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.

 htj wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 htj wrote:
Ah, a rebuttal! But I have to ask, where is everyone getting their information from? GW don't make their figures public, do they?

Yes, they do. As a publicly traded company they are required to do so by law.

Yeah, I realise now that it was a stupid question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
According to this document their profits have appeared to have risen significantly over the last five years. Am I reading this wrong?

Sorry to throw this back a few pages, but:

That is because you're reading numeral revenue not constant or real revenue. It doesn't account for inflation which brings down their year to year significantly.

Were I GW strategy i would get people hooked with good cheap intro product.

It now does my head in to have crappy minis. That means bits off the next, better HQs etc. all easy to justify as im rounding out, not extending. Except of course im still spending on the hobby.

Were i to get my hands on say some necrons and i started rounding out there prtty soon i would have a substantial force, so then i may as well round out to 1750 for a tourney, then i want a few more things for next tourney..

Full priced kits though are certainly not a catalyst for me to extens into new areas though, and it would seem getting existing addicts to extend would be far lower hanging fruit than introducing new gamers via an expensive retail distribution footprint.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
* bits off the net. Sorry, touchscreen..

time to buy 1000 shares. profts will continue until the hobbit 3 breaks in a few years.

 Peregrine wrote:

Lovepug13 wrote:
Firstly, The company is not legally required to maximise profit for shareholders, it will aim to achieve the objectives of the business.....I.e. more growth, diversification, more emphasis on r&d - yes shareholders are important but management will be fulfilling their goals as well

And besides that, "increase profit for shareholders" is not the same as "give shareholders as much profit as possible right now". It's quite possible that if GW stopped paying dividends and focused on long-term growth (along with things like recognizing that it's not 1990 anymore and the internet is important) the profit over time would be larger than the current short-sighted plan.

Agreed......of course the paying of the dividend does not mean that they are not focused on long term growth.

As suggested its about cutting through all the rubbish to understand exactly what they are trying to accomplish...

Palindrome wrote:
Very few people have been predicting an imminent end to GW, quite the reverse. The chattering internet masses do like to make up happy sound bites though.

By far the biggest slice of GW's expenditure is its chain of stores, R&D is tiny by comparison.

True. The best thing to happen price-wise would be a drop in gas/electric prices. Given this government's policies, that's not likely any time soon.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Testify wrote:
GW haters are like marxists and fundamentalist Christians...they've been predicting the imminent end for years now

And painting anyone who dislikes GW's practices as a 'hater' is akin to idiocy.

Good job I didn't say that then isn't it?

Let's not spoil the thread with a slanging match.

HI all.
So Mr Kirby gets over £340000 bonus from this last dividend pay out! .

And when we look how well GW plc has done since the LoTR bubble burst...(2005 .Mr Kirby admitted the GW corperate management had been 'fat and lazy'.)

IF GW prices had stayed the same They should have a turn over of over £170 M.

Well I hear you say were in a recession, so £40 M down is not that bad...

Well it would not be if GW did not put prices up over the rate of inflation....

Including the price increases GW plc should be attaining a turn over in excess of £280 M!!!

So Kirby has driven away about half the customer base in the last 8 years.And picked up over £2 M in share bonuses!

IMO this is not good.

It's great for him though! Honestly I don't this means anything because people were wailing about how they gave out a dividend last year too. They are simply playing business and not warhammer. It is their company after all.

Sales in Million pounds:

2008->110
2012->131

Increase in % = 19%

Any one knows how do their prices fair today VS those of 2008?. Are they under 20% more expensive, thus proving their buisness has grown, or over 20% thus showing it has shrinked?.

You have to factor in inflation as well before determining how profits have gone up or down.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
You have to factor in inflation as well before determining how profits have gone up or down.

No i dont, i am not interested in profit but in units sold, the size of the customer base, not how much money they made out of each box, which no doubt i would imagine, with newer tech can only be better.

Yeah you kinda do, otherwise your numbers are meaningless.

Lanrak wrote:
And when we look how well GW plc has done since the LoTR bubble burst...(2005 .Mr Kirby admitted the GW corperate management had been 'fat and lazy'.)

Well they're certainly not being fat and lazy now. They're pro-actively raising the prices of the new Hobbit race to astronomical levels ($95 for the rickety old wood terrain? WT-f'ing-F!), so that they can rake in as much as humanly possible over this smaller (but hopefully larger) LotR bubble.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
You have to factor in inflation as well before determining how profits have gone up or down.

No i dont, i am not interested in profit but in units sold, the size of the customer base, not how much money they made out of each box, which no doubt i would imagine, with newer tech can only be better.

Let's say that GW’s price inflation between 2008 and 2012 was 30%.

Thus if they sold 100 million of models in 2008, they could sell the same number of models in 2012 and their sales would be 130 million.

If their sales in 2012 were 120 million, it would indicate that they sold about 8% fewer models in 2012 than in 2008, all other things being equal.

Please note that I have made up the above figures for the sake of illustration.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
You have to factor in inflation as well before determining how profits have gone up or down.

No i dont, i am not interested in profit but in units sold, the size of the customer base, not how much money they made out of each box, which no doubt i would imagine, with newer tech can only be better.

Let's say that GW’s price inflation between 2008 and 2012 was 30%.

Thus if they sold 100 million of models in 2008, they could sell the same number of models in 2012 and their sales would be 130 million.

If their sales in 2012 were 120 million, it would indicate that they sold about 8% fewer models in 2012 than in 2008, all other things being equal.

Please note that I have made up the above figures for the sake of illustration.

Exactly what i was going for, thou dont quite remember prices back in 08, gut feeling tells me they were about 60 to 70 percent of current prices, thou i have no basis for those numbers.

Here is a table I worked out about 18 months ago, so it doesn't include 2010 -- 2011 results.



What this shows is the revenue for each year, inflated yearly by the UK consumer price index as you read across to the right. Thus, in the right hand column you can read for example what 2002's revenues are worth in 2010's inflated GBP.

If you look at the 2002 revenue, it is only 108.6M GBP, compared to 121.8M in 2010. However, inflation means that the 108.6M from 2002 is worth 136.3M in 2010 value GBP. In other words, revenues had fallen in 2010.

What the table does not show is GW's own price inflation, which is considerably faster than the UK CPI. Given considerably faster selling price inflation, and static or falling revenues, clearly they are selling fewer units and compensating with higher prices.

This does not meant that profits fell, though. The table makes no account of cost of goods, and soon.

In fact I believe that GW's sales have recovered somewhat since 2010 and their profitability has increased, thanks to reorganisation of the retail chain. OTOH I believe their units sales are probably still falling.

Pretty much what i expected.

I can feel this will be a bit of a ramble, so I apologise for that in advance.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just as a general point of information, limited companies are not legally required to maximise profit for shareholders, they are legally required to fulfil the objectives set out in their founding documents.

Firstly let me concede this point, I had been involved is discussing banks all day when I posted this (who are required to maximise profits) and my tired brain failed to make the separation, it is of cause correct that a PLC is not required to maximise profits unless that was its founding principle.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
"no introductory products" - did I dream the DV release?

I suspect that Kroot wasn't referring to starter sets, but to 'impulse buy' items.

Correct.
"As an introduction to our 160 pages rules game, please read these 160 pages of rules, thank you."
That's why Space Crusade and Heroquest, accompanied with a wide distribution and massive TV advertising brought so many veterans to the hobby. The Fantasy starter doesn't even include the stats for the units in the box. And a $125.00 USD Hobbit starter box ("Oh, don't forget to buy glue, a primer, a knife, these 15 paints and this 50$ book on painting for a start.") is quite a hurdle for the target customers.

OK, now I see what you mean, and yes GW miss a trick here, Space Hulk is the closest thing I can think of but for some inexplicable reason they made it a limited edition item – but I will grant you this is something I think they should make a permanant item in the store. Similarly I’d love to see a return of warhammer quest (or something similar).

Now, onto the profit/customer base thing. People seem to be making an assumption here that a 30% rise in the price that GW charge means that their profits should go up by 30%, but that isn’t the case. Some of the rise will go in the increased cost of raw materials – which are getting more expensive by the day, some will go on higher wages for the staff (due to inflation), some will go on increased costs – lets not forget the machines run on electricity and the cost of that has gone up 30% in the past 2 years. I don’t know what the last 5 years of GW increases equate to, nor do I know what their increased costs equate, I’m fairly sure that their increases are higher than their costs. The point is that the real expected profit increase should be rises – cost, not just rises alone.

I’m not saying that the customer base hasn’t gone down, I’m sure it has. I’m also not saying that GW do everything right, indeed there are many things I disagree with. But at a time of recession, when even companies like Tesco that provides an essential item (in this case food) makes it first ever loss, it is hardly surprising that people are cutting back on the luxuary items of miniatures. At these times a falling customer base isn’t unreasonable.
Of cause this takes us a little off point of the dividend, which I’ll come back to a little now. Someone pointed out that Apple had gone 4-5 years without paying a dividend, now this is true but Apple are a high volume traded company and attract a different kind of investor. (Please note the following is a generalization and I’m sure there are many who do not do this) People who trade in Apple do so for a “quick buck” by this I mean they buy up shares when they consider they are cheap in the hopes that an hour/day/week from then the price will be higher and they can sell them and make their profit. With this kind of investor you can afford not to pay a dividend as they expect to get their money from the rising price of the shares. Now GW on the other hand is a very low volume transaction stock, I’ve seen it go days without anyone trading before. As a result of this the price vary rarely moves (though for reasons I’m not entirely sure on this year they have done very well) and as a result the shareholders expect the dividend to get their return on investment.

As said at the start, that’s a huge generalisation, but does have a lot of truth in it.

And finally For those saying Mr Kirby is doing this to line his own pocket – I think that’s a little unfair. No doubt you would all be saying he was in the wrong if he had no shares in GW as he would have no incentive to run the company better, as one of the major shareholders it’s in his interest to run the company well, and for this reason I’m glad he has so many shares. Lets not forget that if he really was just trying to extract money from GW (in this case around £300k) and ran the company into the ground the share price would crash, making his (currently valued at) £6m worth of shares next to worthless – ask yourself the question, would you give up £6m in 5-10 years time (when I presume he’ll be looking to retire) for £300k now? Even £300k per year for the next 10 years is only half of what his shares will be worth if he keeps the company going strong.

Stranger83 wrote:

I’m not saying that the customer base hasn’t gone down, I’m sure it has. I’m also not saying that GW do everything right, indeed there are many things I disagree with. But at a time of recession, when even companies like Tesco that provides an essential item (in this case food) makes it first ever loss, it is hardly surprising that people are cutting back on the luxuary items of miniatures. At these times a falling customer base isn’t unreasonable.

All the major GW competitors have reported a significant sales growth in the past few years, why isn't their customer base falling as well?

One word; witches. Really I can see a move toward other games while people make the occasional purchase to finish off their armies for warhammer 40k/fantasy. I have no data to back that up, just what I see in my area.

 The Foot wrote:
One word; witches. Really I can see a move toward other games while people make the occasional purchase to finish off their armies for warhammer 40k/fantasy. I have no data to back that up, just what I see in my area.

This, while i do occasionally buy somthing from GW for Fantasy or 40k, they are totally oriented at finishing my CURRENT armies, any new additions or armies i start, i do so on other companies models, including for WHF and 40K.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 The Foot wrote:
One word; witches. Really I can see a move toward other games while people make the occasional purchase to finish off their armies for warhammer 40k/fantasy. I have no data to back that up, just what I see in my area.

This, while i do occasionally buy somthing from GW for Fantasy or 40k, they are totally oriented at finishing my CURRENT armies, any new additions or armies i start, i do so on other companies models, including for WHF and 40K.

This exactly, GW has always been the "starter" company, people get into the hobby via GW (not always, but probably a fairly high percent) and move to other companies once they see that they exist. Now people who are already in the hobby might buy new minis, but at the moment people aren't really looking for a new hobby. As a result people are not buying from GW (as the already have the models) but are buying for other games (as they don't have them).

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
Yeah, much better to have a smaller dividend, then the shareholders will abandon GW, devaluing the stock, and the company can be bought and stripped by someone else! Yeah, sounds great!

Actually that's an awesome scenario. Stock prices crash, WOTC buys GW, and finally the 40k IP is in the hands of professional game designers and we get a balanced and thoroughly tested product like MTG instead of the current "we're a model company, not a rules company" joke.

While I agree with your enthusiasm, WOTC should NOT take over GW. Ive dealt with Magic since "Arabian Knights" and if you thought GW flip-flopped on rules, WOTC has a website that is updated DAILY....Think about it...DAILY. Those goons dont playtest ANYTHING!!! The current wave of "playtesting" conducted by WOTC is nothing more than a feeble attempt to placate the cry-babies who wouldnt make the jump to 4th ed. 5th ed is nothing more than a cleaned up version on 3.5

Let the shareholders get a cut of the pie. GW has made its course of action clear since the 80's. When people cry about the high cost of models its kinda like..."Guys, I know gearheads that will easily spend three thousand dollars on a transmission." If its your hobby, then just deal with it or find a different hobby.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
You have to factor in inflation as well before determining how profits have gone up or down.

No i dont, i am not interested in profit but in units sold, the size of the customer base, not how much money they made out of each box, which no doubt i would imagine, with newer tech can only be better.

Let's say that GW’s price inflation between 2008 and 2012 was 30%.

Thus if they sold 100 million of models in 2008, they could sell the same number of models in 2012 and their sales would be 130 million.

If their sales in 2012 were 120 million, it would indicate that they sold about 8% fewer models in 2012 than in 2008, all other things being equal.

Please note that I have made up the above figures for the sake of illustration.

Are there any solid numbers on GW price inflation? Someone worked out the average recently was iirc 7/8%. The most popular sets were about 5%.

It doesn't really matter if Iron Straken has gone up 50% in price if tactical squads and predators have gone up 5%.

Difficult to calculate as Finecast versions are technically a new product, but in reality are a considerable price increase. Same with new edition rulebooks and starter boxes. Just look at the current Hobbit prices and you clearly see a trend.

You could estimate easily if you kept track. I doubt anyone has, and GW aren't exactly going to release a list of what prices used to be.

I suppose you could figure it out for the more popular sets using the community but nostalgia's a hell of a thing...

 Testify wrote:
You could estimate easily if you kept track. I doubt anyone has, and GW aren't exactly going to release a list of what prices used to be.
I suppose you could figure it out for the more popular sets using the community but nostalgia's a hell of a thing...

It is not easy as we don't know how much of each product they actually sell. Raising the price of one 100$ product by 100% would have no effect if it doesn't sell, but a considerable effect if 100% of GW sales would be that product (with sales numbers staying constant). Assuming that all GW products sell in exactly the same number is a gross simplification. Tracking price increases for core products like starters, Codices, and core troops makes some sense though.

Someone did do it a while ago but don't ask me to find the thread. You can easily do it for something like Guardsman or Catachans, which haven't changed in years. IIRC, the price has stayed broadly in line with inflation over the years, in real terms it has gone up hugely because you get 10 in a box rather than 20 that you used to.

Stranger83 wrote:

And finally For those saying Mr Kirby is doing this to line his own pocket – I think that’s a little unfair. No doubt you would all be saying he was in the wrong if he had no shares in GW as he would have no incentive to run the company better, as one of the major shareholders it’s in his interest to run the company well, and for this reason I’m glad he has so many shares. Lets not forget that if he really was just trying to extract money from GW (in this case around £300k) and ran the company into the ground the share price would crash, making his (currently valued at) £6m worth of shares next to worthless – ask yourself the question, would you give up £6m in 5-10 years time (when I presume he’ll be looking to retire) for £300k now? Even £300k per year for the next 10 years is only half of what his shares will be worth if he keeps the company going strong.

Fair point, but thinking about how the company seems to be behaving (with everything aimed at the short term), and the Hobbit Bubble likely to burst in about 4-5 years time, I can see Kirby retiring perhaps a year before that happens, a millionaire many times over but leaving the company in an extremely perilous position.

 Pacific wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

And finally For those saying Mr Kirby is doing this to line his own pocket – I think that’s a little unfair. No doubt you would all be saying he was in the wrong if he had no shares in GW as he would have no incentive to run the company better, as one of the major shareholders it’s in his interest to run the company well, and for this reason I’m glad he has so many shares. Lets not forget that if he really was just trying to extract money from GW (in this case around £300k) and ran the company into the ground the share price would crash, making his (currently valued at) £6m worth of shares next to worthless – ask yourself the question, would you give up £6m in 5-10 years time (when I presume he’ll be looking to retire) for £300k now? Even £300k per year for the next 10 years is only half of what his shares will be worth if he keeps the company going strong.

Fair point, but thinking about how the company seems to be behaving (with everything aimed at the short term), and the Hobbit Bubble likely to burst in about 4-5 years time, I can see Kirby retiring perhaps a year before that happens, a millionaire many times over but leaving the company in an extremely perilous position.

And GW would then face a shareholder derivative action (with some steam behind it) based on Kirby and other directors violating their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty. Stranger83 has it right, directors and employee officers having a large stake in the company is one of the best ways to ensure that the company ISN'T run into the ground, because they stand to lose the most.

 G. Whitenbeard wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

And finally For those saying Mr Kirby is doing this to line his own pocket – I think that’s a little unfair. No doubt you would all be saying he was in the wrong if he had no shares in GW as he would have no incentive to run the company better, as one of the major shareholders it’s in his interest to run the company well, and for this reason I’m glad he has so many shares. Lets not forget that if he really was just trying to extract money from GW (in this case around £300k) and ran the company into the ground the share price would crash, making his (currently valued at) £6m worth of shares next to worthless – ask yourself the question, would you give up £6m in 5-10 years time (when I presume he’ll be looking to retire) for £300k now? Even £300k per year for the next 10 years is only half of what his shares will be worth if he keeps the company going strong.

Fair point, but thinking about how the company seems to be behaving (with everything aimed at the short term), and the Hobbit Bubble likely to burst in about 4-5 years time, I can see Kirby retiring perhaps a year before that happens, a millionaire many times over but leaving the company in an extremely perilous position.

And GW would then face a shareholder derivative action (with some steam behind it) based on Kirby and other directors violating their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty. Stranger83 has it right, directors and employee officers having a large stake in the company is one of the best ways to ensure that the company ISN'T run into the ground, because they stand to lose the most.

Not if they sell out right before it crashes and burns.