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.

It's not just the raw numbers. The buy side is and has been for awhile now avoiding consumer disc, of which plastic toys certainly is!

Analysts will see through the issues above, they have relationships too.

My own feedback, my wife asked me what will I take next. Well with only local options for sales, maybe 10% discount to store prices, which are discracefully high, forget it.

I stocked up on space marines before online from o/s was closed and that's it.

So assuming I'm the marginal ROW growth rep, forget sales growth ex nth hemisphere.

I like GW however unlike oil, their pricing and demand are very elastic.

I'll call good growth this qtr, shocking 4q11.

Kouzuki wrote:

don't bother. People on this forum always try to talk like they know anything without even basic knowledge of economics or accounting.

I mean, its evident from the available answers already.

That's fairly dismissive. I believe FullHead and SourClams have a fair amount of education/experience in the financial sector---as well as others.

Fullheadofhair is a professional equity analyst.

I'm a professional agricultural commodities analyst, so my forays into the equity side is amateurish dabbling by comparison to what fullheadofhair can present.

GW will not give you a negative report. ever.

They are well versed in baffling with bull!@## and dazzling you with diamonds, that you will just end up saying- well, THIS time it wasn't so bad. While not even knowing what your looking at.

My personal opinion is that they will say that they are doing well, while at the same time we get to see in real life increased people leaving, the stores still closing, and stores still continuing to go under, or reduce thier shelfspace to the shiny new lickies and chewies, while not really selling all that much.

I'll be the first to tell you that this "One Man" store idea is a dog, that is going to end up costing them more in the long run then just doing the smart thing and improving thier regular stores and increased attention to mail order, while not making it a business to headhunt and waste money on trying to be all and end all.

The local gaming stores are having enough of a handle to just keep the lights on, that I don't see one man stores doing anything other then having a GW name brand on them to be ready to be sacrificial lambs to the NEXT round of closings to satisfy GW's bs business plan.


The economy isn't justifying the increase of this gak to the price that they are asking. So even if they make a little money in the short run, they are cutting thier own throats in the long.

Your poll doesn't really make a lot of sense for what you are asking there.

Grot 6 wrote:They are well versed in baffling with bull!@## and dazzling you with diamonds, that you will just end up saying- well, THIS time it wasn't so bad. While not even knowing what your looking at.

Look at our profits, now look at our sales, now look back at our profits. Sadly, sales numbers aren't in line with our profits, but it could be, now that we've introduced FINECAST(tm), slashed staff and raised prices. Look at my hand, its our annual report... look again, the report is now DIAMONDS. Anything is possible when you invest with GW. (I'm issuing a dividend.)

keezus wrote:Look at our profits, now look at our sales, now look back at our profits. Sadly, sales numbers aren't in line with our profits, but it could be, now that we've introduced FINECAST(tm), slashed staff and raised prices. Look at my hand, its our annual report... look again, the report is now DIAMONDS. Anything is possible when you invest with GW. (I'm issuing a dividend.)

I chuckled.

I dont think this report wil be effected much.

The next report though is where we wil see if there is much of a change.


Does PP release their reports ? it would be intrested to see them both compared.

Spyder68 wrote:
Does PP release their reports ? it would be intrested to see them both compared.

They're not traded Scott, as they're private (At least last I read PP was still private). I don't think they have any intentions of changing that.

As an interesting side note, Tom Kirby led the management buy out of GW back in the early 90s.

Ahh ok.. Didnt know that.

Maybe thats why PP can do some of the deals they do then!

I certainly suspect that plays a major part. Matt Wilson owns the company (I'm unsure if he still shares a partnership as one of them left IIRC).

Incidentally, the late 90s/early 2000s is when the shift of ideology began in Games Workshop (Post management buy off). They went from a company ran by tabletop enthusiasts that happened to make money-----to a corporation ran by money that happened to make miniatures. That's just my opinion though.

Spyder68 wrote:Ahh ok.. Didnt know that.

Maybe thats why PP can do some of the deals they do then!

AgeOfEgos wrote:Incidentally, the late 90s/early 2000s is when the shift of ideology began in Games Workshop (Post management buy off). They went from a company ran by tabletop enthusiasts that happened to make money-----to a corporation ran by money that happened to make miniatures. That's just my opinion though.

Ultimately there's nothing wrong with this dynamic. Apple, McDonald's, Nike, Pepsi--all public companies dedicated to making money, but do so by giving their customers exactly what they want in new and market-leading ways, out-competing their competition for their core consumer demographic.

GW by contrast shows very little innovation in its approach, and has been satisfied with increasing margins to compensate for lost market share.

sourclams wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:Incidentally, the late 90s/early 2000s is when the shift of ideology began in Games Workshop (Post management buy off). They went from a company ran by tabletop enthusiasts that happened to make money-----to a corporation ran by money that happened to make miniatures. That's just my opinion though.

Ultimately there's nothing wrong with this dynamic. Apple, McDonald's, Nike, Pepsi--all public companies dedicated to making money, but do so by giving their customers exactly what they want in new and market-leading ways, out-competing their competition for their core consumer demographic.

GW by contrast shows very little innovation in its approach, and has been satisfied with increasing margins to compensate for lost market share.

Sad but true!

I wonder what it will take to finally get them to realize that yes, this is the 21st century that we're living in now!

sourclams wrote:GW by contrast shows very little innovation in its approach, and has been satisfied with increasing margins to compensate for lost market share.

I partially agree, but also don't. If you look at GW as a miniatures company, not a gaming company, they most certainly have been innovating for much of the last decade, embracing computer aided design and digital sculpting tools, advanced molds (ala the baneblade), and even, to some extent, finecast. Yes, the initial release has issues - they'll get straightened out. If you remember the iPhone 4 launch, where you had to hold the phone delicately lest you short the antenna and have your call drop, Apple had the same sort of issue. Innovation comes with its missteps, but I don't see any reason to believe that they won't be fixed. Quality miniatures and customer service have long been GWs best features.

Gaming-wise - I fully agree, they're not innovative. But consider that if they were to make large-scale sweeping changes, what would the outcry from the community be then? Especially from the "customers" who haven't bought anything in years but expect to have their ancient armies remain viable.

Marketting/Sales-wise, I doubly agree, no innovation to speak of. But to get out of the retail space at this point might not be wise either. It'd be a large cost to absorb on a gamble that some other marketing strategy would work better than running their own shops.

Good points.

The biggest changes GW's made to date involve having to purchase more models for your army as points costs go down - and actual costs go up!

I think GW have been considerably less innovative than a company in their position should and could be. I've often said that it took them until the last few years to get the quality of their kits up to where Frog were in the 1950s.

While the older GW kits -- most of them -- are still in the Frog era, the newest ones have reached the standards set by Airfix in the 60s. They have yet to achieve the innovation level of Matchbox in the 70s.

Japanese manufacturers like Tamiya and Bandai meanwhile have gone miles ahead in techniques such as slide moulds and multi-colour moulding. You look at a modern Gundam kit and even something like the Trygon is an embarrassment in comparison.

The advent of Internet based retailing would allow GW to sell mass customised kits, which would be a huge benefit, especially to younger customers, if they would adopt modern techniques.

What is the point of multi-colour molding when you're a company that's selling people paint and primer?

What is a slide mould? What benefit does it provide?

AgeOfEgos wrote:

That's fairly dismissive. I believe FullHead and SourClams have a fair amount of education/experience in the financial sector---as well as others.

>Implying you need any sort of education or experience in FINANCE to read annual reports.

Edited by Manchu to remove trollery.

Interested in the failure to ensue them

AgeOfEgos wrote:I certainly suspect that plays a major part. Matt Wilson owns the company (I'm unsure if he still shares a partnership as one of them left IIRC).

Incidentally, the late 90s/early 2000s is when the shift of ideology began in Games Workshop (Post management buy off). They went from a company ran by tabletop enthusiasts that happened to make money-----to a corporation ran by money that happened to make miniatures. That's just my opinion though.

Spyder68 wrote:Ahh ok.. Didnt know that.

Maybe thats why PP can do some of the deals they do then!

And I think an opinion shared by the majority of people who have followed GW over those years.

Guys, I don't think it is neccesary to start getting sensitive or point fingers at each other, or reading overly dramatic things into what has been posted here. Some people in here have the experience to illustrate how a report can be 'massaged' into sounding a certain way. How about instead of getting into elitist accusations and the like, we just ask questions about things we are unsure of or interested in and you know... shock... actually learn something?

You do not need a financial background to read an annual report. But you sure as gak need one to cut through the noise IMO. There are many, many ways to set up corporate finances to look a certain way. Shuffling debt, cutting resources then calling it profit, which it is in the short term. Sheltering debt in business expenses, classing other expenses as RandD... tons of things you could do.

In running my own business, I recently discovered that we had over 60 grand a year in recoverable taxes because things we were doing were easily classed as RandD, even though in my opinion it is only in the loosest sense. It is insane some of the things you can do.

Anyways, I defer to the gentlemen who make a living on it in the end, but I am not shy to voice my opinion. I also won't be butthurt if someone clearly knows more than me lol.

Redbeard wrote:What is the point of multi-colour molding when you're a company that's selling people paint and primer?

What is a slide mould? What benefit does it provide?

Multi-colour moulding would be a benefit to everyone who likes the game but isn't interested in painting their figures. We know there are lots of them.

A slide mould uses sliding parts to enable the moulding of more complex parts. The models can be more detailed and new kinds of shapes can be employed in the design.

They have started using slide moulds then, I just wasn't aware that was the name for it. The Baneblade was the first model to utilize them, and one of the articles they put out at the time described how they were used to allow the molding of gun barrels with actual holes in them.

As for the coloured plastics, they obviously know how, because Space Hulk was released that way; red for the blood angels, blue for the stealers. Why not for everything? Probably because they, like I, see little point to it. It's not exactly something other miniature game makers are doing either, so it probably has an added cost factor.

Redbeard wrote:

sourclams wrote:GW by contrast shows very little innovation in its approach, and has been satisfied with increasing margins to compensate for lost market share.

I partially agree, but also don't. If you look at GW as a miniatures company, not a gaming company, they most certainly have been innovating for much of the last decade, embracing computer aided design and digital sculpting tools, advanced molds (ala the baneblade), and even, to some extent, finecast. Yes, the initial release has issues - they'll get straightened out. If you remember the iPhone 4 launch, where you had to hold the phone delicately lest you short the antenna and have your call drop, Apple had the same sort of issue. Innovation comes with its missteps, but I don't see any reason to believe that they won't be fixed. Quality miniatures and customer service have long been GWs best features.

Gaming-wise - I fully agree, they're not innovative. But consider that if they were to make large-scale sweeping changes, what would the outcry from the community be then? Especially from the "customers" who haven't bought anything in years but expect to have their ancient armies remain viable.

Marketting/Sales-wise, I doubly agree, no innovation to speak of. But to get out of the retail space at this point might not be wise either. It'd be a large cost to absorb on a gamble that some other marketing strategy would work better than running their own shops.

If the rumors about 6th are true, it's a fairly aggressive step for their design team. I always wonder how much of an influence sales/upper management have on the team. For example, do they announce low selling units and ask the design team to take steps? Vehicles received quite a boost in 5th and they were likely low sellers before.

Their one man shop step was kind of out of the blue too.

kronk wrote:With Dark Eldar in 4Q10 and Grey Knights in 2Q11, it will be positive.

Definitely and don't forget the new releases in Fantasy.

Kouzuki wrote:

MajorTom11 wrote:Guys, profits and sales numbers are silly putty in a savvy corporation's hands. I would always expect the report to be 'rosier' than the real situation. This doesn't mean that it will be completely misleading, but nor would I expect 100% honest accounting in negative scenarios...

don't bother. People on this forum always try to talk like they know anything without even basic knowledge of economics or accounting.

I mean, its evident from the available answers already.

And people on this site ALSO dismiss folks that actually do have knowlege on economics and accounting.

I mean its eveident from the answer in this post alone.

Redbeard wrote:They have started using slide moulds then, I just wasn't aware that was the name for it. The Baneblade was the first model to utilize them, and one of the articles they put out at the time described how they were used to allow the molding of gun barrels with actual holes in them.

As for the coloured plastics, they obviously know how, because Space Hulk was released that way; red for the blood angels, blue for the stealers. Why not for everything? Probably because they, like I, see little point to it. It's not exactly something other miniature game makers are doing either, so it probably has an added cost factor.

It will be nice when they apply slide moulding to cheaper kits.

What I mean by multi-colour is when several colours of plastic are pumped into the same mould, moulding parts on the same sprue in separate colours. The more expensive Gundam kits (£20) are often done this way now. Combined with clever design of the sprues and the attachment points to the parts, it allows the construction of very nice looking models without painting.

Isn't slide moulding also pretty expensive compared to the "regular" plastic injection moulds?

Tamiya, Dragon and other producers of tank kits kinda make it a big deal that the turrets are done with slide moulding. Which leads me to believe that it's pretty expensive or they would do it to most of the kits instead of just select parts (some parts wouldn't benefit from it, but a lot of muzzles and stuff sure would). They sure look good though, I wish everything was made that way.

pixelpusher wrote:Isn't slide moulding also pretty expensive compared to the "regular" plastic injection moulds?

Define expensive. A fast look at some tanyia kits online doesnt seem like they are more expensive then GW tank kits, and in some cases cheaper.

GW kits are expensive for reasons which are nothing to do with the cost of slide moulds.

Most GW kits are produced without the benefit of slide moulding.

I don't see the point of an argument about it, so let's not go down that road.

carmachu wrote:

pixelpusher wrote:Isn't slide moulding also pretty expensive compared to the "regular" plastic injection moulds?

Define expensive. A fast look at some tanyia kits online doesnt seem like they are more expensive then GW tank kits, and in some cases cheaper.

Can't really compare Tamiya or Dragon kits to GW.
In this case I define expensive as "more expensive than regular 2-slide plastic injection moulds".