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.

 azreal13 wrote:
The fact he's asking for evidence betrays a certain naïveté.

If I go for a job interview at the company my dad's best friend owns, and I get the job when an equally qualified candidate doesn't, the odds are my prior relationship has had an influence on that outcome.

Could the rejected candidate prove that? No, not unless I was blatantly less qualified, even then the company could list any number of other bs excuses as to why I'd been chosen in preference. None of which could be proven false.

This is endemic in western culture, all the way up, and to argue otherwise is just plain daft, or naive.

Does it happen in every situation? Probably not. But it goes on, anyone who's worked in a corporate environment knows this, if there were any proof/evidence to support that to the point where it was enforceable, there'd be a whole load more employment tribunals happening.

I'd agree and add this.

What others are talking about here is common sense coming from experience.

As an example, if two people were standing in a kitchen with a hot burner on the stove and one said if you touch the burner you'll burn your hand, you are basing that on the common sense that it has happened to thousands of others so it most likely will happen in this specific case. But what you are saying here is "prove it" maybe it won't happen on this particular hot burner.

So, you don't need "proof" so to speak in the case of GW. They are a business, and what has gone on and the relationships there are no different than any other corporation in that manner. One does not need to "touch the burner in this particular case" to have a pretty good indication of what really goes on. There is nothing, at all, illegal if Kirby happens to be best buddies with any or all of the board members. And if he is friends, or has a close working relationship with them (which after a decade with many of them is probably most likely the case) their is nothing illegal if they decide to "vote" with whatever Kirby is doing. They are not letting Kirby vote for them, as in the case of Facebook, but they are voting on their own just in favor of whatever Kirby wants done.

I report to a board and have had more than 32 board meetings in the last four years of my company. I also directly worked with the boards of the last two public companies I worked for. These meetings are pretty common in format. Report on results, pat yourselves on the back if everything is rosy. If not all is rosy, the CEO presents the corrective actions, board members add some thoughts of options and pretty much everyone leaves the room in agreement (which is standard terms is a representative majority vote). This is how board meetings happen, and I am pretty sure this is exactly what a GW board meeting is as well.

Some seem to think that boards are a mythical detached entity that only operates in the interests of the shareholders. They aren't. They are a resource for the CEO and frequently will go with whatever the CEO wants. To believe otherwise is as naive as saying politicians ONLY act in the best interests of the majority of citizens. They will always say they do, but anyone with an IQ higher than 2 knows that isn't the case (but you would have a hard time "proving" it, so to speak).

 Ketara wrote:

I don't think that derek is arguing with the claim that 'Relationships between Board members can exist'. He's not disputing that. He's moving to the next logical step.

He's saying, 'Okay. If that is the case, please point out for me the relationships that you are saying exist within GW. Prove that these relationships exist, or at the very least, show me what has occurred with regards to which specific Board members, that makes you think that it is the case here. Otherwise, how do you know that this is the case?'

To which a lot of people are saying, 'Aha! You're denying that these kinds of relationships could exist! Which is not what he's doing. He's asking for proof, be it circumstantial or substantial, that this is specifically the case in GW.

Simply saying, 'Well it happens in every company, don't you know?' doesn't really count as proof/evidence, any more than I should assume that people do or don't have a University degree until they imply one or the other in some way. The logical position to take without specific evidence is to neither assume something is or isn't the case.

This is a fair representation of my stance.

If you suspect a segment of the shareholder base is basically making Kirby invincible, then give me the name and I'll look up every single transaction they have made. We can see how long they have been shareholders and whether or not they could have played a significant role in any election or appointment of board members. If you are making an accusation, provide some sort of evidence to support it.

All i'm really seeing in responses are straw man arguments that not only ignore my questions, they constantly take it off topic. In fact, the entire discussion of Kirby being invincible is way off topic. In fact, the two responses to your post prior to mine were entirely straw man arguments. It's a waste of time to even respond to a single point being made simply because it will then go down another rabbit hole.

Btw.. you guys do remember i'm bearish right?

So, to summarise once again, you're asking for proof that something occurs, which, by its very nature, does not occur in any given situation that would provide proof, because to do so would be a major issue for those involved?

 azreal13 wrote:
So, to summarise once again, you're asking for proof that something occurs, which, by its very nature, does not occur in any given situation that would provide proof, because to do so would be a major issue for those involved?

He's saying that if you're going to make an accusation, you should be able to show proof to back it up.

Lurching ever so closer to locking...

Hopefully it will last to the next financial report. That way, we will be able to prove to Derek that the next major rise or fall in the share price is being caused by the strength or weakness of the business itself and not any nonsense about the share price being the wax and wane of a seven year tide.

Some say that the release of the new Edition is a ploy by GW to make this (half-)year look better than it really is on the next report.

If so, and if the report will show reduced profits despite the new Ed release, will it make GW look worse than if they haven't released it?

 azreal13 wrote:
So, to summarise once again, you're asking for proof that something occurs, which, by its very nature, does not occur in any given situation that would provide proof, because to do so would be a major issue for those involved?

There doesn't need to be definitive 'proof' as it were. But there does need to be some kind of evidence that has inclined you to think that it is the case over the possibility of it not being the case. Otherwise you're just making a random assumption based off of nothing, which would be completely illogical.

 Ketara wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
So, to summarise once again, you're asking for proof that something occurs, which, by its very nature, does not occur in any given situation that would provide proof, because to do so would be a major issue for those involved?

There doesn't need to be definitive 'proof' as it were. But there does need to be some kind of evidence that has inclined you to think that it is the case over the possibility of it not being the case. Otherwise you're just making a random assumption based off of nothing, which would be completely illogical.

No, I'm making an informed statement based on my own life experience and observations. Experience and observations you'll notice are shared by others with no other link to me other than posting on this forum. It isn't a random assumption, it is an assumption where it would actually be quite rare if it weren't true.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
So, to summarise once again, you're asking for proof that something occurs, which, by its very nature, does not occur in any given situation that would provide proof, because to do so would be a major issue for those involved?

There doesn't need to be definitive 'proof' as it were. But there does need to be some kind of evidence that has inclined you to think that it is the case over the possibility of it not being the case. Otherwise you're just making a random assumption based off of nothing, which would be completely illogical.

No, I'm making an informed statement based on my own life experience and observations. Experience and observations you'll notice are shared by others with no other link to me other than posting on this forum. It isn't a random assumption, it is an assumption where it would actually be quite rare if it weren't true.

So to conclude, you have absolutely nothing that would lead you to think that GW is filled with yes-men or people who nod through everything wants, bar the fact that you think this happens at absolutely every company?

That's not an informed statement. An assumption, yes, and a statement also. But if you have no specific evidence, actions, proofs, or knowledge regarding to Games Workshop specifically in any way whatsoever beyond the fact that it is set up as a company, then the assumption is not informed. It's simply your opinion on the internal functions of corporate structures being applied as a general rule of thumb to every company in existence. Which is entirely fine, but it doesn't really put you in a position to challenge other people for raising the possibility of it not happening in GW. Their opinion is equally valid to yours in this instance.

Does GW's actual recent (!) history help here though?

Combined with their annual reports and the preambles and what nots?

 Ketara wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
So, to summarise once again, you're asking for proof that something occurs, which, by its very nature, does not occur in any given situation that would provide proof, because to do so would be a major issue for those involved?

There doesn't need to be definitive 'proof' as it were. But there does need to be some kind of evidence that has inclined you to think that it is the case over the possibility of it not being the case. Otherwise you're just making a random assumption based off of nothing, which would be completely illogical.

No, I'm making an informed statement based on my own life experience and observations. Experience and observations you'll notice are shared by others with no other link to me other than posting on this forum. It isn't a random assumption, it is an assumption where it would actually be quite rare if it weren't true.

So to conclude, you have absolutely nothing that would lead you to think that GW is filled with yes-men or people who nod through everything wants, bar the fact that you think this happens at absolutely every company?

That's not an informed statement. An assumption, yes, and a statement also. But if you have no specific evidence, actions, proofs, or knowledge regarding to Games Workshop specifically in any way whatsoever beyond the fact that it is set up as a company, then the assumption is not informed. It's simply your opinion on the internal functions of corporate structures being applied as a general rule of thumb to every company in existence. Which is entirely fine, but it doesn't really put you in a position to challenge other people for raising the possibility of it not happening in GW. Their opinion is equally valid to yours in this instance.

That just makes azreal a good guesser then, since he happens to be correct

People who have direct experience with GW upper management, like myself, almost unilaterally describe it as a consortium of Kirby yes-men.

GW breeds a culture of sycophantic yes-men. We know that pretty well by now. We know it so well that it is generally taken for granted in conversation.

One could laboriously collect an catalog all of the anecdotal info about this that has come out over the last decade if they were so inclined, but at this point so many individuals with the benefit of direct knowledge have described the people and the corporate culture at GW so consistently that I would say someone suggesting otherwise would have to prove a negative.

If the 'we hire for attitude, not skills' motto isn't an admission that GW only want yes men then I am a dog that has learned to type.

shinr wrote:
Some say that the release of the new Edition is a ploy by GW to make this (half-)year look better than it really is on the next report.

If so, and if the report will show reduced profits despite the new Ed release, will it make GW look worse than if they haven't released it?

If there numbers are down yes. What is more important is looking at the entire product release schedule over this period, which outwardly appears as signs of desperation. This could in fact help to stabilize this period (but still not make up the revenue loss from last period), but the real effect will actually be determined over the next two periods after this one as GW has basically shot all the bullets in their gun so to speak. Orks and Necrons, if released over the following period, will not be strong enough to halt the slide.

It seems things are getting worse for GW, so I have a feeling there has been massive cost cutting already to adjust for the decline. Just look at the Wood Elves release. Almost half the products following the launch of a major army revision, are not available (currently out of stock). This is not something that usually should happen on the heels of a brand new army release. Unless, you plain don't have the capability to meet needed inventory demands. In fact, GW seems to be struggling a lot lately keeping regular inventory levels of availability. That coupled with 70% price increases implemented in one go, which only truly desperate companies do to begin with (this one is usually a very clear sign of companies on the verge of dire straits).

The bigger indicator in the next financials will be this however - the expenditure of cash on hand. If GW went through a lot of cash and stayed flat or worse, declined further, this will be two quarters in a row it happened. A clear indicator the company is no longer making satisfactory turnover of invested capital (i.e., they are rapidly burning through capital just to keep the revenue decline from appearing as it should be).

My bet, however, and this is just my personal opinion, is GW will be down at least 15% PYQ in the next period reporting.

 Ketara wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
So, to summarise once again, you're asking for proof that something occurs, which, by its very nature, does not occur in any given situation that would provide proof, because to do so would be a major issue for those involved?

There doesn't need to be definitive 'proof' as it were. But there does need to be some kind of evidence that has inclined you to think that it is the case over the possibility of it not being the case. Otherwise you're just making a random assumption based off of nothing, which would be completely illogical.

No, I'm making an informed statement based on my own life experience and observations. Experience and observations you'll notice are shared by others with no other link to me other than posting on this forum. It isn't a random assumption, it is an assumption where it would actually be quite rare if it weren't true.

So to conclude, you have absolutely nothing that would lead you to think that GW is filled with yes-men or people who nod through everything wants, bar the fact that you think this happens at absolutely every company?

That's not an informed statement. An assumption, yes, and a statement also. But if you have no specific evidence, actions, proofs, or knowledge regarding to Games Workshop specifically in any way whatsoever beyond the fact that it is set up as a company, then the assumption is not informed. It's simply your opinion on the internal functions of corporate structures being applied as a general rule of thumb to every company in existence. Which is entirely fine, but it doesn't really put you in a position to challenge other people for raising the possibility of it not happening in GW. Their opinion is equally valid to yours in this instance.

So to conclude, you've not read the posts by multiple people in this thread with first hand knowledge of the type of people high up in GW?
It doesn't happen at every company.
It is happening at GW.

Play nice....

A side observation -- fewer and fewer of the miniatures that I am hired to paint are GW - most recently I have been painting Raging Heroes (witch elf types and daemonette types), Ultaforge (Pleasure Daemon, to go with the Daemonette types by RH), Mantic (Ogres and Undead), Stonehaven (Gnomes), and Reaper Bones.

Lots and lots of Reaper Bones... some for very young players.

The Auld Grump

There has to be a strong suspicion that GW's very early issue of 7th edition is a ploy to get some revenue booked before the end of their financial year, which they would need to do only because their half year figures looked rather poor.

That's been thoroughly discussed across a few threads now but I fully agree.

There has to be *a* reason for this being released so soon and propping up financials makes a lot more sense in context than the only other explanation I can think of: they think 6ths rules are bad and need fixing.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There has to be a strong suspicion that GW's very early issue of 7th edition is a ploy to get some revenue booked before the end of their financial year, which they would need to do only because their half year figures looked rather poor.

Yup. I have seen this pattern before in other companies. It ended badly in the end. But it will sure will look gee willikers good to the investors in the short term. Nothing of good will come out of this for the customer base. It will still cost too much money to play this game. I believe this is done to shore up Kirby's shares when he retires as well as the short tern investment funds that are ready to completely bail out of their investments.

What happens in the next quarter if they inflate the figures with a rush edition of 40K? New Fantasy edition? Then what? Can;t keep doing that forever.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
What happens in the next quarter if they inflate the figures with a rush edition of 40K? New Fantasy edition? Then what? Can;t keep doing that forever.

This is not likely to happen the way I think you're getting at here. GW's first half performance was significantly down, so the strategy is to get a return to flat, which is a reasonably challenging ambition IMO.

That still leaves them with a cash position issue, given their rising costs from an accelerated release schedule, it makes paying anything above a token dividend look bad.

 jonolikespie wrote:
That's been thoroughly discussed across a few threads now but I fully agree.

There has to be *a* reason for this being released so soon and propping up financials makes a lot more sense in context than the only other explanation I can think of: they think 6ths rules are bad and need fixing.

Hopefully its a happy coincidence along the lines of the rules being re-done because 6Ed had problems and its happening to come about when it could make financials look good.

If the new edition is based on purely financial reasons, who knows what sort of half-baked rush job it could be.

 Wayshuba wrote:

shinr wrote:
Some say that the release of the new Edition is a ploy by GW to make this (half-)year look better than it really is on the next report.

If so, and if the report will show reduced profits despite the new Ed release, will it make GW look worse than if they haven't released it?

If there numbers are down yes. What is more important is looking at the entire product release schedule over this period, which outwardly appears as signs of desperation. This could in fact help to stabilize this period (but still not make up the revenue loss from last period), but the real effect will actually be determined over the next two periods after this one as GW has basically shot all the bullets in their gun so to speak. Orks and Necrons, if released over the following period, will not be strong enough to halt the slide.

Their fiscal year ends what, 1st of June? That leaves only week for them to sell 7th edition book - way too short time to make any kind of impact to half-year revenues. Remember that the starter set doesn't come out until much later.

So no, the 7th edition is not an attempt to pretty up their half-year numbers. It might of course be a "jump the shark" moment (in fact quite likely even) but it's effect, if any, will only show in subsesquent half-year.

They make their bulk of sales of anything with the first few weeks; and probably within the launch week. So they'll get a big chunk of 7th Ed sales this year, and they'll also count all the books sent to independents but not yet sold.

There will still be a trickle falling over into next year, which will have the benefit of keeping next years figures looking good too.

Backfire wrote:


Their fiscal year ends what, 1st of June? That leaves only week for them to sell 7th edition book - way too short time to make any kind of impact to half-year revenues. Remember that the starter set doesn't come out until much later.

So no, the 7th edition is not an attempt to pretty up their half-year numbers. It might of course be a "jump the shark" moment (in fact quite likely even) but it's effect, if any, will only show in subsesquent half-year.

The fiscal year here in the UK generally is taken to run from April to April.

Backfire wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:

shinr wrote:
Some say that the release of the new Edition is a ploy by GW to make this (half-)year look better than it really is on the next report.

If so, and if the report will show reduced profits despite the new Ed release, will it make GW look worse than if they haven't released it?

If there numbers are down yes. What is more important is looking at the entire product release schedule over this period, which outwardly appears as signs of desperation. This could in fact help to stabilize this period (but still not make up the revenue loss from last period), but the real effect will actually be determined over the next two periods after this one as GW has basically shot all the bullets in their gun so to speak. Orks and Necrons, if released over the following period, will not be strong enough to halt the slide.

Their fiscal year ends what, 1st of June? That leaves only week for them to sell 7th edition book - way too short time to make any kind of impact to half-year revenues. Remember that the starter set doesn't come out until much later.

So no, the 7th edition is not an attempt to pretty up their half-year numbers. It might of course be a "jump the shark" moment (in fact quite likely even) but it's effect, if any, will only show in subsesquent half-year.

Yes, it's a short time, but given how a bulk of their sales happen with pre-orders and in the first week of releases (according to GW) this is just the right timing to shore up the numbers. The starter set coming out later, I believe, is because this is squarely aimed at 40k vets. GW will expect these to move before the June 1 timeframe and, at $100 a pop, this could have a big impact on the ending.

Besides, it also makes a good talking point if the period numbers happen to be way down. Then Kirby can blame it on anything but management and say how the very end of the period, with the release of a new 40k edition, showed a strong surge in sales and they expect it to continue into the next period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 filbert wrote:

Backfire wrote:


Their fiscal year ends what, 1st of June? That leaves only week for them to sell 7th edition book - way too short time to make any kind of impact to half-year revenues. Remember that the starter set doesn't come out until much later.

So no, the 7th edition is not an attempt to pretty up their half-year numbers. It might of course be a "jump the shark" moment (in fact quite likely even) but it's effect, if any, will only show in subsesquent half-year.

The fiscal year here in the UK generally is taken to run from April to April.

GW Fiscal Year ends June 1.

Yep, 1 week of sales isa heck of a lot for a new edition.

Distributors will have orders placed by now. Most stores with direct distribution will order within the week. Preorders will be in as well.

If they are desperate enough, it can even let them play the supply issue game where they recieve money for a product they havent been billed for yet.

 filbert wrote:

Backfire wrote:


Their fiscal year ends what, 1st of June? That leaves only week for them to sell 7th edition book - way too short time to make any kind of impact to half-year revenues. Remember that the starter set doesn't come out until much later.

So no, the 7th edition is not an attempt to pretty up their half-year numbers. It might of course be a "jump the shark" moment (in fact quite likely even) but it's effect, if any, will only show in subsesquent half-year.

The fiscal year here in the UK generally is taken to run from April to April.

Don't confuse the state's fiscal year with private companies. A private company's fiscal year starts the same day it was incorporated unless it notifies the relevant bodies it's changing it's accounting year.

Everyone else pretty much covered the error in Backfire's post.

Herzlos wrote:
They make their bulk of sales of anything with the first few weeks; and probably within the launch week. So they'll get a big chunk of 7th Ed sales this year, and they'll also count all the books sent to independents but not yet sold.

Well yes, I forgot the indie stocks. Nevertheless, despite everything, 7th edition release is basically just the rulebook. I'm not convinced that sales of one book in a week are going to cause so big upsurge it would make a noticeable bump to the annual revenues. Lot of people will be skipping the big book and waiting for starter set mini-rulebook. For example, my gaming group of 6-7 40k players only one guy has the big rulebook - others have the DV mini-book.

For example, comparing 2011 June-December (no major edition published) to 2012 June-December) 40k 6th edition released) has the difference of just £5 million revenue increase - and that includes 5 months of 6th edition sales, including the starter set.