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.

They remind me of woolworths they used to sell everyday products at reasonable prices. Then they moved up market somewhat, things started to slow down. They were finished off by internet sales. Now we have poundland.

Apologies for getting in the way of the chaff with a bit of relevant content.

http://www.everyinvestor.co.uk/news/2014/04/29/funds-uks-buffettology-fund-7823/

Little something I found from an actual GW investor. The relevant bits are the answers to Q6 and 7, but the rest of the interview explains his methodology...

It is interesting to note:

In the case of Games Workshop, the interim results disappointed for perfectly resolvable short-term problems and I had the opportunity to increase our existing holding at prices between 515p and 530p, compared to around 560p currently.

While it is true - they suffered from perfectly resolvable short-term problems, GW has never shown any ability to actually correct anything in any way other than cost cuttings and price increases. The management is very one track in terms of what they do, and as opposed to looking for ways to grow in order to overcome any issues they are having they are actively retracting in ways that I haven't seen many manufacturers shrink in years. At this point, they have contracted back to where they have started and the only place they have left to cut (without closing their retail arm) is letting go staff within Nottingham itself - something that they have been reluctant to do for whatever reason (they don't seem to want to cut the fat of middle management there - and it has grown while outside offices have been closed).

A different stock or different management - and I would probably have the same confidence to invest (and have "pounced" in the past). Not GW though. When I consider where good places are to hide my money, they don't inspire much confidence. It doesn't help that I have been watching them for nearly 20 years and have seem them do the same exact things over and over without any indication that they learned their lesson the last time.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
I

While it is true - they suffered from perfectly resolvable short-term problems, GW has never shown any ability to actually correct anything in any way other than cost cuttings and price increases. The management is very one track in terms of what they do, and as opposed to looking for ways to grow in order to overcome any issues they are having they are actively retracting in ways that I haven't seen many manufacturers shrink in years. At this point, they have contracted back to where they have started and the only place they have left to cut (without closing their retail arm) is letting go staff within Nottingham itself - something that they have been reluctant to do for whatever reason (they don't seem to want to cut the fat of middle management there - and it has grown while outside offices have been closed).

A different stock or different management - and I would probably have the same confidence to invest (and have "pounced" in the past). Not GW though. When I consider where good places are to hide my money, they don't inspire much confidence. It doesn't help that I have been watching them for nearly 20 years and have seem them do the same exact things over and over without any indication that they learned their lesson the last time.

Umm.. you do realize this is a relatively new management team that hasn't even been through a business cycle. So your generalizations and conjecture are based purely on your own personal feelings and perceptions about the company and not on management's track record. You aren't alone btw.. There are about 18 pages of this.

dereksatkinson wrote:
Umm.. you do realize this is a relatively new management team that hasn't even been through a business cycle. So your generalizations and conjecture are based purely on your own personal feelings and perceptions about the company and not on management's track record. You aren't alone btw.. There are about 18 pages of this.

Who is new?

Tom Kirby (age 63), chairman and acting CEO. Tom Kirby joined Games Workshop in April 1986 as general manager and led the management buy-out in December 1991, becoming chief executive at that time.

Kevin Rountree (age 43), COO. Kevin Rountree joined Games Workshop in March 1998 as assistant group accountant.

Chris Myatt (age 69). Chris Myatt is the senior independent director, joining the board on 18 April 1996.

Nick Donaldson (age 59). Nick Donaldson was appointed to the board on 18April 2002.

Elaine O’Donnell (age 43). Elaine O’Donnell was appointed to the board on 28 November 2013.

Well - she is new...sort of, but one out of 5 isn't anything to inspire change. Since her background is accounting, and as a corporate finance partner with EY - it leads me to believe that they have an eye on further restructuring in order to make the books look better instead of attempting to grow their product line and customer base...since that is what Ernst & Young sort of specializes in.

Outside of that - you have Merrit who has been with the company for almost as long as Kirby and is the "driving force" of the studio and creative departments (and a tool - yes, I know him personally). The various other underlings below them have no stake or significance in the company, its decisions and what they do. Most are middle management who would be just as happy selling sprockets as games. The other forces within the company are mostly figureheads who have been around for decades as well.

Do you honestly think that it's acceptable to copy and paste only a portion of a biography and omit everything that contradicts your position? That's basically what you did there. It's a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

Here are some of the COMPLETE biographies that are free from editing..

Tom Kirby (age 63), chairman and acting CEO. Tom Kirby joined Games Workshop in April 1986 as general manager and led the management buy-out in December 1991, becoming chief executive at that time. Between 1998 and 2000 he took on the role of non-executive chairman, returning to the role of chief executive in September 2000. He performed the role of chairman from December 2007 to January 2013 when he became chairman and acting CEO. Prior to joining Games Workshop, Tom worked for six years for a distributor of fantasy games in the UK and was previously an Inspector of Taxes.


Kevin Rountree (age 43), COO. Kevin Rountree joined Games Workshop in March 1998 as assistant group accountant. He then had various management roles within Games Workshop, including head of sales for the Other Activities division (including Black Library, licensing and Sabertooth Games). During the year ended 29 May 2011, he took on the responsibility of managing the Group’s service centres globally. To reflect this, his title was changed to chief operating officer from chief financial officer. He, however, still retains responsibility for all financial matters within Games Workshop. He qualified as a chartered management accountant in August 2001. Prior to joining Games Workshop, Kevin was the management accountant at J Barbour & Sons Limited and trained at Price Waterhouse.

So yes.. these guys were working with the company but an assistant group account or "chairman" isn't the same as an Executive position. Do you remember Mark Wells? He was the CEO up until January of last year.

Tom Kirby is the guy who was responsible for taking the company public, has been at the head of the company in a variety of roles for near 20 years and is the largest private stakeholder.

If I read that right Derek, you're trying to argue he's "new" because...?

 azreal13 wrote:
Tom Kirby is the guy who was responsible for taking the company public, has been at the head of the company in a variety of roles for near 20 years and is the largest private stakeholder.

If I read that right Derek, you're trying to argue he's "new" because...?

Besides, if you talk to folks who have worked at GW HQ, the description is overwhelmingly consistent: it's the Tom Kirby show. It has been for more than a decade.

weeble1000 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Tom Kirby is the guy who was responsible for taking the company public, has been at the head of the company in a variety of roles for near 20 years and is the largest private stakeholder.

If I read that right Derek, you're trying to argue he's "new" because...?

Besides, if you talk to folks who have worked at GW HQ, the description is overwhelmingly consistent: it's the Tom Kirby show. It has been for more than a decade.

I think you can also read into the fact that GW the corporation seems to act and react like a person (ie the hubris and arrogance with all the legal and IP stuff) rather than a gestalt entity comprised of multiple personalities with their own specialist knowledge and experience doing whatever's best for the company that there is very much a 'strong' hand at the tiller.

 azreal13 wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Tom Kirby is the guy who was responsible for taking the company public, has been at the head of the company in a variety of roles for near 20 years and is the largest private stakeholder.

If I read that right Derek, you're trying to argue he's "new" because...?

Besides, if you talk to folks who have worked at GW HQ, the description is overwhelmingly consistent: it's the Tom Kirby show. It has been for more than a decade.

I think you can also read into the fact that GW the corporation seems to act and react like a person (ie the hubris and arrogance with all the legal and IP stuff) rather than a gestalt entity comprised of multiple personalities with their own specialist knowledge and experience doing whatever's best for the company that there is very much a 'strong' hand at the tiller.

I very much agree. The people I have spoken to who work at GW HQ have always seemed to lack independence. They are delivering a message rather than enacting a policy. They lack any authority (or initiative?) to adjust on the fly and make independent decisions.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

Outside of that - you have Merrit who has been with the company for almost as long as Kirby and is the "driving force" of the studio and creative departments (and a tool - yes, I know him personally).

You know, I liken this to one of the generally held viewpoints that you should never watch an interview with an actor or musician, they invariably disappoint.

I loved some of the stuff Merritt did with the 40k background (especially, the consolidation of the Heresy series after the HH:TCG came out in the Collected Visions books). Then, I read that he refused to pick up some of the Chapterhouse miniatures at that recent trial on the grounds that they were poisonous/harmful.

Impression - blown.

dereksatkinson wrote:
Do you honestly think that it's acceptable to copy and paste only a portion of a biography and omit everything that contradicts your position? That's basically what you did there. It's a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

Here are some of the COMPLETE biographies that are free from editing..

...and some more...

So yes.. these guys were working with the company but an assistant group account or "chairman" isn't the same as an Executive position. Do you remember Mark Wells? He was the CEO up until January of last year.

Kirby could be called janitor for all it matters - when Wells was there, Kirby was in charge. Kirby was in charge before Wells was appointed, Kirby was in charge while Wells was there, Kirby is still in charge after Wells left. No change with or without Mark Wells.

On the COO. He was COO before, just didn't have the title. He has been on the board of directors since 2008. They gave him the title and placed him as head of global customer service (which they did because they closed all their regional HQs).

Considering that neither are new and their title changes were little to do with anything significant (other than there is no check to Kirby at all being both Chairman and CEO), my previous statement stands. No new blood, no change in management. If anything putting a CFO in a COO position means it is even more likely that they will cut to the bone throughout the company...which while it might correct the books for a year or two more, is very bad news for long term growth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
If I read that right Derek, you're trying to argue he's "new" because...?

I would guess because his bio says "non-executive" - however anyone who is familiar with the company...even those who are not familiar but who have at least read the annual reports from the 5 years or so that Wells was sitting in the CEO seat...knows that Kirby hasn't let go of anything since Ansell left.

Putin was president of Russia 2000-2008, then Russian constitution forbid him to apply for a third term in a row, so his prime minister Medvedev became predident for the minimum of one term and Putin became his prime minister. After that Putin was allowed to apply for another term as president and now again is president. So officially, he wasn't in charge for 14 years in a row. But we know better.

In Germany, it is illegal to be chair AND CEO of a company, in UK it is not illegal, just frowned upon. AFAIK there was some pressure on Kirby to leave the CEO position. For some unknown reason, Wells was not happy on his CEO position and suddenly left, with Kirby again taking over. So officially, Kirby was not in charge 20+ years in a row, but we know better.

So...what you're saying is that Kirby and Putin are old frat brothers, right?

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
Do you honestly think that it's acceptable to copy and paste only a portion of a biography and omit everything that contradicts your position? That's basically what you did there. It's a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

Here are some of the COMPLETE biographies that are free from editing..

...and some more...

So yes.. these guys were working with the company but an assistant group account or "chairman" isn't the same as an Executive position. Do you remember Mark Wells? He was the CEO up until January of last year.

Kirby could be called janitor for all it matters - when Wells was there, Kirby was in charge. Kirby was in charge before Wells was appointed, Kirby was in charge while Wells was there, Kirby is still in charge after Wells left. No change with or without Mark Wells.

On the COO. He was COO before, just didn't have the title. He has been on the board of directors since 2008. They gave him the title and placed him as head of global customer service (which they did because they closed all their regional HQs).

Considering that neither are new and their title changes were little to do with anything significant (other than there is no check to Kirby at all being both Chairman and CEO), my previous statement stands. No new blood, no change in management. If anything putting a CFO in a COO position means it is even more likely that they will cut to the bone throughout the company...which while it might correct the books for a year or two more, is very bad news for long term growth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
If I read that right Derek, you're trying to argue he's "new" because...?

I would guess because his bio says "non-executive" - however anyone who is familiar with the company...even those who are not familiar but who have at least read the annual reports from the 5 years or so that Wells was sitting in the CEO seat...knows that Kirby hasn't let go of anything since Ansell left.

Well, my opinion on one of the participants in this thread has been confirmed.

Yes, it is obvious that Kirby is a restless young Turk, just come into the reins of the company, and that he was not previously in an 'executive' position....

The Auld Grump

dereksatkinson wrote:
Do you honestly think that it's acceptable to copy and paste only a portion of a biography and omit everything that contradicts your position? That's basically what you did there. It's a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

Here are some of the COMPLETE biographies that are free from editing..

All you ended up doing is emphasizing that Tom Kirby is even more central because he's now taken on two roles on the board being both chair and ceo. And that in the case of the other guy, that GW gave a member of their established management team even wider influence by making the CFO into the COO.

The rest of the biographies make them look even more entrenched, not less

dereksatkinson wrote:
Do you honestly think that it's acceptable to copy and paste only a portion of a biography and omit everything that contradicts your position? That's basically what you did there. It's a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

Welcome to persuasive argument.

dereksatkinson mate, if you are hoping to persuade anyone that you know anything at all about how GW is run you have just completely failed. You may have an encyclopaedic knowledge of stock market responses to macroeconomic forces, but in trying to persuade anyone here that by just shuffling their hand about without discarding any cards or drawing new ones somehow GW's management is a "new" team you have demonstrated an unbelievable level of naivety.

I've been in business management for quarter of a century. I understand people and I know how businesses are run. I have run the odd one or two myself over the years, with a modicum of success. If you are trying to say that by changing a couple of titles and sitting the directors in different chairs somehow they will be making any significant changes, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of the practicalities of running a small to medium size business like GW.

To those of us who have watched his business and seen his handiwork over the last couple of decades, Kirby is a leopard who will never change his spots. It doesn't matter if you call him Chairman, CEO, Chief Cook or Bottlewasher, he rules the place with an iron fist and his personality runs through the management team like a dose of the clap. Shuffling a few seats around and occasionally bringing in the odd new face who by dint of being accepted onto the team will have to be or become a spineless yes-man will change zip.

Seriously, I can't give you any credence at all for your opinion that the highlighted text justifies calling the GW management team a new one! That's just ludicrous in the extreme!

 Kroothawk wrote:
Can a mod please keep all those off topic posters in my thread at bay? Pretty please?
I am tired of several poster's attempt to get this thread locked just because they deem us Dakka members unworthy to discuss this topic.

The average Dakka member has about as much financial knowledge as the average Dakka member knows how to perform heart surgery. Not to say that there aren't people with at least a cursory understanding here, but it isn't the norm. Personally I did do accounting at Uni but arguing commerce over the internet is just pointless I have come to realise, especially on a miniatures forum of all places.

There are some comments that are good to read because the poster knows what they're talking about, it's just you have to wade through conjecture, hearsay, and someone who flatout can't even read a financial report.

With that being said, GW will soldier on for a while I think. They're selling off rights to IPs to the lights of fantasy flight, the Space Hulk video game, and Eternal Crusade. 3D printing has still got at least a decade to go before it even remotely approaches resin casting price and accuracy. Plus they're still one of the cheaper manufacturers on price per mini (as much as some might to argue against it) if you buy from the UK or the US; $2.00-2.50 per mini for the cookie cutter stuff is pretty good and not many manufacturers come close. If you buy from somewhere like darksphere you're looking at $1.50-2.00.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Kirby could be called janitor for all it matters - when Wells was there, Kirby was in charge. Kirby was in charge before Wells was appointed, Kirby was in charge while Wells was there, Kirby is still in charge after Wells left. No change with or without Mark Wells.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

I would guess because his bio says "non-executive" - however anyone who is familiar with the company...even those who are not familiar but who have at least read the annual reports from the 5 years or so that Wells was sitting in the CEO seat...knows that Kirby hasn't let go of anything since Ansell left.

Then it would be a securities violation and they would be out of compliance with the UK corporate governance code. Are you prepared to make that kind of statement tp be factually correct? You might suspect that to be the case but there is no factual evidence to support that. I am pretty sure you have as much knowledge of the day to day operations of GW as you have of my day to day. Basically zero.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
On the COO. He was COO before, just didn't have the title.

How exactly do you know this? And who exactly what the CFO before he took over that role? Those people are gone. And someone else is doing that job now even if those new people don't have an executive title.

 frozenwastes wrote:

The rest of the biographies make them look even more entrenched, not less

Maybe we need a glossary...

Independent directors can not be involved in the operations of the company. Hence, why they are called independent.

Every single UK company is required to have a 5 member board. The chairman, CEO, COO and 2 independent directors. Since Kirby has 2 of those spots, he loses one vote and they had to bring in another director. 5 years ago they had a different COO, CEO and didn't have one of the existing directors. Considering there are only 5 voting members, that is turnover. Considering that the Chairman can't be involved in the day to day operation of the company, Kirby has had limited experience working directly with the current COO/CFO of the company.

Yeah, what you've done there Derek is confuse what is supposed to happen with real life.

Perhaps you should clarify that not every UK company is obliged to have a 5 member board, you might be assuming we're talking ability publicly traded companies, but that wouldn't be a given, especially in a sector where GW is the only one.

We all know what assumptions do, don't we?

 azreal13 wrote:
Yeah, what you've done there Derek is confuse what is supposed to happen with real life.

Perhaps you should clarify that not every UK company is obliged to have a 5 member board, you might be assuming we're talking ability publicly traded companies, but that wouldn't be a given, especially in a sector where GW is the only one.

We all know what assumptions do, don't we?

Ofcourse publicly traded companies. Also.. the business cycle is 7 years in case that wasn't clear.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Yeah, what you've done there Derek is confuse what is supposed to happen with real life.

Perhaps you should clarify that not every UK company is obliged to have a 5 member board, you might be assuming we're talking ability publicly traded companies, but that wouldn't be a given, especially in a sector where GW is the only one.

We all know what assumptions do, don't we?

Ofcourse publicly traded companies. Also.. the business cycle is 7 years in case that wasn't clear.

Yeaaah, I'm gonna have to go ahead and ask you to come in at the weekend and spend some more time actually learning about the specific history of Games Workshop and Tom Kirby's relationship with it, because while you might know about stuff relevant to the topic in general, you clearly know feth all about GW.

 azreal13 wrote:

Yeaaah, I'm gonna have to go ahead and ask you to come in at the weekend and spend some more time actually learning about the specific history of Games Workshop and Tom Kirby's relationship with it, because while you might know about stuff relevant to the topic in general, you clearly know feth all about GW.

We are obviously talking different languages. You can go back through all 18 pages and see i've referred to 7 year cycles with regard to the company

No, you're trying to argue that somehow Kirby is 'new' because...

Well, then I cease to attach any credibility to anything you say, because several of your statements indicate that a) you appear to have very little knowledge of the specifics of GW, despite your knowledge of wider general stock market stuff and b) have shown you seem to be quite naive with regard to the difference between theoretical business practice and what actually happens IRL.

Plus, despite several attempts on my part to persuade you to mitigate your tone, and to try and persuade other users that you were bringing something valid to the discussion (well, this one anyway, I haven't seen anything outside this thread from you that wasn't worthless snark) you continue to be abrasive and confrontational. I'm tired of it, by all means carry on however you like, but I won't be trying to smooth anything over from now on.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
So...what you're saying is that Kirby and Putin are old frat brothers, right?

No. But most assuredly, they're both Skull and Bones.

Kirby has been with GW for 28 years.

Kevin Rountree has been working at GW for over 15 years. He started there as an assistant accountant before he got his professional accreditation. And has been working there as an accountant ever since, climbing the corporate ladder all the way up to the top accounting position, the CFO. And then on top of that, he's also become the COO while maintaining his CFO duties. This guy is probably the one Kirby has worked with the most over the last decade. He's a GW lifer.

Of the independent directors, Chris Myatt has been there for 18 years. And Nick Donaldson has been there for almost 12 years.

These people have been working together for over a decade.

GW has some of the most entrenched and unchanging management possible.

Derek, you've lost the plot on this one.

Funny how GW lets a young inexperienced intern with nothing to decide make the company a public one twenty years ago
Must have been market pressure from Cyprus

Anything to add Kroot, or are you just here to stick the boot in because someone you don't like has made a mistake with their info?

It is rather entertaining to me to listen to a the disinformation being posted here by the so called "people in the know". Please continue. This has been an enjoyable read.

I think I'll go back investing into the big boys... you can make real honest to good money with REAL game companies than a so called game company that pretends to be a big game company.

And far as the talking heads in here? Have fun defending the glass cathedral. Make sure you say your prayers to the machine god and oil your botlers properly. You are going to need it when you attack the imaginary dragon in your delusional version of life.