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

Well with the stock plunging, a hostile takeover is sure to happen before  1.50 pounds, GW's GROSS is still actually pretty good and better management would probably do the trick.

I would love to see Wizards take over, they are an amazing company and did wonders for D&D.

Any other thoughts? Someone noted Mattel once upon a time but I don't think it would jive.

Posted by happypants on 07/05/2006 11:42 AM
I would love to see Wizards take over, they are an amazing company and did wonders for D&D

You do know that Wizards of the Coast was taken over by Hasbro shortly after they acquired TSR.

We'll see after july report comes out.....

maybe Mattel would be able to reach out to the other 49% of the population, you know the half with boobs, ok the half with boobs that do something besides indicate you're too fat.

Barbie Space Marines! She has a new hat!

Wizards?
who keep buying up rpg companies and closing them down?
who had to close a ton of their own retail stores?
crazy talk

Well I have said before, that a independant store owner has told me that their profits have dropped to below £10 mil this period. Will be interesting to see the figures when released.

I would expect to see downsizing and the dropping of excess games before I see them get bought out by someone.  Then again maybe no one wants to touch them because of how much it would take to clean them up and get things on the rise again.  But I don't see a hostile take over by anyone going for GW.

Mattel's ditching Barbie, by the way.

That's what I heard on the intaerweb.

Wizards?
who keep buying up rpg companies and closing them down?
who had to close a ton of their own retail stores?
crazy talk

People clamoring for GW to get bought out either ignore or are ignorant to the fact that a sale could be very bad for hobbyists, too. GW, love them or hate them, is at least predisposed to (more or less) traditional miniatures wargaming. It's unlikely that new management would have that same attitude. Be careful what you wish for, as you may end up with a lame but highly profitable clix game.

Who says a takeover is even possible.

Sure it's a publicly traded company, but who owns the stock?

Someone figure that out and report back (I'm too lazy).

Still rooting for Hasbro.* Our family-fun-oriented Hasbro. Then maybe we could have Space Marine action figures with posable hands and both Krak AND frag missiles for the Missile Marine!

*I mean it in the "best bet" scenario. I don't think anyone even considers me seriously saying Hasbro should buy out GW, but if they do and it turns out for the best, I'll still say, "I told you so!" and laugh at everyone's faces.

SirNotinThisFilm: That's essentially what 40k is. Barbie for boys.

@Ghaz, yes I do know that but they are an arms length company. Doing that with GW would be insane because they are not making any real money. Wizards was making good money when they were taken over so Hasbro bought them, gave them more resources and let them do thier thing.

sorry, must disagree, wizards has killed off anything it has ever touched and hasbro couldn't help .. hasbro should keep to selling and making frisbee's and call it a day..

 

I agree with two heads....classic example...when WoTC took the Starwars Card Game and made it into a pile of steaming sh*T. The Decipher game was far superior and the game play was waaaaay better. I like how WotC used the same designer that made Magic and thought that he could make a better game...HA...were they ever wrong....WotC sucks b*lls... Capt K

Call me a business noob, but I find it funny when a company in a niche industry can make a PROFIT of 10million and still be considered disasterous.

Two Heads Talking - WotC has killed anything it ever touched? Would you like to give an example? Your personal bias against the company does not mean they don't perform well. Are we thinking of the same Wizards of the Coast? And Capt. K you agree? Based on the failure of one game? Even the most successful companies in the world have had a failed product or two. What goofy logic are you using that says that just because their SW card game wasn't that great that they are a bad company?

Let's look at some of their products:
Magic and Pokemon: I don't personally care for either myself, but Magic changed the gaming world forever (like it or not) and Pokemon was a huge success with the under 15 crowd. Both of these were very successful.

D&D 3 and 3.5: Just because you may not like this version doesn't mean it's crap. The relaunch of D&D saved what was a dying game. Sure it doesn't fit everyones tastes for an RPG and the d20 thing has weakened the overall quality a bit, but it was a success.

How about their miniatures? D&D is doing well and the Star Wars line did okay. They may not be as profitable as D&D and Magic, but they are successful.

Wotc made an attempt to do miniatures, it failed miserably, with way too many people thinking they were boss. They also managed to spend huge sums of money to build a chain of stores that never made a profit, even when they funneled huge amounts of pokemon cards through them, while limiting what they gave to LGS.

Hasbro will be very leery of buying up a company like GW, or having Wotc buy it. One of the amusing things about the WOTC buyout was that the price paid for the stock was based on earnings for that last quarter. Suddenly WOTC opened the warehouses, and flooded out as much product as possible. The price per share was very inflated, and future earnings never seemed to be anywhere close to that one amazing quarter. It made me happy though, because people like Phil and Kaja Folio got a lot of cash for those shares they took in exchange for illustrating magic cards. )

I think a ton of the GW stock is held by people that won't welcome a buyout. If the stock goes low, what I'd expect to happen is for Mr. Kirby to buy it back up.

It would be nice if the original management bought it back, and have it run by people who love the gaming world. I can't quite see the current CEO playing the games he sells. If he did he would understand the passion we have for them, and as someone who's been playing for over 15 years now, why we feel these games "belong" to us as such. Our passion for the game has been exploited, it's been taken for granted that we would stay with them come what may. Trouble is Urban War, Hordes, Warmachine, Confrontation, etc have come along.

Why do you expect GW to be a takeover target? A management buyout potentially, but I don't see a merger, purchase, or takeover attempt.  

Frankly the industry has not proven that it is sustainable over the long term.

 

Posted By malfred on 07/05/2006 12:13 PM
SirNotinThisFilm: That's essentially what 40k is. Barbie for boys.

Barbie is lame.

I have been informed by an inside source (7 year old daughter) that Polly Pockets is the New Black  

CaptK: I loved Decipher's Star Wars game and hated the Yahtzee version myself. We had a great community here (Northern VA) and quarterly tournaments always had lots of participants - usually 25-40. Problem is, Hasbro/WotC obtaining the license for a SW card game had more to do with Lucas owning a significant stock in Hasbro than in WotC's greed - at least that's what everyone believed. Of course, the insult was that "the great" creator of MTG made the Yahtzee game as well.

Anyway, they did have Pokemon, still have MTG, and 3.5 is a great example of what streamlining should be.

Eh, maybe if the stock price gets to an even lower value I might buy some myself. Just for kicks.

Ok, list some facts....

1.) If a company's net revenue falls (as in this example GW falls to under 10 million pounds <not sure if this is right going by a "sketchy" detail from a previous poster&gt it has two options...
A.) Sell more or B.) Lower prices.
2.) Since we all know GW will not lower prices, they will aim for option A. If they fail to reach option A, they will then be faced with a problem, they will have an overabundant supply with little to no increase in demand. If this supply surplus hangs in inventory, then production wil slow down until the demand matches the supply surplus.
3.) Iff the shelves are stocked, but profits are still low, select retail locations will be the first to close shop (as one just did near me) and supply will be reallocated.
4.) With less overhead GW will now be able to reduce operation costs across the board, hopefully then raising revenue.
5.) It is only if then GW still posts in the red that a takeover will happen.
6.) So at least for the time being, you won't see any companies jumping over fences to buy GW, unless the majority shareholders decide to sell out and jump ship, which leads to a board of directors change and new managers, but hey that's the risk of being publicly traded...

By the way, I'm not some guy who just rambles, I graduated with a degree in economics and finance, and that is the only reason that I know how things like this work ::cries::

Posted By derekatkinson on 07/06/2006 9:05 AM


Thank the 20 year bear market for making it next to impossible for companies to get funding to open new mines and oil wells.

 

Sorry but WTF are you talking about? ? ? Bear market for oil companies??? No new wells being punched??? Baker Hughes international rig counts are at 2948, their highest level since the mid 80's.

1.) If a company's net revenue falls (as in this example GW falls to under 10 million pounds <NOT poster previous a from detail ?sketchy? by going right is this if sure&gt it has two options...
A.) Sell more or B.) Lower prices.

How would lowering prices increase net revenue unless you also sold more?

I'd think B would be "raise prices".

Derek, It seems he did the math, and showed you to be wrong. He listed the wells, and claimed them to be at an all time high. Is his information false?

Derek Atkinson, oil prices may have jumped tremendously, but it has been established that the cost of materials is a VERY small fraction of the total cost of the product.  I don't have the numbers here (and can't remember who does; Insaniak?  Hellfury?), but I'm pretty sure it was less than 5%.

I love listening to people who... awwww, nevermind. 

i'd buy it....

if i won the lottery

maybe if we all got together....and...

no that won't work

Thats rigs.  Number of rigs. Development is currently underway in North Africa, Asia, even the North Sea is being further developed.

You've got high prices because:

1) Nigeria instability (kidnapping employees tends to do that).

2) Venezuela instability

3) Iran instability (are we noticing a trend here)

4) diminishing GC production

Coupled with strong demand from both the US and China/India.

If you think energy development has been hampered due to lack of investment I have a bridge to sell you. 

 

 

Ok last post as this is the Highwayman version of thread hijacking but

With all respect to you (and my previous posts are a bit harsh-my apology):

E&P financing and development has been strong for some time, based on those commmodity prices for Borrowing Base development (not the majors who are generally unsecured and self fund - and I quote "Ve are Shell, Ve do not require External Financing" ).  E&P projects since oil rose above $20 per barrel. You're confusing project viability with capital.

 

But as has been noted, plastics are not a significant cost of business to GW. Energy costs probably, but this is not a capex intensive operation.