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.

Here's your profit, Fantasy Flight wants it more then GW does.

http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/22022008/323/games-workshop-group-unit-sell-assets-fantasy-flight-250-000.html


Guess they got to pay for that high speed unworkable websight somehow.

Oh gosh, save us. I sure as hell am not going to be voting for any idiot resolution to merge our currency with the sinking ship that is the US. You dug your own grave and trillions of debt and can have fun spending years getting out of it. NAFTA was bad enough thank you very much.

Good job, did you come up with that on your own? Watch South Park much?

I called that shiz, the last time we had this conversation. Its down to 150 and I still won't touch it. I expect that they will outsource more of thier IP, same as the Fantasy Flight thing, all the way out of business. Too bad, that RPG is pretty cool, I'd have thought that they would have started tying all of thier stuff together, instead of being as hard headed as they are about it.

Games Day Chicago had a much smaller turnout than I remember in the previous 4-5 years. I hope that's not a sign of things to come.

All in all, this report doesn't look as awful as the original posters made it seem. They have turned some things around, and it seems as though they've made some aspects of the game more readily available to the consumer (ie: more plastics, $22 boxed sets, Black Reach style releases, huge army deals for cheap, etc.).

The sales rep(s) I converse with from Chicago say that three more stores are supposed to open before 2011, and that LotR sales are fine. I know a big key to selling the game is demo's. A lot of independent retailers have the room for it, but don't give it enough thought or attention. Also, not everyone prefers big armies to small games. In fact, I know a lot of people who quit Fantasy and 40k because of GW's trend to lower points cost with each new edition while subsequently raising prices. Some people enjoy the small scale skirmishes, and a fast-paced game. Have you ever played LotR? It's extremely quick and easy to learn; and yet there's plenty of variation with each game. Besides, The Hobbit and a successor film have now gone into production (slated for 2010-2011), so I fully expect that the game will get some attention again in the future.

As it's currently rumored, there won't be an LotR supplemental releases for 2009, however, and 4 (yes 4!) army books/codices will come for the two main systems.

I think that GW spent a lot of money developing these products and programs to attract new customers. There's always a dip before the surge. A company can't just stay with the tride and true, who look to eBay more than anywhere else, and expect to get ahead. 2009 could be very good for them, with Marines this fall, Warriors of Chaos in the winter, IG and Dawn of War II early next year...

MOD EDIT: Cut the politics please. -The Mgmt.

sebster wrote:

LOTR has been a strong performer for GW. I know it isn't popular on the internet, and I don't like the game either, but we are not the world.

I'm sorry, I maybe should've clarified my comment on LOTR.

I was not saying that LOTR was, or is a loss for the company, nor was I making any comment on the quality of the game or its minis (having only the most passing of familiarity with either). What I was referring to was the huge drop in profits that was expected (GW even anticipated it publicly) when the trilogy ended.

There's little doubt where that profit increase from 2001 to 2004 came from. LOTR made GW far more accessible to the common geek, it brought in outside revenue, and expanded the consumer base. It was such a great asset! And now the fad has passed. GW needs something else equally as geeky to give their profits another booster-shot in the arm. Maybe.... Comic Book Wars! Cash in on all those trendy comic book movies!

brassangel wrote:Games Day Chicago had a much smaller turnout than I remember in the previous 4-5 years. I hope that's not a sign of things to come.

Just to keep things on the level, Games Day Chicago actually had more bodies through the door than the previous Chicago Games Days (even taking into account that we moved the GT to a separate date).

We had 25,000sqft more in the hall combined with all the extra room that the GT usually takes up. It made for a much more spread-out affair (which in turn kept the hall at a very reasonable temperature).

Versus last year (which had set the record), we had double the number of clubs participating by bringing and running events.

In all, it's been a good year for Games Days (the same trends were found at the Baltimore Games Day), and what I'd take as a sign that we've actually seen a growth in the number of hobbyists (and organized clubs).

Chris

Stelek wrote:The problem as they see it is the hard numbers aren't very good.

For having some of the biggest releases for their primary game systems in recent history, why should I think that +200% effort plus +10% profit is good?

It's like Ford pushing out more Trucks when gas prices triple.

The "big releases" aren't reflected this quarter. They spent a lot of money last quarter developing and making 5th edition. So the fact that they treaded water is pretty impressive. All there printing costs will be there. All there profit will be next year. I really expect to see a nice upswing in the next financial report (baring something unforeseen).

It's funny... GW is one of the few stocks I would like to own. Simply because I know so much about the inside workings of the business I feel like I understand what I'm investing in1

Uhh hate to be a socialist, but...regarding CEO pay, have you actually met one in person?

I've met alot in my role in IT.

Most are great salesmen.

Dumb as rocks, pretty boys way past their prime, sit in meetings in the morning and recreate in the afternoon.

They need 100 million a year, why exactly?

Question I have, is why they don't quit after a month. I know I would. Thanks for the millions, suckers!

@Stelek: If you're so much smarter than they are, why aren't you the guy making the big bucks?

@JohnHwangDD, that is a damn good question.

That reminds me, I have a question for you John, The DD at the end of your screenname, is it for dentist or are you proud of your chest? Sorry to go OT, but I have wondered for a long time.

hahaha, John does have an impressive rack!

Just kidding John, but that was a good one. You had that same screen name since way back when when we used to post at the cyber cathedral, didn't you?

jfrazell wrote:Thats an incorrect statement. The use of dividends attracts a different investor base. Lose the dividend and you lose that investor base.

Fair point, I'll retract my statement on 'the market' and replace it with 'most of the market'.

This certainly holds in GW's case as 60% of their shares are held by institutional investors.

"The introduction of automated inventory replenishment and computer terminals with the new web store in the UK and US Hobby centres will help us manage our working capital more effectively."

How, exactly? Things like this should be explained.

Probably by keeping less stock on hand. Boxes of product in a warehouse aren't making money.

I'm assuming this change means that GW HQ has a better grasp of what individual stores have in stock and plan ahead better.

Stelek wrote:Uhh hate to be a socialist, but...regarding CEO pay, have you actually met one in person?

I've met alot in my role in IT.

Most are great salesmen.

Dumb as rocks, pretty boys way past their prime, sit in meetings in the morning and recreate in the afternoon.

They need 100 million a year, why exactly?

Question I have, is why they don't quit after a month. I know I would. Thanks for the millions, suckers!

1) I am a socialist.
2) Everyone in business talks down to IT people, we want you to go away.
3) I'm a management accountant, and deal with the CEO at least once a week. Around budget time we pretty much live in the same office.
4) CEOs come in a wide variety. There's guys who were very skilled in their profession, IT or engineering generally and ended up CEOs as a result - these guys are generally pretty poor. There's snakeskin salesmen - often bad but not always. And there's guys who really do set a great culture for their organisation... those guys are worth their weight in gold.
5) The combined remuneration package for Kirby and Wells, who split the CEO position during the financial year, was 522,000 pounds. Which is a nice little earner, but not that great by CEO standards.

AlexCage wrote:I'm sorry, I maybe should've clarified my comment on LOTR.

I was not saying that LOTR was, or is a loss for the company, nor was I making any comment on the quality of the game or its minis (having only the most passing of familiarity with either). What I was referring to was the huge drop in profits that was expected (GW even anticipated it publicly) when the trilogy ended.

There's little doubt where that profit increase from 2001 to 2004 came from. LOTR made GW far more accessible to the common geek, it brought in outside revenue, and expanded the consumer base. It was such a great asset! And now the fad has passed. GW needs something else equally as geeky to give their profits another booster-shot in the arm. Maybe.... Comic Book Wars! Cash in on all those trendy comic book movies!

Thanks for the clarification. It's an interesting idea and may well work. I wonder if GW is wary of cranking out a game with every fad and drifting away from their core game lines...

Darrian13 wrote:That reminds me, I have a question for you John, The DD at the end of your screenname, is it for dentist or are you proud of your chest? Sorry to go OT, but I have wondered for a long time.

Neither... If I failed to get into Medical School, I'd be a "DDS". As for my chest, I do a lot of pushups), so if I flex my pecs, maybe I could fill an A-cup?

The "DD" simply stands for "DakkaDakka".

Reecius wrote:hahaha, John does have an impressive rack!

Just kidding John, but that was a good one. You had that same screen name since way back when when we used to post at the cyber cathedral, didn't you?

Close: "CC" for "CyberCathedral".

CC, oh ok, i remember it being something like that.

as far as CEO's go, the few that have known (working for medium sized financial firms, no great big companies) were more leaders and motivators than whiz bang industry geniuses. The good ones motivated you to rise up and made the work place enjoyable, helping the wheels to turn smoothly and keeping things moving ahead., the bad ones made you want to leave the company. The guys or girls who usually had all the answers to the technical questions, usually lacked the charisma to lead the company.

both roles were important, just different.

although my opinion is of limited validity as i cant honestly say i rub elbows with a ton of CEO's. I have met in my professional career 5 of largish companies, but they did all tend to have similar characteristics.

Thanks John. I was hoping I would not offend you with the question.

@Darrian:
I had no idea you were so sensitive. Besides, it's no different than me wondering with that "13" stands for...

@Reecius:
I've met my share of CEOs and they're as mixed a bag as any other group of people. Though as a rule, I think that CEOs generally tend to have better people skills than the average IT guy.

People skills = 100 million a year salary?

Neat!

CEO's are valued (when they are valued) for their business skills. For example, the CEO at the hospital where I work is doing a terrific job and is earning every penny (we're going through a terrible revenue slump due to the economy and cuts in Medicare, yet there have been ZERO layoffs or declines in patient care).

One of the reasons CEOs get paid more is because they are ultimately responsible for the performance of the company. With great responsibility comes a great golden parachute.

@ Chris: I stand corrected. Perhaps I meant to say that it "felt" smaller, given how spread out it was. There also seemed to be a small number of Golden Daemon entries. Nonetheless, I'm all for a more fluid affair if it cuts temperature, clutter, lost or stolen items, etc. Well done!

@Stelek: 81% of the millionaires in America spent more than 15 years building their wealth through investments and applied skillsets. What they become (from a personality perspective) once they reach the top, or their acquired people skills, has far less to do with their earning power than their ability to budget. In fact, many financial advisors have turned people who make $40K a year into millionaires with proper investing. Most of the wealthy are not CEO's, nor have they ever had that type of salary. Nonetheless, if one person has received the education, developed the skills in multiple technical, social, and marketing areas required to reach an executive position, and I have none of those things, then it is safe to say that I don't deserve $.01 of his/her money; nor do I have a say as to whether or not he or she deserves it. The businesses should have the power to determine what the face of their company earns. The CEO sets the goals, makes the promises, delivers the messages, and is usally chief of all the finances as well. If the board and it's shareholders believe he or she deserves an otherwise ridiculous amount of money, then let them make that decision if they feel as though the CEO has what very few others have. It's the same reason professional athletes make a ton of money. They have skillsets that very few others have; the kind(s) that drive a multi-billion dollar industry. If they weren't entertaining, there would be no fans. If CEO's didn't know what they were doing, their businesses would tank. Sadly, it does happen from time to time and then they aren't getting paid anymore, now are they?

Back on topic: I will wager that the Black Reach boxed set brings in a truck-load of sales. I'm already planning on splitting at least three with other people. Dawn of War was hugely successful, and brought the 40K universe into even average, non-geeky people's homes. They realized very quickly that the universe and storyline are actually interesting beyond the scope of a gamers perspective. I expect Dawn of War II to be huge. It's getting released alongside pretty much no other RTS threat for the PC platform. Perhaps Starcraft 2? But from what I've gathered, that's the exact same game it used to be with just a face lift. Many have agreed that Dawn of War was a far superior game to Starcraft, and not just because it had a newer engine.

Stelek wrote:People skills = 100 million a year salary?

Yup!

Just keep in mind that there are only a handful of multi-billion-dollar companies which can afford such compensation. And these companies require a lot of talent to run effectively.

Tho if one *really* wanted to pull down $1M USD in salary, it'd probably be easier as a finance guy working on Wall Street... And even that really boils down to connections to CEOs... Funny how that works.

Well, executive compensation is a bit of an awkward thing to defend right now. Certainly a company, using it's best business judgment, shoudl be able to do whatever it can to bring in the talent it thinks it needs. Let's not forget, however, that most of the top of the business community are well connected, meaning that the candidate being given a huge salary by the board will probably sit on the board of another company, for the next candidate for a top job. Soon, the market will correct itself as non-officer shareholders start balking at these salaries. Of course, "the market will correct itself" is often code for "thousands will go bankrupt, millions will lose their jobs and billions in wealth will be lost," but the market is a cycle, and CEO compensation will even out.

Reecius wrote:hahaha, John does have an impressive rack!

Just kidding John, but that was a good one. You had that same screen name since way back when when we used to post at the cyber cathedral, didn't you?

Cybercathedral......

Who the hell are you guys? It's been years since I've been there! And also years since I've lived in SoCal...

Polonius wrote:Well, executive compensation is a bit of an awkward thing to defend right now. Certainly a company, using it's best business judgment, shoudl be able to do whatever it can to bring in the talent it thinks it needs. Let's not forget, however, that most of the top of the business community are well connected, meaning that the candidate being given a huge salary by the board will probably sit on the board of another company, for the next candidate for a top job. Soon, the market will correct itself as non-officer shareholders start balking at these salaries. Of course, "the market will correct itself" is often code for "thousands will go bankrupt, millions will lose their jobs and billions in wealth will be lost," but the market is a cycle, and CEO compensation will even out.

Hey Polonius, I'll let you know how it looks when I get there.

Polonius wrote:Well, executive compensation is a bit of an awkward thing to defend right now.

To be sure, the CEO of ExxonMobil is worth every penny he's paid. Just under $40 BILLION in *net* profits?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, executive compensation is a bit of an awkward thing to defend right now.

To be sure, the CEO of ExxonMobil is worth every penny he's paid. Just under $40 BILLION in *net* profits?

I'm sure he's a talented guy, but controlling a huge chunk of a limited commodity with skyrocketing demand probably doesn't hurt....

Actually if you knew the reality, Exxonmobile isn't doing well in their core business.

Just like GW isn't.

At least GW's executive compensation isn't completely ridiculous compared to the rest of the economy.

I could go on and on about executives being morons and how the pay is ridiculous, and you can keep telling people making alot less than I am that their entire lifes work is worth less than this guys 15 minute coffee break...but I don't think it'll ring any more true if you do.

Stelek wrote:Actually if you knew the reality, Exxonmobile isn't doing well in their core business.

Just like GW isn't.

At least GW's executive compensation isn't completely ridiculous compared to the rest of the economy.

I could go on and on about executives being morons and how the pay is ridiculous, and you can keep telling people making alot less than I am that their entire lifes work is worth less than this guys 15 minute coffee break...but I don't think it'll ring any more true if you do.

Are you speaking moral terms or economic terms? Morally, sure, you can argue that some work is inherently worth more or less than other. Economically, only the market determines the price of labor. You can argue that it's ridiculous, but yes, to Boards of Directors of large companies, a CEO's coffee break is more valuable than a janitor's life work. It's not less true because it's ridiculous. It's no different from saying that because a new GW rule is ridiculous, it's not true. It's true enough for the people that determine what's true, so either live with it or create your own value system.

Stelek wrote:Actually if you knew the reality, Exxonmobile isn't doing well in their core business.

Just like GW isn't.

OTT but you better have about fifty points to back that up, all of which will nullified by their financial statements. Care to define the "core business" of a an international integrated supermajor?

@whitedragon
you used to post at the cathedral! that is funny. i guess its a small electronic world we live in =), yeah, it has been ages, the site is gone now, but it has been effectively replaced by the pacific marauders forums.

i used to live in San Diego and i gamed with the cathedral guys, good group there. John was a regular on the boards as well.

@brassangel
its funny you mention that most people who are financially stable get there just through plain old fashioned hard work and saving. that is absolutely true. as a part of my job i would have to look at prospective clients total financial situation in order to advise them on how to get where they wanted to be. this included w2's, bank statements, liquid asset statements, etc. and often times, the people who were the most solid financially were a working mom and dad who both earned in the 40K range who had paid off cars, with a 30 year fixed mortgage that they never refinanced to pull cash out of the home and had always put the max amount of money in their 401K. By the time they were in their 40's they had a gak load of money in liquid assets, and nearly no debt. They would retire on schedule and live very well. Its not difficult to do, it just takes discipline.

some of the most screwed up financial situations i ever saw were with big money makers. They would have a family income of 200K+, but have massive debt, a home on an adjustable mortgage that they constantly took cash out of and was no where near being paid off. They were stressed out beyond belief and were struggling just to meet their monthly expenses despite having a huge income.I remember one guy that had 250K in credit card debt at 15% interest!! it was a bigger payment than most peoples mortgage.

being financially stable and secure is more about lifestyle choices and discipline, but most people dont like that.You dont have to make a ton of money, you have to be smart with the money you do make.

and, if you want to make big bucks and dont want to start a business, go into sales. Of the thousands of incomes i saw, salesmen made far and away the most money with the least responsibility and the least amount of education. All of the million plus a year earners i met that were not self employed were top level sales men. But, that takes a ton of talent and highly developed skills.

@stelek
saying all executives are morons is rediculous and you have to know that. you cant make a blanket statement about a group of people as they wont all possibly fit under it.

and people skills are worth bank, anyone who is reasonably intelligent can learn a skill set, even difficult ones like IT guys have. Leadership, people skills and vision to direct a group is a talent. it is worth big bucks as a good leader makes or breaks any group. An IT guy does not make or break a company, they help a lot and are necessary today, but a glowing IT man wont take a company to the top where a brilliant CEO will. The only problem is that a good Bullshitter can weasel his way in some times as recognizing true talent can be a talent all in its own.