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.

There is quite a bit of speculation in this thread that is pretty easily verified or debunked.

For instance, revenues in Australia over time are actually quite stable:
2009 - 9286 : 2010 - 10795 : 2011 - 10630 : 2012 - 11328 : 2013 (1/2 year) - 5597

And operating profits have reversed their slide:
2009 - 786: 2010 - 654 : 2011 - (406) : 2012 - (735) : 2013 (1/2 year) 342

It would seem via this cursory analysis that whatever they did is working, profits are up on stable revenues.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm not even convinced closing GW stores in Oz is a good idea. At the height of GW popularity in Oz, the stores would have been a huge source of revenue because they were packed day after day and the counter was running almost constantly many nights of the week. Granted, it was a different time, but it's hard to say keeping stores open is the problem when I personally think they were previously making good money off stores.

Not as much as you'd think. Only one or two stores every really did well. The one that did the best is the one nearest to me that's still open, but is in the middle of fething nowhere compared to where it used to be and I can't imagine that it's abysmal new location is doing it any favours.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm not even convinced closing GW stores in Oz is a good idea. At the height of GW popularity in Oz, the stores would have been a huge source of revenue because they were packed day after day and the counter was running almost constantly many nights of the week. Granted, it was a different time, but it's hard to say keeping stores open is the problem when I personally think they were previously making good money off stores.

Not as much as you'd think. Only one or two stores every really did well. The one that did the best is the one nearest to me that's still open, but is in the middle of fething nowhere compared to where it used to be and I can't imagine that it's abysmal new location is doing it any favours.

I am quite sure that posting a loss (lack of profit) has no direct bearing on whether top line sales are steady (similar revenues). They are quite distinct and separate numbers, and if you look a bit more carefully at my post (and/or do not completely misinterpret what you are reading) you'll see what I mean. As to the half-year numbers meaning nothing - what? They mean that the first half of the year this year has been better than the first half of the year last year. Full stop. This indicates that profits have reversed their multi-quarter slide. Full stop. You believe this is temporary - ok.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

Jack_Death wrote:
There is quite a bit of speculation in this thread that is pretty easily verified or debunked.

For instance, revenues in Australia over time are actually quite stable:
2009 - 9286 : 2010 - 10795 : 2011 - 10630 : 2012 - 11328 : 2013 (1/2 year) - 5597

And operating profits have reversed their slide:
2009 - 786: 2010 - 654 : 2011 - (406) : 2012 - (735) : 2013 (1/2 year) 342

It would seem via this cursory analysis that whatever they did is working, profits are up on stable revenues.

I am not sure how posting a loss 2 years in a row would be considered stable revenues. The half year results are irrelevant as they will not reflect the EoY numbers in any significant way. Half year results for 2012 showed a loss of £277,000 and the EoY results managed to tack another £458,000 in losses onto that. If this year ends up doing the same, it would wipe out the half year gain and put it in the hole by a couple hundred thousand pounds - they might go up a touch too though...in either case, without knowing what happens in terms of sales and bills that come due (shipping contracts that are paid out at end of year for example) - you can not say that two years of losses are stable revenues or upward moving profits.

I did not paste the entire table. Here you go:

Current Period Year Ago Period Last Year
Region Revenue Operating Profit Operating Margin +/- Revenue Operating Profit Operating Margin Revenue Operating Profit Operating Margin
UK $15,613.00 $2,324.00 14.89% 3.97% $14,818.00 $1,618.00 10.92% $31,648.00 $4,835.00 15.28%
EUR $19,628.00 $2,638.00 13.44% 2.38% $20,382.00 $2,254.00 11.06% $40,757.00 $4,000.00 9.81%
NA $18,076.00 $1,547.00 8.56% -0.70% $15,419.00 $1,427.00 9.25% $33,621.00 $4,211.00 12.52%
Australia $5,597.00 $342.00 6.11% 11.21% $5,437.00 $(277.00) -5.09% $11,328.00 $(735.00) -6.49%
Export $810.00 $202.00 24.94% 12.70% $801.00 $98.00 12.23% $1,700.00 $89.00 5.24%
Asia $1,051.00 $32.00 3.04% 77.98% $818.00 $(613.00) -74.94% $1,737.00 $(624.00) -35.92%
All Other $6,682.00 $3,429.00 51.32% 4.35% $5,042.00 $2,368.00 46.97% $10,218.00 $4,732.00 46.31% Forge World, Black Library, etc.

 insaniak wrote:

Jack_Death wrote:
As to the half-year numbers meaning nothing - what? They mean that the first half of the year this year has been better than the first half of the year last year. Full stop

Only if you actually compare them to the first half figures for last year. You've only shown previous full-year figures.

QFT, I am not making any assertions to the contrary. Heck, I'm not making any assertions at all, I've simply pasted financial statement data.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's easy to make multiple store closures and layoffs look like 'growth' when all you're looking at is a final figure.