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.

 Bolognesus wrote:
...Yes? If, as our anonymous Mierce representative claims, this transaction was made at fair market value that is entirely above board and in no way immoral per se.

The fact that the law allows someone to evade outstanding debts by selling stuff that they own to themselves may well be 'entirely above board' ... but 'moral' is going to come down to personal opinion, I think.

 insaniak wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:
...Yes? If, as our anonymous Mierce representative claims, this transaction was made at fair market value that is entirely above board and in no way immoral per se.

The fact that the law allows someone to evade outstanding debts by selling stuff that they own to themselves may well be 'entirely above board' ... but 'moral' is going to come down to personal opinion, I think.

**sigh** Except that's not what happened, if you care to read carefully. **If** it turns out assets were sold to mierce at below market value, that'd be illegal and immoral both. Because *then* it'd be "evading outstanding debts". either those creditors would have recovered from the assets, amongst those the banelords/legions line, *or* they'd have recovered from the assets minus those lines, but with their fair market value added.
they can now recover from liquid assets in the fair market value of that minis line. Do you think they'd rather be stuck with a minis line they might not care for and have to peddle to someone else to get any use/cash out of, or with liquid assets to the amount of that fair market value?

Really man, read before you blather.

Of course this is all contingent on that transaction having been made at that, again, 'fair market value' but that's something we simply do not have enough information to opine about - let's leave that to MG's administrators, shall we?
Until then shelve your pitchfork and stow your tar - this kind of unfounded allegations are the last thing any sane man should want.

Stick to valid, factually provable criticism and you'll find you'll be much more persuasive, if nothing else.

Internet biz do take ages to built up a god rep and only a few slips to kill it. Maelstorm behaviour was errr poor, regardless of personal drama... and as such this bad rep will stick to its owners for a long time.

Hard road ahead but good luck.

 Bolognesus wrote:
Stick to valid, factually provable criticism and you'll find you'll be much more persuasive, if nothing else.

I'm not trying to be persuasive, just stating a viewpoint.

The fact the MG's assets all suddenly split off into 3 or 4 separate companies right before they took their dive, whether or not it was done completely 'above board' smells more fishy than a barrel full of fish, and is more than enough incentive for me to have no interest in doing business with any company that has this bloke's name attached to it, particularly when combined with all of the miscommunication and dodgy sales that went on when the MG was closing up.

If the company had been sold off to someone else, that would be one thing. But selling it to himself? The sane person asks why, if he can afford to buy his own company at a 'fair market value' he can't just put that money into, you know, paying off some of his debts...

 insaniak wrote:
if he can afford to buy his own company at a 'fair market value' he can't just put that money into, you know, paying off some of his debts...

So either you conveniently forget that separating personal and business assets is an intended purpose of LLC's and the like, or you find our modern system of companies as separate entities to be "immoral"?
Am I missing something here, or would you be better off either moving your backside into a library or to Cuba?

So the question remains where did rob lane find the funds to purchase this business from himself after all this is a man that the mierce mini representatives states whose business was heavy indebted with no chance if recovery and so hard up he can barely afford to pay his mortgage and feed his family (worlds smallest violin). Whilst on paper the deal may appear above board just where did this money come from? Why wasn't the money used to pay off some of the debt maelstrom had accrued? Too many questions not answered by a very obfuscating statement from mierce miniatures.

What is even better is that since it's inter-company purchases, there likely was zero actual cash that changed hands. Transfer of assets like that can be done entirely on paper and can be assigned any value they want.

Accounting games FTW!

If the GW decision to stop traders from selling to the RoW was such a massive blow to MG then I'm afraid there's another one coming that will be the death knell of all large online retailers within the UK that sell a lot of GW..... GW will soon be bringing in a new addition to their T&Cs. Retailers will be limited to selling £75k of GW product a year. By comparison that's roughly the amount MG would order from GW in two weeks. Yup, two weeks and GW was roughly 50-55% of MGs turnover. So that said I think the days of the giant mega-online store are over (in the UK/Europe at least) . The future is in many smaller stores all ticking over. I wouldn't be placing a GW order with a massive store as once that change comes in someone is going the way of MG..........

This part, if true, would be thread-worthy by itself because of the obvious implications not only for (large) online sellers, but also for people who can't afford/refuse to pay retail value.

It definitely seems like a typical GW stunt to pull.

12thRonin wrote:
What is even better is that since it's inter-company purchases, there likely was zero actual cash that changed hands. Transfer of assets like that can be done entirely on paper and can be assigned any value they want.

Accounting games FTW!

Currently they say that an appropriate market value was paid. Whether that is true is something MG's administrators will be looking into as one of the first things they do (transferring assets at below market values is something most administrators/curators/however-they're-called-in-your-jurisdiction do first as it's the most common malversation imaginable).

I will say they'd have been fools to do so; do that so shortly before a companies' demise and it'll get wound right back or the receiving company might even be assigned joint liability to some degree. Not sure how it's done precisely in the UK (not my expertise, sorry) but I remember from the thread in discussions (where at least Insaniak should probably have moved this whole new kerfuffle already, ffs...) someone with specific knowledge stated that basically anything less than a year before a company goes into administration is fair game for such investigations/actions - which doesn't sound all too unlike how we do things down here.
assets were sold to mierce in march; MG went down in, what? October? So it'd have been really, really stupid to not do this in a 'proper' way, actually paying something which seems acceptable for those assets.

I'm sure they'll have lowballed it somewhat but really, by the time an administrator gets involved, auction fees have to be paid etc. there'd have been less left for creditors effectively, in all likelyhood.

I'm guessing Wayland isn't happy because they'd at least have been after that line to a degree but that's another issue (and really I'd have preferred it to be in their hands, but I digress).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TBD wrote:

If the GW decision to stop traders from selling to the RoW was such a massive blow to MG then I'm afraid there's another one coming that will be the death knell of all large online retailers within the UK that sell a lot of GW..... GW will soon be bringing in a new addition to their T&Cs. Retailers will be limited to selling £75k of GW product a year. By comparison that's roughly the amount MG would order from GW in two weeks. Yup, two weeks and GW was roughly 50-55% of MGs turnover. So that said I think the days of the giant mega-online store are over (in the UK/Europe at least) . The future is in many smaller stores all ticking over. I wouldn't be placing a GW order with a massive store as once that change comes in someone is going the way of MG..........

This part, if true, would be thread-worthy by itself because of the obvious implications not only for (large) online sellers, but also for people who can't afford/refuse to pay retail value.

It definitely seems like a typical GW stunt to pull.

TBH I think they're talking out of their collective arses there; GW would have to effectively shut down all distribution channels other than themselves to make this work in the US (EU is another matter, I think their grasp of the market there is bigger but even there...).
Prohibiting import/export is one thing; this is a whole lot harder.

And besides you know what will happen? Lots of folkswill get modest accounts with distributors and start selling stuff via ebay. Grossing 75K quid is nothing for a big retailer, but someone doing it in his spare time from a small back room? it's enough to make a pretty penny in that newly opened market segment. ebay/paypal offer enough protection to make it worth it and how is GW going to bloody well police that? With hundreds of such traders springing up all around the place...

Whatever the company background, I haven't bought anything from this miniature range since half their miniatures showed balls or fake tits, even if Rob Lane is developing a historical background for that.

 Bolognesus wrote:

Currently they say that an appropriate market value was paid. Whether that is true is something MG's administrators will be looking into as one of the first things they do (transferring assets at below market values is something most administrators/curators/however-they're-called-in-your-jurisdiction do first as it's the most common malversation imaginable).

That's the thing. If they do a book value transfer, then they can state any value they want. The offset could be anything.

 TBD wrote:

If the GW decision to stop traders from selling to the RoW was such a massive blow to MG then I'm afraid there's another one coming that will be the death knell of all large online retailers within the UK that sell a lot of GW..... GW will soon be bringing in a new addition to their T&Cs. Retailers will be limited to selling £75k of GW product a year. By comparison that's roughly the amount MG would order from GW in two weeks. Yup, two weeks and GW was roughly 50-55% of MGs turnover. So that said I think the days of the giant mega-online store are over (in the UK/Europe at least) . The future is in many smaller stores all ticking over. I wouldn't be placing a GW order with a massive store as once that change comes in someone is going the way of MG..........

This part, if true, would be thread-worthy by itself because of the obvious implications not only for (large) online sellers, but also for people who can't afford/refuse to pay retail value.

It definitely seems like a typical GW stunt to pull.

TBH I think they're talking out of their collective arses there; GW would have to effectively shut down all distribution channels other than themselves to make this work in the US (EU is another matter, I think their grasp of the market there is bigger but even there...).
Prohibiting import/export is one thing; this is a whole lot harder.

And besides you know what will happen? Lots of folkswill get modest accounts with distributors and start selling stuff via ebay. Grossing 75K quid is nothing for a big retailer, but someone doing it in his spare time from a small back room? it's enough to make a pretty penny in that newly opened market segment. ebay/paypal offer enough protection to make it worth it and how is GW going to bloody well police that? With hundreds of such traders springing up all around the place...

 Kroothawk wrote:
Whatever the company background, I haven't bought anything from this miniature range since half their miniatures showed balls or fake tits, even if Rob Lane is developing a historical background for that.

I don't like that either but really, the half that doesn't contains some bloody good minis. Frustrating really, I love a lot of the minis it's just that I don't trust the guys behind it enough to actually order (and getting the warstore or whatever it was to ship it right back to europe for me gets a bit rich, given that the minis are already approaching FW level pricing).

12thRonin wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:

Currently they say that an appropriate market value was paid. Whether that is true is something MG's administrators will be looking into as one of the first things they do (transferring assets at below market values is something most administrators/curators/however-they're-called-in-your-jurisdiction do first as it's the most common malversation imaginable).

That's the thing. If they do a book value transfer, then they can state any value they want. The offset could be anything.

...except they said transfer at fair market value. And really: no. Just, no. They can *not* assign a completely bogus book value and laugh at the administrators while walking their pocketed cash to the bank. I know it's a popular fiction but it does not work that way.
In transfers such as these that value has to be fairly assessed and that means they'd have to assign a realistic figure. Maybe lowball it a bit but nothing egregious (and even that's hoping for an administrator getting out of bed on the right side that morning...).
Taking the mickey with such valuations for fiscal purposes is something you can generally get away with but when approaching liquidation/administration? Hell no.

12thRonin wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:

 TBD wrote:

If the GW decision to stop traders from selling to the RoW was such a massive blow to MG then I'm afraid there's another one coming that will be the death knell of all large online retailers within the UK that sell a lot of GW..... GW will soon be bringing in a new addition to their T&Cs. Retailers will be limited to selling £75k of GW product a year. By comparison that's roughly the amount MG would order from GW in two weeks. Yup, two weeks and GW was roughly 50-55% of MGs turnover. So that said I think the days of the giant mega-online store are over (in the UK/Europe at least) . The future is in many smaller stores all ticking over. I wouldn't be placing a GW order with a massive store as once that change comes in someone is going the way of MG..........

This part, if true, would be thread-worthy by itself because of the obvious implications not only for (large) online sellers, but also for people who can't afford/refuse to pay retail value.

It definitely seems like a typical GW stunt to pull.

TBH I think they're talking out of their collective arses there; GW would have to effectively shut down all distribution channels other than themselves to make this work in the US (EU is another matter, I think their grasp of the market there is bigger but even there...).
Prohibiting import/export is one thing; this is a whole lot harder.

And besides you know what will happen? Lots of folkswill get modest accounts with distributors and start selling stuff via ebay. Grossing 75K quid is nothing for a big retailer, but someone doing it in his spare time from a small back room? it's enough to make a pretty penny in that newly opened market segment. ebay/paypal offer enough protection to make it worth it and how is GW going to bloody well police that? With hundreds of such traders springing up all around the place...

I can see it happening if GW wants to go to being a highbrow product. Effectively kills off local competition for the stores. They could just as easily drop the distribution agreements and then you have to go into a GW store if you want the GW experience.

12thRonin wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:

Currently they say that an appropriate market value was paid. Whether that is true is something MG's administrators will be looking into as one of the first things they do (transferring assets at below market values is something most administrators/curators/however-they're-called-in-your-jurisdiction do first as it's the most common malversation imaginable).

That's the thing. If they do a book value transfer, then they can state any value they want. The offset could be anything.

...except they said transfer at fair market value. And really: no. Just, no. They can *not* assign a completely bogus book value and laugh at the administrators while walking their pocketed cash to the bank. I know it's a popular fiction but it does not work that way.
In transfers such as these that value has to be fairly assessed and that means they'd have to assign a realistic figure. Maybe lowball it a bit but nothing egregious (and even that's hoping for an administrator getting out of bed on the right side that morning...).
Taking the mickey with such valuations for fiscal purposes is something you can generally get away with but when approaching liquidation/administration? Hell no.

The Banelefions/Mierce minis I own are some of the nicest in my collection. I am out about $30 from the MG debacle, but you know what pieces did get delivered? All the Mierce stuff. So in that regard, I give sincere kudos to them.

I really look forward to seeing what kind of game is developed for the minis, because they really at gorgeous.

@Mierce - any plans on doing any end of to year sales at all? I'd be more than willing to give you guys a chance as an independent company.

12thRonin wrote:

12thRonin wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:

Currently they say that an appropriate market value was paid. Whether that is true is something MG's administrators will be looking into as one of the first things they do (transferring assets at below market values is something most administrators/curators/however-they're-called-in-your-jurisdiction do first as it's the most common malversation imaginable).

That's the thing. If they do a book value transfer, then they can state any value they want. The offset could be anything.

...except they said transfer at fair market value. And really: no. Just, no. They can *not* assign a completely bogus book value and laugh at the administrators while walking their pocketed cash to the bank. I know it's a popular fiction but it does not work that way.
In transfers such as these that value has to be fairly assessed and that means they'd have to assign a realistic figure. Maybe lowball it a bit but nothing egregious (and even that's hoping for an administrator getting out of bed on the right side that morning...).
Taking the mickey with such valuations for fiscal purposes is something you can generally get away with but when approaching liquidation/administration? Hell no.

Apparently you have never studied fraud or fraud schemes. What they legally can do and get away with does not factor into what they fraudulently can try to do or get away with. And yes, they can do exactly that. I've SEEN it done in my career. The offset can be considered consulting costs, exchange for service, or a deferred sale, or any other number of accounting tricks. There's NO cash to walk away with since there was no cash to start with. It's solely a book ownership transfer. Getting away with it is different and depends on how well it's hidden, the terms and contract of the sale (if there is one), and how good the auditors are. It will also depend on what the book value and the FMV of the equipment is. If it's been equipment depreciated away and has little book value, it can be "sold" at a steep discount compared to the FMV.

I've not made a single allegation, but examples of what they could do. The fact is that fraud schemes like this are pretty common here in the States and that's what we're dealing with in a situation like this. They're probably similar in Britain since they use similar accounting rules. Criminal mastermind or not, dark schemes or not, whatever you may think of Lane, I've seen some dumb people run some pretty clever fraud schemes. Most of them ended up in jail mind you, but they were pretty good while it lasted. This whole thing stinks though, regardless of the spin they put on it.

I'll still argue that it's not in their interest to push anything, even if I had.

...Fair enough, seems I conflated you with another poster. Sorry!
Well, I'm still sure it takes more complicated situations and more premeditation to commit serious fraud in such matters; do remember that everything MG in general and Lane in particular did reeked of panic and improvisation; I'd bet against significant shenanigans on this aspect of the whole stinker.
...Mind you that's not because I expect mr. Lane to be honourable about it; just slightly incompetent

 Bolognesus wrote:
So either you conveniently forget that separating personal and business assets is an intended purpose of LLC's and the like, or you find our modern system of companies as separate entities to be "immoral"?

No, I understand how LLCs work, and don't have a problem with it in general. It's just when the system is used to avoid paying your debts by shuffling companies around that I start making frowny faces. The system is intended to allow people to grow their businesses without being personally ruined if things go pear-shaped... but that shouldn't be a free rein to take the assets from your failing company and run off with them to a new company and start over scott free. Selling something to yourself is not selling something. It's playing games by exploiting the system.

so you can't order bits anymore from Maelstrom. It looks like maelstrom is gone (at least the website is dysfunctional) When did all this happen? is there another thread about what happened to them?

 insaniak wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:
So either you conveniently forget that separating personal and business assets is an intended purpose of LLC's and the like, or you find our modern system of companies as separate entities to be "immoral"?

No, I understand how LLCs work, and don't have a problem with it in general. It's just when the system is used to avoid paying your debts by shuffling companies around that I start making frowny faces. The system is intended to allow people to grow their businesses without being personally ruined if things go pear-shaped... but that shouldn't be a free rein to take the assets from your failing company and run off with them to a new company and start over scott free. Selling something to yourself is not selling something. It's playing games by exploiting the system.

Good heavens man, are we working with two different sets of facts here?
Situation one: assets, minus BL/BL, plus value thereof is, in your mind, worth less than situation two: assets, BL/BL?
**IF** that transaction did not have adequate consideration from MM towards MG, it is wrong, morally. It is also wrong, legally. If a decent price was paid, make no mistake: Creditors would be off all the better for that. no waiting, no hassle of getting it sold, just a decent sum of liquid assets.
If MM (one of his companies, not mr. Lane himself, highly annoying to conflate those) paid a decent price, as they allege, creditors are no worse off. What the Feth is your problem then?
Really, I understand you'd be sceptical as to MM's claim of having paid a decent price and were your condemnation contingent upon such malversations, I would completely agree. It isn't, though, as you put it now.
No-one has any incentive to try to pay an unrealistically low sum for those lines; that would get caught (it's entirely too simple an asset to get all too creative with, fortunately ) and would leave all those involved liable; potentially even personally.

And on a purely macro-economic point: You do realize it's actually better for society if assets get salvaged and keep being used in some economically sensible manner? If that line had been in the administration for upwards of a year, generating no revenue, just sitting idle, noone would be better off for that. Sure, creditors need to get as much of the actual value of leftover assets back out of a company gone bust, but really, as long as a decent price was paid; they got that money, however (comparatively) little of the total debt that might be (and really, a couple of minis some of which have already generated most of the revenue they ever will - as MM states, initial sales busts are nice but obscure sculpts which aren't particularly cheap have limited sales potential - while still under the MG banner, will not net a significant part of a 500K+ debt under any realistic valuation).

anyway, I digress. I guess the question is: what *is* your issue? Are you alleging fraud for which we have no clear indication other than "hey we hate the guy, he must be guilty" yet? Are you against an entity owned by mr. Lane taking over such assets even for a fair price? And if neither: What the Feth are you saying?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

buckero0 wrote:
so you can't order bits anymore from Maelstrom. It looks like maelstrom is gone (at least the website is dysfunctional) When did all this happen? is there another thread about what happened to them?

Have fun.

Own several of these mini's - love them. I won't however be buying from these people if MG is remotely involved. I understand people have jobs and money on the line but hey, maybe better to check who you are getting into bed with first.

Rich1231 from Wayland Games had this to say on the possible limitations in the MG taking the biscuit thread in discussions:

rich1231 wrote:

 Compel wrote:
This is a worrying bit.

"GW will soon be bringing in a new addition to their T&Cs. Retailers will be limited to selling £75k of GW product a year. By comparison that's roughly the amount MG would order from GW in two weeks. Yup, two weeks and GW was roughly 50-55% of MGs turnover."

It sounds like just the right amount of pants on head stupidity from GW to sound true.

I wouldn't worry. I think this came from an ill informed misunderstanding of GW's current terms to claim that processing orders over £75,000 can take longer to deliver than smaller orders to an indy.

It is very difficult to limit sales volumes in the EU, by difficult I mean not going to happen whilst GW are also competing with those they supply.

 fullheadofhair wrote:
Own several of these mini's - love them. I won't however be buying from these people if MG is remotely involved. I understand people have jobs and money on the line but hey, maybe better to check who you are getting into bed with first.

Rob Lane owns and is directing everything Mierce do. I don't think that connection to MG is going anywhere any time soon.

I'm ultimately a sucker for nice minis, and they have quite a few of them. While I'd like to proclaim solidarity with my global nerd brethren that lost money with MG, I think I like cool minotaurs and wyverns more.
To assuage my guilt somewhat I will only order them through a new LGS that carries the line.

Yeah, limiting how much you can sell seems to be edging into dishonest and illegal business practices.

"Hi. You compete with our own stores... but we're only going to let you sell X amount of our product a year. Have fun!!!"

They'd never get away with it, so I doubt it's a real thing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah, limiting how much you can sell seems to be edging into dishonest and illegal business practices.

"Hi. You compete with our own stores... but we're only going to let you sell X amount of our product a year. Have fun!!!"

They'd never get away with it, so I doubt it's a real thing.

Oh feth I hadn't even considered their stores, just competing distribution...(really a wee bit too tired, I guess) hmm, it does make it unlikely *any* of it will fly in the EU short of simply not selling through any third parties anymore.

 Bolognesus wrote:
If MM (one of his companies, not mr. Lane himself, highly annoying to conflate those) paid a decent price, as they allege, creditors are no worse off. What the Feth is your problem then?

The problem is that the company buying the range is owned by the same guy who already owns the range.

It's not a matter of being sceptical as to whether or not they paid a fair price. They shouldn't have been paying any price.


Let's say I owe you $40. I tell you I don't have any money, but I sell my watch for $20 and give you that. We both understand that I still owe you $20, but I've given you all the money I have for now, and done what I can to pay off the debt.

Now instead, let's say I owe you $40. I tell you I don't have any money, but I sell my watch to myself for $20, and give you that, and then tell you that I can't pay you any more because I have no more money and I sold my only asset, so as far as I'm concerned our debt is erased. Sound fair?

If I have the $20 anyway, shouldn't I have given you that and sold the watch so I could pay you in full?

Again, because of the way LLCs work, it's technically legal in this situation to sell your stuff to yourself ... but it's dodgy.

Okay, I get it now: it's not the library for you; it's Cuba. Fair 'nuff, that just means that

 insaniak wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:
So either you conveniently forget that separating personal and business assets is an intended purpose of LLC's and the like, or you find our modern system of companies as separate entities to be "immoral"?

No, I understand how LLCs work, and don't have a problem with it in general.

was rather meaningless. Oh well. Didn't really expect otherwise after some of your other posts in this thread anymore, anyway.

No, it meant exactly what it said. I don't have a problem with how LLCs work in general. There are any number of LLCs out there in the world that I have no problem with. It's just people being able to buy stuff from themselves to avoid paying their debts that I take issue with.

Whilst I appreciate the discussion at hand and think its worthwhile, perhaps it's best to the it elsewhere from this thread. I know I'm not as seasoned a member as some of y'all, but I think Mierce should still have the opportunity to post in this thread their new releases without discussion of the previous business being the focal point.

Edited by MajorTom11 - Rule #1 and #2.