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.

 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.

For governmental purposes, yes, but a private firm can set their year end to anything they like, generally there will be a historical or administrative reason for it, and they submit their tax returns and pay any due based on that date. Often 31 March is chosen to coincide, but there is nothing compelling a company to do so. My company's was end of June, because when I first started out I was let down by the first accountant I retained, and the second (much better) applied to have it moved to give them time to sort out the mess, for instance.

Suppose they can sell 100,000 rulebooks in the first two weeks. That would be £4,500,000 of sales booked, which is a good three per cent bump on the year.

Obviously I am guessing about the possible sales numbers, however the sales of any new edition are naturally higher at the start.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Choice words.. "type of people high up in GW"... Yet no actual examples? No evidence? No circumstantial evidence? Not even an example of Kirby's nephew being given an internship?



If you are going to make an accusation, you need to be able to support that claim. This is a public company so the amount of openness is pretty vast compared to their competitors. Disclosures are required to be made.

All these accusations are vague for a reason. People aren't naming names for a reason. The reason is that it's all speculative bs.

I could take the exact same evidence being provided and claim Kirby is conducting human trafficking of Nigerian toddlers to Mars and be equally as credible. In other words, not credible at all. It's 100% backed by emotion and opinion. There are zero facts here.

I get that you guys are emotionally invested in demonizing GW and it's perfectly fine to be critical of their management team. It's not okay to just make stuff up.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Suppose they can sell 100,000 rulebooks in the first two weeks. That would be £4,500,000 of sales booked, which is a good three per cent bump on the year.

Obviously I am guessing about the possible sales numbers, however the sales of any new edition are naturally higher at the start.

We wont know till we get the earnings report and expectations will have to be adjusted by analysts for the quality of the earnings. As long as they aren't pulling forward revenue from future quarters, it will be relatively easy to look through.

I'll see your strawman and raise you this...

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ConversationalChaff

Specifically, but not limited to...

Demand unnecessary evidence. Insist that all opinions or ideas be backed up by facts or EmpiricalEvidence. ("Can you show me a rigorous study that demonstrates that customers prefer easy-to-use high-quality software over complicated buggy software?"). And then find reasons to reject any evidence that is provided. ("All the customers in that study were in the age range of 18-65, so the study doesn't accurately reflect the preferences of all consumers."). If you can't find reasons to reject the evidence, then resort to MovingGoalPosts.

Honestly, Alpharius, if you're reading, I would lock at this point, I think we'd be better off waiting for the next financial report and trying again.

dereksatkinson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Choice words.. "type of people high up in GW"... Yet no actual examples? No evidence? No circumstantial evidence? Not even an example of Kirby's nephew being given an internship?

So another person who has failed to read the rest of the thread? Cool story bro.
We're done - you're on ignore. What you're literally doing is denying the fact that it's possible, when in fact it'd be a rare occurrence for it to not be true. Not a strawman at all - perhaps you should look up the definition of that and educate yourself.

 azreal13 wrote:
I'll see your strawman and raise you this...

The difference here is that i'm not asking for some smoking gun here that is unobtainable. These aren't hurdles that can't be cleared. I'm asking for some sort of factual information that has drawn you to the conclusion that they have resorted to cronyism. Not hearsay.

Which shareholders are keeping Kirby in there? We can verify that information relatively easily through public filings. Work i'm expressing a willingness to verify. All i'm asking is for someone to name names.

 azreal13 wrote:
I'll see your strawman and raise you this...

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ConversationalChaff

Specifically, but not limited to...

Demand unnecessary evidence. Insist that all opinions or ideas be backed up by facts or EmpiricalEvidence. ("Can you show me a rigorous study that demonstrates that customers prefer easy-to-use high-quality software over complicated buggy software?"). And then find reasons to reject any evidence that is provided. ("All the customers in that study were in the age range of 18-65, so the study doesn't accurately reflect the preferences of all consumers."). If you can't find reasons to reject the evidence, then resort to MovingGoalPosts.

Honestly, Alpharius, if you're reading, I would lock at this point, I think we'd be better off waiting for the next financial report and trying again.

Tempted, and thinking about it.

At this point, I think we would all be better served waiting until the next financial report is released.

Because all this sniping back and forth doesn't seem too productive, and only seems to be getting certain people agitated...

So, with that...