining.
Source: http://investor.hasbro.com/financials.cfm
Well, if you want even longer terms, it could be pointed out that Hasbro's gaming division shrank from 2008 to 2010. Post-2010 growth has taken it back to 2008 level.
Don't think I ever said they had 'tough times', I believe their gaming division is quite profitable. However, in terms of revenue, it has not really grown over the last 5-6 years, and since they represent much larger slice of the gaming industry than company like FFG or even GW, probably gives better idea of how the industry is doing as a whole.
As to your verbiage used, "crash" usually connotes a sharp decline in profitability... I guess that I don't know what to say to that. Normally, a dip followed by several years of growth constitutes, well growth to most people but you appear to hold a different definition. The point being that Hasbro is growing in their games Division while GW is shrinking in the same period. More than 12% growth over 2 years is usually something to cheer about even if it does return you to pre-Great Recession levels.
I agree that Hasbro's more than 12% growth over last several years is indicative of the overall health of the industry as evidenced by numerous, more anecdotal, sources. ICv2 I think quoted average growth in the industry of around 15% in 2013 and all of the non-public companies reporting growth. Mainly anecdotal but in line with Hasbro's earnings and other non-verifiable offerings from other, non-public game companies who all report similar growth while GW is in decline during the same period.
agnosto wrote: Mainly anecdotal but in line with Hasbro's earnings and other non-verifiable offerings from other, non-public game companies who all report similar growth while GW is in decline during the same period.
Call me crazy, but you usually need to see some change to "cause" for the "effect" to change.
GW has not changed anything that they have been doing for years including a decided lack of advertising.
They are content with a steady decline in gross sales.
Their strategy going forward is to continue to hire motivated store managers (as underperforming ones get shunted out...).
Exciting stuff.
Stay the course, steady as she goes.
How long till the next BRB?
Is probably the only exciting question to ask for another profit spike.
Problem is: if 7th to 8th edition would be like 6th to 7th: who would really care about buying it anytime soon?
Definitely not pre-order or collector edition.
Oddly, due to the ho-hum changes lately, a big shake-up in rules could be exciting enough to create buzz.
I think this is the year where GW is painted into a corner where all the typical money grabs have been done, time to pull a rabbit out of the hat or the next financial report will show an accelerated negative trend.
Marks & Spencer also run a bank. It's far more than a simple webstore.
Sure. Which is why it costed £150 million and not £4 million. I just brought it up as an example of a more extreme end of the scale.
Of course M&S is much bigger than GW, but similarly, GW is bigger and their needs more complicated than someone like Warlord Games or Wayland. It's delusional to claim that "oh, I could do that as my university project".
Not really. Size of the company is a pretty small component of the cost to develop (or deploy) the IT related tools. The big factor is scope and complexity. GW's scope is pretty limited - inventory for two distribution centers (...maybe 3, I forget if Australia still has one in country), single option SKUs, minimal security.
Banks - large or small - require regulatory compliance, real time data tracking, a significant expenditure on security.
Travel have complex links to the real world (arrivals, departures, delays), real time tracking, regulatory compliance, government oversight and generally an API to allow for third party integration.
When comparing a site like Warlord (or even smaller than that...like Hasslefree) the complexity of both the small job and GWs are about the same. You may have more people receiving the order invoices to pull stock - but the end result is the same. Size (and traffic) would be dealt with whatever load balancing and persistence of databases and servers (costs a bit - but pretty basic stuff, that wheel has been invented long ago). It is also something that is generally worked out on most off the shelf software packages already.
Cost over runs like what happened with GW generally are the result of incompetent management and shifting targets. I am pretty sure that a reasonably competent university student could replicate the whole of it - both form and function - without much difficulty.
With regards to all the discussion of whether £4M is a fair price for what GW got, please bear in mind that they already had a web site with e-commerce functions, a POS system and some kind of a stock control or operations management system that all was developed in the 2000s and can hardly be considered paleolithic technology.
It isn't really a fair argument but considering their obvious incompetence in rules writing, proof-reading, recruitment, marketing and legal matters, is it too far a stretch to think they would be incompetent at IT as well?
Kilkrazy wrote: With regards to all the discussion of whether £4M is a fair price for what GW got, please bear in mind that they already had a web site with e-commerce functions, a POS system and some kind of a stock control or operations management system that all was developed in the 2000s and can hardly be considered paleolithic technology.
It isn't really a fair argument but considering their obvious incompetence in rules writing, proof-reading, recruitment, marketing and legal matters, is it too far a stretch to think they would be incompetent at IT as well?
Also developed by the team which Oracle bought to become Oracle Commerce (ATG was purchased by Oracle - and most the code translated directly into Oracle Commerce)...so, basically...they bought a £4 million style sheet.
With all this talk of Kirby is doing this and Kirby is doing that, why is he not under investigation? These are all illegal allegations being made. If true he could be in prison. If not true, people can be sued for slander.
If true there should be an investigation and then he should answer for his actions. Seeing this is not happening and the shareholders are not asking questions I don't think this is the case.
If not true, a slander case can happen agiasnt some members of Dakka now. A line has been crossed when you start making fun of a persons wife.
Don't like Kirby fine. Don't be low enough to take it on his wife now. That is just low.
You think Kirby is breaking the law? Contact the powers that be in England and let them know what exactly he is doing that is wrong.
If not true, a slander case can happen agiasnt some members of Dakka now. A line has been crossed when you start making fun of a persons wife.
Nobody is making fun of anyone's wife. They're making fun of GW's former interim head of IT, who's previous qualifications were something along the lines of a gym coordinator (all of which is public record), and who was in charge during a period when GW spent what many here believe was a ridiculously large amount of money on a new webstore that generated very little return on investment... and then speculating as to why and how that situation developed.
It just so happens that this person is also Kirby's wife.
Davor wrote: With all this talk of Kirby is doing this and Kirby is doing that, why is he not under investigation? These are all illegal allegations being made. If true he could be in prison. If not true, people can be sued for slander.
If true there should be an investigation and then he should answer for his actions. Seeing this is not happening and the shareholders are not asking questions I don't think this is the case.
If not true, a slander case can happen agiasnt some members of Dakka now. A line has been crossed when you start making fun of a persons wife.
Don't like Kirby fine. Don't be low enough to take it on his wife now. That is just low.
You think Kirby is breaking the law? Contact the powers that be in England and let them know what exactly he is doing that is wrong.
Because, mostly, people are saying that what Kirby is doing is stupid, not illegal.
Nepotism on a corporate level isn't illegal - just lacking in wisdom. *EDIT* Clarified, since nepotism on a government level may be illegal. But GW is a corporation, not a government.
It can be demonstrated that what he is doing can reasonably argued as lacking in wisdom. So GW trying to take that to court would be as likely to succeed as GW trying to claim a trademark and copyright on grenade launchers and skulls....
If people were claiming that he is breaking the law then libel becomes a possibility.
But claiming that an over priced web site is over priced?
Even GW would pause before trying to push that one, at least after what happened against Chapterhouse....
If not true, a slander case can happen agiasnt some members of Dakka now. A line has been crossed when you start making fun of a persons wife.
Nobody is making fun of anyone's wife. They're making fun of GW's former interim head of IT, who's previous qualifications were something along the lines of a gym coordinator (all of which is public record), and who was in charge during a period when GW spent what many here believe was a ridiculously large amount of money on a new webstore that generated very little return on investment... and then speculating as to why and how that situation developed.
It just so happens that this person is also Kirby's wife.
No, I was absolutely making fun of the fact that the acting CEO hired his wife (identified by the lovely, completely respectful moniker 'Mrs. Tom Kirby' in the interim report) to be the interim IT manager. I even made a joke that played on the idea that married people have likely engaged in regular sexual relations.
And that's totally fine! Even if Tom Kirby were not a "public figure" within the oh so tiny table top wargaming community, it would still be okay. But in fact Tom Kirby is arguably very much a public figure, by the mere fact that he is the public representative of a public company. And then there's the fact that he has given interviews and that his preambles are so expressive and personally worded.
Davor wrote: With all this talk of Kirby is doing this and Kirby is doing that, why is he not under investigation? These are all illegal allegations being made. If true he could be in prison. If not true, people can be sued for slander.
If true there should be an investigation and then he should answer for his actions. Seeing this is not happening and the shareholders are not asking questions I don't think this is the case.
If not true, a slander case can happen agiasnt some members of Dakka now. A line has been crossed when you start making fun of a persons wife.
Don't like Kirby fine. Don't be low enough to take it on his wife now. That is just low.
You think Kirby is breaking the law? Contact the powers that be in England and let them know what exactly he is doing that is wrong.
Because, mostly, people are saying that what Kirby is doing is stupid, not illegal.
Nepotism on a corporate level isn't illegal - just lacking in wisdom. *EDIT* Clarified, since nepotism on a government level may be illegal. But GW is a corporation, not a government.
It can be demonstrated that what he is doing can reasonably argued as lacking in wisdom. So GW trying to take that to court would be as likely to succeed as GW trying to claim a trademark and copyright on grenade launchers and skulls....
If people were claiming that he is breaking the law then libel becomes a possibility.
But claiming that an over priced web site is over priced?
Even GW would pause before trying to push that one, at least after what happened against Chapterhouse....
The Auld Grump
In America, the First Amendment gets you really, really far. Free Speech is pretty darn sacred, and people being able to criticize the behavior of a public figure is rather sacrosanct.
If not true, a slander case can happen agiasnt some members of Dakka now. A line has been crossed when you start making fun of a persons wife.
Nobody is making fun of anyone's wife. They're making fun of GW's former interim head of IT, who's previous qualifications were something along the lines of a gym coordinator (all of which is public record), and who was in charge during a period when GW spent what many here believe was a ridiculously large amount of money on a new webstore that generated very little return on investment... and then speculating as to why and how that situation developed.
It just so happens that this person is also Kirby's wife.
No, I was absolutely making fun of the fact that the acting CEO hired his wife (identified by the lovely, completely respectful moniker 'Mrs. Tom Kirby' in the interim report) to be the interim IT manager. I even made a joke that played on the idea that married people have likely engaged in regular sexual relations.
And that's totally fine! Even if Tom Kirby were not a "public figure" within the oh so tiny table top wargaming community, it would still be okay. But in fact Tom Kirby is arguably very much a public figure, by the mere fact that he is the public representative of a public company. And then there's the fact that he has given interviews and that his preambles are so expressive and personally worded.
Davor wrote: With all this talk of Kirby is doing this and Kirby is doing that, why is he not under investigation? These are all illegal allegations being made. If true he could be in prison. If not true, people can be sued for slander.
If true there should be an investigation and then he should answer for his actions. Seeing this is not happening and the shareholders are not asking questions I don't think this is the case.
If not true, a slander case can happen agiasnt some members of Dakka now. A line has been crossed when you start making fun of a persons wife.
Don't like Kirby fine. Don't be low enough to take it on his wife now. That is just low.
You think Kirby is breaking the law? Contact the powers that be in England and let them know what exactly he is doing that is wrong.
Because, mostly, people are saying that what Kirby is doing is stupid, not illegal.
Nepotism on a corporate level isn't illegal - just lacking in wisdom. *EDIT* Clarified, since nepotism on a government level may be illegal. But GW is a corporation, not a government.
It can be demonstrated that what he is doing can reasonably argued as lacking in wisdom. So GW trying to take that to court would be as likely to succeed as GW trying to claim a trademark and copyright on grenade launchers and skulls....
If people were claiming that he is breaking the law then libel becomes a possibility.
But claiming that an over priced web site is over priced?
Even GW would pause before trying to push that one, at least after what happened against Chapterhouse....
The Auld Grump
In America, the First Amendment gets you really, really far. Free Speech is pretty darn sacred, and people being able to criticize the behavior of a public figure is rather sacrosanct.
Except that we are talking about GW here - a company that has sent C&D orders to fan sites because they were saying nice things about GW products, with pictures....
Understand the law and the topic of conversation? Pshaw! It's much easier to jump to extreme conclusions, make wild accusations, blindly throw legal threats around and exit stage right. All done on an anonymous discussion board of course.
agnosto wrote: Understand the law and the topic of conversation? Pshaw! It's much easier to jump to extreme conclusions, make wild accusations, blindly throw legal threats around and exit stage right. All done on an anonymous discussion board of course.
Because the lawyers were chosen for attitude, not experience!
agnosto wrote: Understand the law and the topic of conversation? Pshaw! It's much easier to jump to extreme conclusions, make wild accusations, blindly throw legal threats around and exit stage right. All done on an anonymous discussion board of course.
Because the lawyers were chosen for attitude, not experience!
The Auld Grump
QFT. I wouldn't be shocked if they hired some of the white knights on this board or elsewhere for high level positions then.
Davor wrote: With all this talk of Kirby is doing this and Kirby is doing that, why is he not under investigation? These are all illegal allegations being made. If true he could be in prison. If not true, people can be sued for slander.
If true there should be an investigation and then he should answer for his actions. Seeing this is not happening and the shareholders are not asking questions I don't think this is the case.
If not true, a slander case can happen agiasnt some members of Dakka now. A line has been crossed when you start making fun of a persons wife.
I don't think anyone has accused him of breaking the law. Nepotism, while dumb, is not illegal. Since I was (I believe the first in this thread) to point out the issue with the website occurring while Kirby's wife was interim director of IT for the company - and showed that through GW's own documents (should hope those should be truthful)...I don't think there is anything to even approach slander.
Off color (or otherwise) remarks of what Kirby did with his wife, or what she did to get the job aside (pretty sure those would be largely truthful - being married and what not) would also not amount to slander.
I think the only one who really hinted at any sort of illegal activity was Backfire...when he came to GW's defense. I don't think there is any sort of embezzlement going on, just incompetence by someone who is out of their depth.
As noted by Xca|iber though - even the off color comments become (relatively) fair game as soon as they decided to include her in the report as a director of a significant division of a global company (IT isn't just beepers and email anymore...companies live and die by effective management of their IT departments). At that point, she becomes the IT director who headed up a significantly overcosted website rollout - who also happens to be the Chairman and CEO's wife.
Davor wrote: With all this talk of Kirby is doing this and Kirby is doing that, why is he not under investigation? These are all illegal allegations being made. If true he could be in prison. If not true, people can be sued for slander.
If true there should be an investigation and then he should answer for his actions. Seeing this is not happening and the shareholders are not asking questions I don't think this is the case.
If not true, a slander case can happen agiasnt some members of Dakka now. A line has been crossed when you start making fun of a persons wife.
I don't think anyone has accused him of breaking the law. Nepotism, while dumb, is not illegal. Since I was (I believe the first in this thread) to point out the issue with the website occurring while Kirby's wife was interim director of IT for the company - and showed that through GW's own documents (should hope those should be truthful)...I don't think there is anything to even approach slander.
Off color (or otherwise) remarks of what Kirby did with his wife, or what she did to get the job aside (pretty sure those would be largely truthful - being married and what not) would also not amount to slander.
I think the only one who really hinted at any sort of illegal activity was Backfire...when he came to GW's defense. I don't think there is any sort of embezzlement going on, just incompetence by someone who is out of their depth.
As noted by Xca|iber though - even the off color comments become (relatively) fair game as soon as they decided to include her in the report as a director of a significant division of a global company (IT isn't just beepers and email anymore...companies live and die by effective management of their IT departments). At that point, she becomes the IT director who headed up a significantly overcosted website rollout - who also happens to be the Chairman and CEO's wife.
Mind you, folks have sued over the competition spouting inconvenient truths. (AT&T sued Verizon over the competition's 'There's a Map for That' ads that were using AT&T's own statistics on how poorly AT&T covered the U.S. for 4G.... The judge even pointed out during the trial that using the truth in advertising isn't illegal....)
This is true - the burden for bringing suit is pretty low...
...I aint scared though. Pretty sure Mr. and Mrs. Kirby would be more interested in keeping Warrior and Associates particulars out of the public eye than they would be in silencing anyone's commentary on her qualifications to head an IT department.
OMG. Kid_Kyoto: you have to write a preamble for the next annual report, and release it like a few days before the 'real' one comes out. Would love to see that.
Kosake wrote: So, is the allready a wager running when GW is going belly-up? Any quotes? Come on, I thought the Brittish would bet on near-anything.
It is like betting on how long you can live while being fed your surgically removed body parts: there is still good eating on the carcass of GW.
Since I have got reacquainted with Palladium Books and their Kickstarter I now know it is possible to continue on with a shoestring budget for decades.
The real question would be: how do you know when they reach the stage they are no longer relevant?
The possible answer is when you no longer care and the question is pointless to you.
Kosake wrote: So, is the allready a wager running when GW is going belly-up? Any quotes? Come on, I thought the Brittish would bet on near-anything.
It is like betting on how long you can live while being fed your surgically removed body parts: there is still good eating on the carcass of GW.
Since I have got reacquainted with Palladium Books and their Kickstarter I now know it is possible to continue on with a shoestring budget for decades.
The real question would be: how do you know when they reach the stage they are no longer relevant?
The possible answer is when you no longer care and the question is pointless to you.
Torga_DW wrote: OMG. Kid_Kyoto: you have to write a preamble for the next annual report, and release it like a few days before the 'real' one comes out. Would love to see that.
I could never, ever top Tom "our crops with wither' Kirby. I mean seriously, I would have sworn that was a parody when I saw the cheap shot about 'laws meant to keep people from stealing pigs'.
As Tom Leher (allegedly) said when Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize...
Torga_DW wrote: OMG. Kid_Kyoto: you have to write a preamble for the next annual report, and release it like a few days before the 'real' one comes out. Would love to see that.
I could never, ever top Tom "our crops with wither' Kirby. I mean seriously, I would have sworn that was a parody when I saw the cheap shot about 'laws meant to keep people from stealing pigs'.
As Tom Leher (allegedly) said when Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize...
How do you top that?
Yes, though you do lack the skills, you do have the right attitude and that's what GW is looking for.
Talizvar wrote: Since I have got reacquainted with Palladium Books and their Kickstarter I now know it is possible to continue on with a shoestring budget for decades.
Palladium doesn't have the manufacturing nor retail overhead GW has. Palladium sends all their books to printers they don't own to be printed and has no retail wing. All they really have to pay for is each printing with however much that cost, some sort of warehouse, a small website and whatever talent the contract with on per book bases. Palladium could be run out of someone's house and still be in business with no major issues.
GW on the other hand has manufacturing overhead that has to be paid regardless of what is being produced. They also have a retail wing that eats money even if nothing is sold. GW also sees itself as a model making company, not a game company and as such, will almost never contract model production to another company nor would they manufacture for another company which might compete in their own space.
Kosake wrote: So, is the allready a wager running when GW is going belly-up? Any quotes? Come on, I thought the Brittish would bet on near-anything.
It is like betting on how long you can live while being fed your surgically removed body parts: there is still good eating on the carcass of GW.
Since I have got reacquainted with Palladium Books and their Kickstarter I now know it is possible to continue on with a shoestring budget for decades.
The real question would be: how do you know when they reach the stage they are no longer relevant?
The possible answer is when you no longer care and the question is pointless to you.
My answer:
When GW's largest competitor has greater net sales than GW.
Alternately:
When the net sales of the combined competition outsells GW by 3:1. (A full majority.)
Already, GW's dominance outside of their own stores is slipping.
Alternately:
When the net sales of the combined competition outsells GW by 3:1. (A full majority.)
That's been the case for a while. Even optimistic surveys of the competition buy GW at 15-25% of the Wargaming market. Expand that to include cards and boardgames and they'll drop to single digits.
There are literally thousands of wargames manufacturers out there, though only maybe a couple dozen 'big' ones, who are on multi-million annual revenues.
Alternately:
When the net sales of the combined competition outsells GW by 3:1. (A full majority.)
That's been the case for a while. Even optimistic surveys of the competition buy GW at 15-25% of the Wargaming market. Expand that to include cards and boardgames and they'll drop to single digits.
There are literally thousands of wargames manufacturers out there, though only maybe a couple dozen 'big' ones, who are on multi-million annual revenues.
I was being a bit narrower than that - assuming 'fantasy and science fantasy miniatures gaming' rather than 'wargaming' or the more general 'tabletop gaming'.
If we throw in boardgames then Hasbro is the winner.
Tom Kirby then no thank you!
I need to work for a tabloid.
