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.

I think you'll have better luck herding cats than getting GW to change their policies on anything ...

... Until you own enough shares that they HAVE to listen to you.

*NOT just enough shares to get you a "say" in matters.
*Enough shares that EVEN the chairman of the board, CEO and CFO HAVE TO listen to you. Controlling interest amounts.

There just AREN'T enough of those shares out there on the market, though.

 jah-joshua wrote:
@TheAuldGrump: like i said, i don't feel like a sucker in any way, shape, or form...
if you insist that i am, that's your opinion...
i will simply disagree with you, and walk away...

i happen to like some of the minis that GW makes, enjoy the Black Library novels, and think Forge World is awesome...
i will continue to buy the things that i like, and not buy the things i don't..
simple...

cheers
jah

The only reason that you think that Forge World is awesome is because it is. (And I have a feeling that the folks inside of Forge World are a bit more in contact with their fan base than is standard for GW.)

Many of the GW minis are excellent - I will admit that. Though it seems to me that the number, or at least the percentage, of those excellent figures is diminishing, with computer created models badly made from pre-existing elements taking their place. (Triangular fur ticks me off - every time that I see it.)

But I will not argue about Forge World - they do indeed make some beautiful models.

The Auld Grump

Fascinating thread - but a lot of, shall we say, subjective emotional comments here about "value" and to use the crude term "sucker".

The facts are that gw sales and profits are both falling, and their margins are very good.

Again, these are business facts and ratios - comments about handbags, golf clubs or what ever - are irrelevant. Note: I am not ignoring or dismissing peoples personal value proposition - I am saying that any one person's perspective of value is independent of the company performance.

They are losing customers (increased prices, and flat revenues and greater releases means less customers = this is bad). Any person with a business or accounting degree can read their financials and see its not a good situation.

And their profits are falling.

This is a sign that they need to increase demand - and basic business to do so is either increase the value of their product, marketing, or lowering the price.

They brag about not doing marketing, and not needing it.
They think their product is the best in the world - and while you could debate as to if their minis are - the rules, sadly are not even close. When is the last time they released a faq? Where is their customer forum?
for them, customer service ends at the cash register of the sale of the MODEL - yes, if you have a physical problem with the model, they will replace it.
But many players also have problems with the rules - something they ignore.

They are a classic example of the old business catch phrase in the late 80s - paradigm paralysis.

Hopefully, eventually someone will realize that without the game to support their minis, and customer service to support that game, they will continue to shrink until they are a small 'boutique' minis company, but then be behind the quality of the players in that space (fine molds, Hasegawa , etc.).

 Talys wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Knowing that GW is treating you like a sucker and buying anyway simply means that you are an informed sucker.

Lanrak wrote:
Here is just an example of why people buying from GW are being 'suckered'.
If you buy a £50 box of the brand new Assault marines.
Do you know how much it cost GW plc research develop manufacture (including ALL associated overheads.)and pack this product ready to be transported to the shops?
£12.

This is the type of attitude that just makes no sense to me.

I like Coca-Cola, a nice bottle of wine, a good steak at a good restaurant, a decent car, a good computer, a good novel, and a good movie in the theatre. All of these things cost a fraction to produce of the final sale price; does that make anyone who enjoys these things "a sucker"? If someone buys a painting for thousands of dollars, are they a sucker?

I do not subscribe to the notion that: (a) people who spend money on things they enjoy in life are necessarily foolish or (b) people who produce desirable things in life for a profit, however high that might be, are necessarily looking for foolish people.

If I made something for $12 and I sold it for $50, and the profit were $38, **and people would buy it** that would be great! If people would pay $100 for it, that would be even better! Microsoft sells Office for a way higher multiple of its cost; Google sells advertising for a much higher multiple of its cost; the Avengers movie tickets (and Robert Downey Jr's salary) are sold at a very high planned profit margin.

How much is a box of assault marines worth? The same thing as a box of chocolates: it's worth what people are willing to pay for it. That could be $0, $25, $50. It has nothing in the least to do with production cost, other than that the manufacturer can't sell it for lower than that, without losing money. It should be manufacturer's goal to optimize their profits, not to make any particular person happy. If it were my company, surely this is what I would do -- of course, with the caveat that growing the market is a part of optimizing profits, which is something GW doesn't seem to care about.

The other thing that baffles me is the commoditization of miniatures. Miniatures, like video games, are not commodities. Just because you can buy a video game for $2.50 doesn't mean it will bring you as much enjoyment as a video game for $60. Or, maybe, with a particular title, the $2.50 title it will bring you MORE enjoyment, and the $60 will be a waste of money. Miniatures are the same thing. A miniature from company X is not identical to a miniature to company Y, even if they are of "equivalent quality". Hell, even two miniatures from Company X are not necessarily worth the same. Because they're not the same miniature! If I like Iron Man, I'll buy Iron Man comics, but not Superman comics, even if DC comics are 50% cheaper than Marvel comics. If I like George Martin, I'll buy the next Song of Fire and Ice book, even if it costs 50% more than the next JK Rowling book. Is that so hard to understand?

You are a sucker if you continue to buy Coca-Cola at $4 a bottle from the airport ONLY, rather than buying it at some other location where it is 75¢ a bottle.

This is the analogy being used.

The claim that GW's customers are suckers is because GW's prices are grotesquely inflated compared to the market average.

You are paying more for a product than it is really worth.

And, before anyone steps in with the 'People charge what the market will bear" BS....

The "Market" is not perfect, and it is easily gamed, or rigged, such that a market will be filled with products that are either over or under valued.

This is where "bubbles" come from in markets: suckers who buy into a craze, only to have the floor drop out from under them. Some of the people buying into a bubble MAY manage to make money off it, but most will not, which is why Bubbles produce such catastrophic effects in a market when they collapse.

But that is irrelevant to the fact that GW has essentially suckered a huge population into paying more for their products than they are worth, and GWs financials show that this isn't sustainable.

MB

Thank you for pointing out the 'Bubbles' - and it is very true.

It is also a cause for inflation, and in a niche industry a market leader increasing their prices beyond elasticity can lead to the entire market doing so - and being heavily damaged when that bubble bursts.

The Auld Grump

BeAfraid wrote:
You are a sucker if you continue to buy Coca-Cola at $4 a bottle from the airport ONLY, rather than buying it at some other location where it is 75¢ a bottle.

If I'm waiting at the airport, I'm thirsty, and there's a choice between a warm can of Coca-Cola in my bag, and a cold one for $4, thanks I'll cough up the $4. If I can't afford it, I will go to the water fountain and drink from there.

Either way, I won't hate on the vendor in the airport, the airport authority, or Coca-Cola.

BeAfraid wrote:
The claim that GW's customers are suckers is because GW's prices are grotesquely inflated compared to the market average.

You are paying more for a product than it is really worth.

This is assuming that miniatures are commodities. If I want Red Bull, it doesn't help me for you to say Dr. Pepper is being sold at 1/6 the price. It's not the same thing! If I like Grey Goose, it doesn't help that Smirnoff just because it is a lot cheaper.

To me, every miniature is unique, and its value to me is individually assessed, based on how I like it independently, its gaming value, how it looks with the rest of that collection, whether I want it for conversion purposes, et cetera. Generally speaking as a factor of what I'm willing to pay per hour of entertainment, miniatures by ANY company are about as cheap entertainment as I can find.

BeAfraid wrote:
This is where "bubbles" come from in markets: suckers who buy into a craze, only to have the floor drop out from under them. Some of the people buying into a bubble MAY manage to make money off it, but most will not, which is why Bubbles produce such catastrophic effects in a market when they collapse.

But that is irrelevant to the fact that GW has essentially suckered a huge population into paying more for their products than they are worth, and GWs financials show that this isn't sustainable.

Just because a company chooses to cater to a smaller segment of the population (that doesn't include you) doesn't mean that it's not sustainable. It might be less profitable, but as long as it's profitable at all, it's infinitely sustainable. When they start to lose money, that's when you can say that it's unsustainable.

As has been stated earlier, GW would be suckering people if they said they were selling X, but gave you Y. If they sell you X, at whatever price, and you get what you paid for, then you are not being suckered at all.

You're not being a sucker for taking a woman out to an expensive restaurant, buying an expensive watch, buying popcorn at the movies, or buying a hot dog at the street corner, just because those things are pricey and there are cheaper alternatives. You're not even being a sucker for buying something at Best Buy for more money than it would cost on Amazon.

 Talys wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
You are a sucker if you continue to buy Coca-Cola at $4 a bottle from the airport ONLY, rather than buying it at some other location where it is 75¢ a bottle.

If I'm waiting at the airport, I'm thirsty, and there's a choice between a warm can of Coca-Cola in my bag, and a cold one for $4, thanks I'll cough up the $4. If I can't afford it, I will go to the water fountain and drink from there.

Either way, I won't hate on the vendor in the airport, the airport authority, or Coca-Cola.

That not what he said at all.

And the last point about profit, if you understand their reports you wouldn't say that.

 Talys wrote:


Just because a company chooses to cater to a smaller segment of the population (that doesn't include you) doesn't mean that it's not sustainable. It might be less profitable, but as long as it's profitable at all, it's infinitely sustainable. When they start to lose money, that's when you can say that it's unsustainable.

I agree with everything you said up until the above. Value is subjective and people aren't being "suckered" if they choose to spend their hard-earned money on GW-priced items. I make a very comfortable living and have stated that I will likely throw thousands of dollars worth of OK and VC fantasy models in the trash if 9th turns out to be as blinkered as the pessimistic rumors make it out to be. My money, my time, my property yet people in the fantasy thread were aghast, meh, whatever. I use this to illustrate that people place value on items differently; for me the models are counters to be moved on a make-believe battlefield and their 3D representations assist me in visualizing what the battle would look like. If I stop to enjoy the possession, I throw it away, much like you would do with used personal items of any other stripe. I don't give used items to people, generally, I have and odd, personal reason for this so when I gift someone with miniatures, I only do so with new items. Used things are donated or trashed, depending upon my feeling on the matter.

Back to your quoted statement. It would be asininely stupid of a retail game company to intentionally limit the reach of their merchandise. We're talking about a game, not taking someone out on the town, a new car, an expensive consumer good with world-renowned cachet, a game, and in a niche market at that. So, to intentionally ensure that you have as small a pool of consumers as possible is asking for disaster. GW has done this but I don't think they've done it intentionally; you see, the downside of not know who your consumers are and what they want is that you're unintentionally showing them the door before or shortly after they've started a relationship with your company. Over and over upper management has stated that they're in the business of selling toys to teenage boys but then pricing their product in such a way as to supremely curtail the number of this target group who actually have the means to purchase. They then set-up their retail chain as the primary vehicle for introducing people into their ecosystem but then limit hours of operation and accessibility by stripping the stores of the ability to serve clientele. They then look at falling revenue and admit that it is in part due to the one-man stores but only because the new structure hasn't had time to germinate.

I tend to get long-winded, apologies, but I work in an industry where you have to explain things as clearly as possible and I want to be sure that we understand each other. You believe that GW will change if and when they start to lose money; the fact is, they are losing money and have been doing so over the last several financial reports. They have only been able to maintain a positive balance sheet through some careful manipulation of corporate cost-cutting and restructuring efforts. We have now seen the end of any benefits from these efforts and from now on the company will survive or die on their own merits, there simply isn't any more fat to trim in my opinion, unless they start to rapidly close stores and produce a savings there but then that's a last gasp for their current business model and one that I highly recommend, particularly in the US and possibly Canada.

GW is currently healthy but they're paying dividends at rates higher than their EPS which is most certainly unsustainable by any economic metric you weigh it against. People are buying stock, but these are institutional investors who will divest themselves of stock seconds after GW appears to be taking the final financial nose-dive.

agnosto, no need to apologize for being winded... lord only knows I am

 agnosto wrote:

Back to your quoted statement. It would be asininely stupid of a retail game company to intentionally limit the reach of their merchandise. We're talking about a game, not taking someone out on the town, a new car, an expensive consumer good with world-renowned cachet, a game, and in a niche market at that. So, to intentionally ensure that you have as small a pool of consumers as possible is asking for disaster. GW has done this but I don't think they've done it intentionally; you see, the downside of not know who your consumers are and what they want is that you're unintentionally showing them the door before or shortly after they've started a relationship with your company. Over and over upper management has stated that they're in the business of selling toys to teenage boys but then pricing their product in such a way as to supremely curtail the number of this target group who actually have the means to purchase. They then set-up their retail chain as the primary vehicle for introducing people into their ecosystem but then limit hours of operation and accessibility by stripping the stores of the ability to serve clientele. They then look at falling revenue and admit that it is in part due to the one-man stores but only because the new structure hasn't had time to germinate.

Well, we differ on this, though I certainly concede that you could be right. In my opinion, the vision GW sees for its game world -- 40k -- is one where all the participants are highly invested model collectors who ALSO aspire to model and paint to a very high standard and ALSO like to game with like-minded hobbyists. That is, other people who have or want to have giant model collections and play them to re-enact scenarios. Yes, this demographic may be miniscule in 2015 and be so niche that it can't sustain a business the size of GW.

In my opinion GW would rather make less money catering to these folks that people who want to buy a few models, and pop into stores and casually play smaller scale games or board games. My only evidence of this is that GW seems to get rid of anything small scale, and doesn't really do any specialist or board games anymore, even though many of their customers have given very positive feedback. It seems to be the type of people that work there, at least from the glimpses that we can see.

There are lots of companies that decide to go exclusive rather than to go wide. In the jewelry and fashion, you see this all the time. Many services are like this. In my own world (software design), we are selective about our customers, and simply don't want customers that aren't a good fit for our company, even if it means a big profit. In the world of miniatures, Forge World is generally quite liked, and their products are priced only for the serious hobbyist with deep pockets, and they have no desire to make it anything but that.

Of course, like you say, GW could not be like this at all, and I concede it is entirely possible that they want the opposite, but have totally screwed things up.

 agnosto wrote:
You believe that GW will change if and when they start to lose money;

I actually mean, if they start bleeding red (losses exceed profits), they will have to decide to restructure or to restrategize. Barring that, even if they shrink as a company and even if shareholder value falls, I think GW will hold its course, because they're doing what they want to do. I don't think making less money will enact change, at least not under the current Board.

Again, I'm happy to concede that this is just an opinion of someone who is making casual observations.

Also, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that any of this is good for gamers, or that I particularly like any of it (though I may understand and tolerate it, and buy GW product regardless). In a nutshell, I would like GW to be more inclusive. I philosophy is that big tent is the way to go, because as you say, this is a niche market with a small enough customer base anyhow. Get people playing your game, make it a good game, and everyone will win in the long run, including the people that are the serious collector hobbyist types.

 agnosto wrote:
GW is currently healthy

No, they are not, which is why this statement is obsured.

 Talys wrote:
Just because a company chooses to cater to a smaller segment of the population (that doesn't include you) doesn't mean that it's not sustainable. It might be less profitable, but as long as it's profitable at all, it's infinitely sustainable. When they start to lose money, that's when you can say that it's unsustainable.

They are losing profits faster than they can cut costs. The company has practically no middle management left and closed all its HQs in important markets like NA for feths sake. They have some great accountants who are manipulating the numbers but they are losing sales at a terrifying rate and are not doing anything to stop that, just hide it behind cost cuts.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
GW is currently healthy

No, they are not, which is why this statement is obsured.

 Talys wrote:
Just because a company chooses to cater to a smaller segment of the population (that doesn't include you) doesn't mean that it's not sustainable. It might be less profitable, but as long as it's profitable at all, it's infinitely sustainable. When they start to lose money, that's when you can say that it's unsustainable.

They are losing profits faster than they can cut costs. The company has practically no middle management left and closed all its HQs in important markets like NA for feths sake. They have some great accountants who are manipulating the numbers but they are losing sales at a terrifying rate and are not doing anything to stop that, just hide it behind cost cuts.

No, financially they're healthy. They have no debt and are profitable. They are a company in serious decline but they are financially healthy.

 agnosto wrote:

No, financially they're healthy. They have no debt and are profitable. They are a company in serious decline but they are financially healthy.

Profitable this year is irrelevant.
How is falling profits healthy for even the short term?

Because they're still profits

Nobody is more convinced that GW need to change direction than me, but until their revenue drops below their expenditure, they're not in any danger whatsoever.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

No, financially they're healthy. They have no debt and are profitable. They are a company in serious decline but they are financially healthy.

Profitable this year is irrelevant.
How is falling profits healthy for even the short term?

They've been profitable for some time now, not just this year or even the previous. Their profit margin is falling and they're paying dividends at a rate higher than their EPS but none of this detracts from the fact that they are financially healthy. I fully expect the year-end report to be just as dismal as the last several but their cash reserves are sufficient to sustain their current business model for the next 2-3 years at least, thanks to all the cost-savings initiatives that were put in place over the last several years.

Assuming their revenue doesn't fall through the floor of course.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Assuming their revenue doesn't fall through the floor of course.

Which I would think will happen, but in all fairness I'm Australian and GW seem to be trying to pull out of our market and pretend our country doesn't exist so in other markets things might not be so bleak.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Assuming their revenue doesn't fall through the floor of course.

I don't currently expect that to happen; if anything, their, "and the kitchen sink" approach to product release will keep them treading water this year in my inexpert estimation.

It would be a surprise for sure, but there must be a tipping point where critical mass is exceeded and the lack of people playing means fewer people play and so on and so forth.

Whether things ever get to that point is very much up in the air, but somewhere there's a magic number after which the revenue will drop off a cliff.

Not yet though.

Probably.

 Azreal13 wrote:
It would be a surprise for sure, but there must be a tipping point where critical mass is exceeded and the lack of people playing means fewer people play and so on and so forth.

Whether things ever get to that point is very much up in the air, but somewhere there's a magic number after which the revenue will drop off a cliff.

Not yet though.

Probably.

Oh to be sure there is; one example is that GW has already hit one ceiling of sorts in price elasticity. Dropping sales volume after the last annual grand price rise indicated that more people were leaving GW than were entering and their response was to institute the current stealth model of increasing prices which further pushed people away being as consumers aren't as stupid as GW thinks they are..that and recruiting new customers is hampered by the extravagant entry price. One thing that I'm fairly certain of is that GW management did not anticipate as large a drop in sales as what they've witnessed so the corporate bigwigs put their heads together and we got the currwnr, "throw gack at the wall and see what sticks" release cycle.

Which is the sort of great idea you get when you recruit for attitude and not for skills all the way up to board level!

That said, it wouldn't be the worst idea if they had mechanisms in place to figure out why some gak stuck sand some didn't.

 Talys wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
You are a sucker if you continue to buy Coca-Cola at $4 a bottle from the airport ONLY, rather than buying it at some other location where it is 75¢ a bottle.

If I'm waiting at the airport, I'm thirsty, and there's a choice between a warm can of Coca-Cola in my bag, and a cold one for $4, thanks I'll cough up the $4. If I can't afford it, I will go to the water fountain and drink from there.

Either way, I won't hate on the vendor in the airport, the airport authority, or Coca-Cola.

Which has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I said, does it?

The analogy was that you would be spending $4 on that same bottle of Coke when NOT at the airport, or traveling to the airport EVERY TIME you want a Coke.

THEN you would be a "sucker" because you would be spending an extravagant amount of money for something that was available for much less elsewhere.

BeAfraid wrote:
The claim that GW's customers are suckers is because GW's prices are grotesquely inflated compared to the market average.

You are paying more for a product than it is really worth.

This is assuming that miniatures are commodities. If I want Red Bull, it doesn't help me for you to say Dr. Pepper is being sold at 1/6 the price. It's not the same thing! If I like Grey Goose, it doesn't help that Smirnoff just because it is a lot cheaper.

To me, every miniature is unique, and its value to me is individually assessed, based on how I like it independently, its gaming value, how it looks with the rest of that collection, whether I want it for conversion purposes, et cetera. Generally speaking as a factor of what I'm willing to pay per hour of entertainment, miniatures by ANY company are about as cheap entertainment as I can find.

No such analogy is necessary. Whether miniatures are a commodity or not, there are still miniatures that have an inflated value, and those which do not.

"Commodities," as you are trying to define them, are not the only things that can have an inflated value.

BeAfraid wrote:
This is where "bubbles" come from in markets: suckers who buy into a craze, only to have the floor drop out from under them. Some of the people buying into a bubble MAY manage to make money off it, but most will not, which is why Bubbles produce such catastrophic effects in a market when they collapse.

But that is irrelevant to the fact that GW has essentially suckered a huge population into paying more for their products than they are worth, and GWs financials show that this isn't sustainable.

Just because a company chooses to cater to a smaller segment of the population (that doesn't include you) doesn't mean that it's not sustainable. It might be less profitable, but as long as it's profitable at all, it's infinitely sustainable. When they start to lose money, that's when you can say that it's unsustainable.

As has been stated earlier, GW would be suckering people if they said they were selling X, but gave you Y. If they sell you X, at whatever price, and you get what you paid for, then you are not being suckered at all.

You're not being a sucker for taking a woman out to an expensive restaurant, buying an expensive watch, buying popcorn at the movies, or buying a hot dog at the street corner, just because those things are pricey and there are cheaper alternatives. You're not even being a sucker for buying something at Best Buy for more money than it would cost on Amazon.

Again, missing the point.

MB

 Azreal13 wrote:
It would be a surprise for sure, but there must be a tipping point where critical mass is exceeded and the lack of people playing means fewer people play and so on and so forth.

Whether things ever get to that point is very much up in the air, but somewhere there's a magic number after which the revenue will drop off a cliff.

Not yet though.

Probably.

I fear that that point is a lot closer than most of us believe. The decrease in revenue will only get sharper, and no amount of new releases can fix the inherent flaws in GW's system.

I think that the real indicator that the end is nigh will be Ebay sales and trades. When people stop buying up others' GW minis secondhand, that'll be the day that the player base has truly shrunk so far as to be too small to sustain 40K. Because let's be real, Fantasy is already unsustainable.

Or, possibly, when the number of sales on eBay becomes higher than that of the number of new sales. (Number of sales, not the amount of money.)

People still buying used, but no longer paying full retail.

The Auld Grump

What I like to do at my FLGS is intercept newbs before they make it to the GW section of the store.

Then I invite them come play WarmaHordes, x-wing, or infinity.

If they ask, i just tell them, "GW is fading in popularity and has such a high cost of entry that finding new players is difficult."

If they mention that five guys from infinity costs as much as five guys for 40k, I just mention that those five guys are all you NEED to play infinity while those five GW guys are completely unusable by themselves for a game.

GW will listen to their customers when they are being sold off.

People who say "they made profit sin x quarter" are really missing the bigger picture that GW is not maintaining a sustainable business model. They haven't circa 2008-2009, and 2014 saw the first real cracks. It's juts going to get worse every year.

I think the point those folks are making is that the investors who receive dividends don't care if it's sustainable or not, they'll keep their money in until they stop making a buck.

Until those investors pull out, GW is financially healthy in the short term.

It might be bathing in SARS and H1N1, but at the moment, healthy is the correct term, as far as investors are concerned.

But how many of us are investors? It might be the right term for someone who never gives it a second glance until their dividend comes through, but it's a bit (grossly?) misleading in this kind of discussion, with people who have 'invested' in different ways, carefully monitoring their downward spiral.

To use your analogy, it's like a Harley Street doctor phoning a patient riddled with SARS, H1N1, and half a dozen other horrible diseases, every couple of months to see if they're still moving, and declaring them healthy if they say yes. All while the family and friends watch them coughing up blood and wasting away every day. It's stupidly inadequate, to put it mildly.

Whether you, me, or the masses grasp the definition of what it means to be financially healthy is irrelevant. It's not those who invests fault that we don't understand the correct financial terminology.

To be fair, I agree. I don't think GW sees 2020 under it's current ownership. I just hope whoever claims it has an idea of what to do.

My suspicions are GW is Mr. Kirby's hobby and he's happy to keep GW ticking along than to turn it into something he doesn't want it to be (whatever that means!).

 SirDonlad wrote:
I had a thought while reading threads about GW's behavior/decisionmaking that the only real way of forcing change in this company from our position is to buy shares - we are always complaining about the jumping through hoops to please them so lets become shareholders ourselves!

We clearly have the capacity for large purchases and a year of spending that money on shares instead of models might actually start a change in the company;

all we have to do is wait for a terrible sales report making the shares dip in price to maximise our input and then afterwards we have a say in the boardroom!

I'm up for it - i've never owned shares in a company before!

Let the company rot in its own filth.If i wont buy a marine from them..I aint going to buy a share