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.

Methinks this is Kirby's revenge.

The stock performed admirably this year. There's no reason for such an action. It has to be emotional.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What exactly does "the role" do?

Is he the senior independent director of... manufacturing? Printing? Design? Store management?

They are bring back metal miniatures on mass. It's in the title of his job (Senior Lead Independent Director). Hence the revolt

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
How does this effect us and should we care? Will there be a price hike?

If it means several institutional investors wanted "their guy" in, that means they wanted some guy in who will "increase shareholder value". That likely means a return to a Kirby'esq mentality where they can cut everything to the bone as long as they get a bigger dividend.

That happened at my last job where a major shareholder got his chosen guy in as CEO. Within a year 25% of the workforce was let go and the place went form a company you could work for the rest of your life at to layoffs every other quarter. The day my division reported record profits and revenue, it was told by upper management to cut 10% of it's workforce.

 silent25 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
How does this effect us and should we care? Will there be a price hike?

If it means several institutional investors wanted "their guy" in, that means they wanted some guy in who will "increase shareholder value". That likely means a return to a Kirby'esq mentality where they can cut everything to the bone as long as they get a bigger dividend.

That happened at my last job where a major shareholder got his chosen guy in as CEO. Within a year 25% of the workforce was let go and the place went form a company you could work for the rest of your life at to layoffs every other quarter. The day my division reported record profits and revenue, it was told by upper management to cut 10% of it's workforce.

But that doesn't make sense given GW's meteoric improvement on the market. I am with the idea that this dude is part of the old regime or a 'cut corners for profits' guy that people don't want.

Or he is a known historical gamer. Yuk.

It doesn't sound like Myatt is directly involved in any decision making process that would have dire effects on the hobby, such as design. He's apparently a liaison between the Chairman of the Board and major shareholders. So if the shareholders don't like him it must mean they think he's not a good intermediary on their behalf.

 silent25 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
How does this effect us and should we care? Will there be a price hike?

If it means several institutional investors wanted "their guy" in, that means they wanted some guy in who will "increase shareholder value". That likely means a return to a Kirby'esq mentality where they can cut everything to the bone as long as they get a bigger dividend.

That happened at my last job where a major shareholder got his chosen guy in as CEO. Within a year 25% of the workforce was let go and the place went form a company you could work for the rest of your life at to layoffs every other quarter. The day my division reported record profits and revenue, it was told by upper management to cut 10% of it's workforce.

That is bad. Did they succeed?

This is all conjecture. Could be the guy was just disliked, could be they didn't think he had enough relevant experience, could be he resisted some change that was proposed, could be that he didn't act in the interests of some of the institutional investors, could be he didn't turn up to enough meetings and put the effort in. There are a multitude of reasons for investors wanting to change a NED. What is more unusual is they will normally go quietly so this does suggest there was a split in the investors (or that he was just stubborn).

However, there is no point extrapolating that this might mean a return to the old Games Workshop approach. It could just as easily mean the opposite.

At this point there's so little information, like when this vote actually happened for starters, that it's a complete none-story.

 Imateria wrote:
At this point there's so little information, like when this vote actually happened for starters, that it's a complete none-story.

Agree there. No conclusions about anything should be based on this amateur hour piece of 'reporting'. It's so bereft of details, I'm surprised it wasn't from one of the big mainstream American media outlets.

If its anything like the similar process in Australia its just a strike on the card. In Oz, a 25% (i think its 25%) no vote against remuneration is a strike. A second strike spills the board. Given this was a single director vote I would take this as the warning shot across the bow that this guy wouldn't be in the chair next year unless the remuneration dropped such that a no vote wouldn't be recorded against it. Similalry, here we are moving against the idea of 'independent' directors being barnacled to boards they sit on for 20+ years like this guys has been. The thinking is you need regular turnover to allow new ideas to come in, youth to step up, etc to allow companies to grow.

Whst does this has vto with GW pulling a 180 and give us 8th edition?

It could also simply be that some shareholders think that, at 73, he is too old to do a good job.

 Imateria wrote:
At this point there's so little information, like when this vote actually happened for starters, that it's a complete none-story.

We have that information, we even have the number of votes cast for and against.

You just need to actually read a few things and click a few links.

 Whirlwind wrote:


They are bring back metal miniatures on mass. It's in the title of his job (Senior Lead Independent Director). Hence the revolt

Clap, clap, clap.

Puns that subtle are rare and deserve appreciation.

Nah he's going to be replaced by the Senior Finecast Independent Director for twice the price with casting flaws all over the place

Crazy thought, but the guy is in his 70's. May well be he's just old and they want a younger guy around. Especially considering this is a "younger" hobby and all.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Crazy thought, but the guy is in his 70's. May well be he's just old and they want a younger guy around. Especially considering this is a "younger" hobby and all.

Well, it is not like he has anything to do with the hobby. GW is big enough that the management people may not even know what the hell a Space Marine is

Sheesh, only in GW games do the players care or ascribe such drama to normal workings of a corporation well above the "management level".

 Kirasu wrote:
Sheesh, only in GW games do the players care or ascribe such drama to normal workings of a corporation well above the "management level".

You think any of this is unique to GW?

The article called it a revolt, remember.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Sheesh, only in GW games do the players care or ascribe such drama to normal workings of a corporation well above the "management level".

You think any of this is unique to GW?

The article called it a revolt, remember.

It's not unique at all, just seems like GW fans seem to deeply internalize every little thing that happens at a corporate level as if its their family.

 Kirasu wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:
Sheesh, only in GW games do the players care or ascribe such drama to normal workings of a corporation well above the "management level".

You think any of this is unique to GW?

The article called it a revolt, remember.

It's not unique at all, just seems like GW fans seem to deeply internalize every little thing that happens at a corporate level as if its their family.

Not a family, more like "Does this mean they willl screw us over?"

 Kriswall wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In other news, 74.5% of shareholders voted in favour?

Generally speaking, many shareholders don't vote at all OR just let their vote default to whatever the company is recommending. In other words, 25.5% voting against doesn't really mean 74.5% actively voted in favor. Most shareholders don't care enough to take an interest. The average dude with 10 shares probably throws the proxy vote letter in the trash and never fills it out. His votes default to whatever the company wants. This 25.5% was probably made up of a handful of the larger shareholders and then a smattering of small ones.

This is not in any way correct. Most shareholders hold a great interest in whomever is on the board of directors. When you speak about the average dude with 10 shares, that most likely, in any ordinary company, usually tend to make up for less than 1% of all the shares. So usually, the vast the majority of people counting numbers tend to own a very, very tiny bit of the company. But I do agree that these people, in general, dont give a crap about the board of directors, although, their total shareholding is so small that it doesnt matter anyhow. Games Workshop got, what, more than 30,000,000 shares?

25% voting against is a major happening. Usually, it is a matter of profit, earnings and overall business operations that is being conducted on a strategical level, and I would also assume that those 25% are not interested in the "hobby" but for making money out of it.