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.

 Blacksails wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
DakkaDakka has more economists than the LSE this is great, GW is staying number 1 and the ragers keep on raging... So when are people predicting the fall of GW now because I remember same theories of their downfall 5-7 years ago.

So you still have nothing intelligent to add to this conversations?

*Edit * Honestly Az, I don't know how you do it.

I'm not even mad anymore, its just amazing.

12 whole secs. Math is hard.

Use less, smaller words, and have studied typing and word processing at school!

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I just did the math, and, at 20 pence a share, Kirby will be getting roughly $6600 in his dividend check.

Must be nice to be one of the people who decides what the dividend will be, when everybody else will be on a salary freeze...

I've done different math.

2.1m shares x 0.20p per share = £420 000

Oops, I see the mistake I made. I did that same multiple, then move the decimal point over to convert to pounds, not realizing it was already in pound when multiplying by .2, oops. Of course, that makes it even more ridiculously sickening, since that could be enough to cover any raises for all the non-executive people in GW.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Yet again you get caught up trying to debate the minutiae of the example rather than grasping the overall intent.

I bet nothing goes over your head. I bet you would catch it.

Gotta do something productive with my smartphone! If it weren't for you Az, I'd spend all my lineup and heavy traffic time bored stiff.

 Azreal13 wrote:


Use less, smaller words, and have studied typing and word processing at school!

One of these days, before your morning coffee (or tea...or guiness...whatever you Brits drink in the morning), I'll post before you.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I just did the math, and, at 20 pence a share, Kirby will be getting roughly $6600 in his dividend check.

Must be nice to be one of the people who decides what the dividend will be, when everybody else will be on a salary freeze...

I've done different math.

2.1m shares x 0.20p per share = £420 000

Oops, I see the mistake I made. I did that same multiple, then move the decimal point over to convert to pounds, not realizing it was already in pound when multiplying by .2, oops. Of course, that makes it even more ridiculously sickening, since that could be enough to cover any raises for all the non-executive people in GW.

Doesn't take a genius to see why they consistently pay a dividend above what they should when you see this chart..

Shareholder Number of shares Percentage
Ruffer LLP 3,225,596 10.1
Investec Asset Management Limited 3,087,765 9.6
Tom Kirby 2,134,094 6.7
Massachusetts Financial Services Company 2,044,385 6.4
Phoenix Asset Management Partners Limited 1,865,218 5.8
Legal and General Group plc 1,683,901 5.3
Schroders plc 1,677,861 5.2
Aberforth Partners LLP 1,636,300 5.1
Artemis Investment Management LLP 1,620,001 5.1
FIL 1,516,682 4.7

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


Use less, smaller words, and have studied typing and word processing at school!

One of these days, before your morning coffee (or tea...or guiness...whatever you Brits drink in the morning), I'll post before you.

Given the time difference, good luck!

 Blacksails wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
DakkaDakka has more economists than the LSE this is great, GW is staying number 1 and the ragers keep on raging... So when are people predicting the fall of GW now because I remember same theories of their downfall 5-7 years ago.

So you still have nothing intelligent to add to this conversations?

*Edit * Honestly Az, I don't know how you do it.

I'm not even mad anymore, its just amazing.

12 whole secs. Math is hard.

Since when was this an intelligent discussion? More like loud arguing but carry on arguing about none topic related things, hey I heard Kirby drives a Ferrari, I will just wait here for GW to die, again.

Paying out dividends is the responsible action for a company that doesn't have anything better to do with its cash, though. Hoarding cash is not good for share prices, and doesn't benefit shareholders (nor does paying your employees better, or lowering your prices, unless that ultimately leads to more profits that could generate even more dividends). Keep in mind too that GAW is not a growth stock, so the best way to provide shareholder revenue is in the form of dividends.

Of course, having something useful to do with that money would be good, but GW doesn't want to acquire anything, and I don't think it's actually possible for them to release more stuff than they have in 2015.

bitethythumb wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
DakkaDakka has more economists than the LSE this is great, GW is staying number 1 and the ragers keep on raging... So when are people predicting the fall of GW now because I remember same theories of their downfall 5-7 years ago.

So you still have nothing intelligent to add to this conversations?

*Edit * Honestly Az, I don't know how you do it.

I'm not even mad anymore, its just amazing.

12 whole secs. Math is hard.

Since when was this an intelligent discussion? More like loud arguing but carry on... I will just wait for GW to die, again.

Find one person who seriously said this financial report would be the death of GW. Go on, I'll wait.

 Talys wrote:
Paying out dividends is the responsible action for a company that doesn't have anything better to do with its cash, though. Hoarding cash is not good for share prices, and doesn't benefit shareholders (nor does paying your employees better, or lowering your prices, unless that ultimately leads to more profits that could generate even more dividends). Keep in mind too that GAW is not a growth stock, so the best way to provide shareholder revenue is in the form of dividends.

Of course, having something useful to do with that money would be good, but GW doesn't want to acquire anything, and I don't think it's actually possible for them to release more stuff than they have in 2015.

typical company behavior :\ they all do it, capitalism eh..

bitethythumb wrote:


Since when was this an intelligent discussion? More like loud arguing but carry on... I will just wait for GW to die, again.

Maybe if you read the fething thread and weren't such a condescending donkey-cave, you'd have come to a much more mature conclusion.

Besides, if you have nothing of value to add, don't bother posting.

 Talys wrote:
Paying out dividends is the responsible action for a company that doesn't have anything better to do with its cash, though. Hoarding cash is not good for share prices, and doesn't benefit shareholders (nor does paying your employees better, or lowering your prices, unless that ultimately leads to more profits that could generate even more dividends). Keep in mind too that GAW is not a growth stock, so the best way to provide shareholder revenue is in the form of dividends.

Of course, having something useful to do with that money would be good, but GW doesn't want to acquire anything, and I don't think it's actually possible for them to release more stuff than they have in 2015.

Historically, GW have paid out dividends when they shouldn't, and I'd argue there's plenty of things they could find to spend the money on, but they'd be investments in the future of the company and not something Kirby particularly worries about just now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:


Since when was this an intelligent discussion? More like loud arguing but carry on... I will just wait for GW to die, again.

Maybe if you read the fething thread and weren't such a condescending donkey-cave, you'd have come to a much more mature conclusion.

Besides, if you have nothing of value to add, don't bother posting.

I expect that he thinks all the big words and complicated phrases he doesn't understand are swears he hasn't heard before.

 ImAGeek wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
DakkaDakka has more economists than the LSE this is great, GW is staying number 1 and the ragers keep on raging... So when are people predicting the fall of GW now because I remember same theories of their downfall 5-7 years ago.

So you still have nothing intelligent to add to this conversations?

*Edit * Honestly Az, I don't know how you do it.

I'm not even mad anymore, its just amazing.

12 whole secs. Math is hard.

Since when was this an intelligent discussion? More like loud arguing but carry on... I will just wait for GW to die, again.

Find one person who seriously said this financial report would be the death of GW. Go on, I'll wait.

the financial report? Why would anyone say that, I am just pointing out that the report clearly show GW is alive and kicking and there is little to no sign of any death as several users have pointed out in other post about the inevitable death of GW... No need to be so defensive buddy...

 Azreal13 wrote:


Historically, GW have paid out dividends when they shouldn't, and I'd argue there's plenty of things they could find to spend the money on, but they'd be investments in the future of the company and not something Kirby particularly worries about just now.

I expect that he thinks all the big words and complicated phrases he doesn't understand are swears he hasn't heard before.

I'll be the first person to admit I have zero experience in the business sector, but surely GW could find something more useful to spend a bunch of money than dumping it back on their investors, and apparently at a disproportionate rate from my understanding in this thread.

Was it posted how much money total the dividend will cost them?

Anyways, I've adjusted my forum settings. The thread will be more productive now from my end.

bitethythumb wrote:
The financial report? Why would anyone say that, I am just pointing out that the report clearly show GW is alive and kicking and there is little to no sign of any death as several users have pointed out in other post about the inevitable death of GW... No need to be so defensive buddy...

No one has said, ever that I've seen, that GW will be done for this financial report, or the next one, etc. people have said that if GW follow the pattern of their last few reports, eventually they will die a death. But no you just carry on being snarky because they're still treading water.

 ImAGeek wrote:
No one has said, ever that I've seen, that GW will be done for this financial report, or the next one, etc. people have said that if GW follow the pattern of their last few reports, eventually they will die a death. But no you just carry on being snarky because they're still treading water.

you realise the contradiction of what you just said? No one has said the financial report will be their death apart from the previous financial patterns reports that predict their eventual death? And I did say more or less that, so far 5 years at least I have been hearing same thing... Still gw is alive and kicking.

How's that hard to grasp?

"The car is going to crash, unless it steers around the wall"

It is a fairly elementary concept, how long the car takes to crash depends on the speed it is travelling and how far away the wall is, but if the car doesnt change direction it will hit the wall.

bitethythumb wrote:
you realise the contradiction of what you just said? No one has said the financial report will be their death apart from the previous financial patterns reports that predict their eventual death? And I did say more or less that, so far 5 years at least I have been hearing same thing... Still gw is alive and kicking.

That's not a contradiction.

There is a difference between 'GW are in danger of immediate collapse' and 'If GW follow their current trend, they're going to collapse'...


The trend over the last few financial reports has been that they're still making money, but sales numbers are going backwards and their sales have been largely propped up by cost-cutting. That's not a situation that is sustainable in the long term.

 Talys wrote:
Paying out dividends is the responsible action for a company that doesn't have anything better to do with its cash, though. Hoarding cash is not good for share prices, and doesn't benefit shareholders (nor does paying your employees better, or lowering your prices, unless that ultimately leads to more profits that could generate even more dividends). Keep in mind too that GAW is not a growth stock, so the best way to provide shareholder revenue is in the form of dividends.

Of course, having something useful to do with that money would be good, but GW doesn't want to acquire anything, and I don't think it's actually possible for them to release more stuff than they have in 2015.

The thing is, though, pay freezes are what companies do when they have, or expect to have, money problems. So, then, why is GW freezing salaries? A pay freeze for all employees should be setting off an alarm bell...assuming any of the big investors have someone more important than the office's student intern reading GW's annual reports, anyway.

 Azreal13 wrote:
How's that hard to grasp?

"The car is going to crash, unless it steers around the wall"

It is a fairly elementary concept, how long the car takes to crash depends on the speed it is travelling and how far away the wall is, but if the car doesnt change direction it will hit the wall.

Yes, but the wall could be 30,000 light years away, and all the fuel on the planet could be consumed and everyone relevant could be dead before the car got there.

The prognostications are only helpful with a time frame attached: "Within 5 years on the current track, company X will be bankrupt." or "In 3 years, if no adjustments are made, this company will become largely irrelevant."

To say, "This company will eventually die if changes aren't made" is a such a vague prediction that can't be wrong, because eventually, GW, like every other company on Earth, WILL die, and then the prediction would be right It's like saying an earthquake is going to wipe out Los Angeles. Nobody really doubts that statement, just most people aren't going to pick up and move unless more specificity with reasoning is available.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Yet again you get caught up trying to debate the minutiae of the example rather than grasping the overall intent.

I bet nothing goes over your head. I bet you would catch it.

God I love this thread.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
The thing is, though, pay freezes are what companies do when they have, or expect to have, money problems. So, then, why is GW freezing salaries? A pay freeze for all employees should be setting off an alarm bell...assuming any of the big investors have someone more important than the office's student intern reading GW's annual reports, anyway.

That's not true. During the Great Recession, highly profitable businesses went through a culling to get rid of all the unnecessary employees, and many froze the salaries of people who are left, particularly the replaceable ones. Why? It's an employer's market, and it's more profitable to have fewer employees and pay them less (or at least not more) -- cold, but true. They aren't worried about losing the employees if they treat them a little worse, because nobody's hiring anyways, so why not squeeze them a little.

For example: Microsoft, one of the wealthiest and most profitable companies in the world laid off thousands of employees and restructured divisions with a big, fat knife. They relocated a lot of services and development to India where labour (including skilled labour) is cheaper, not because they had to, but because they'd make more money if they did. TONS of companies the size of GW and larger have done the same thing.

When do employers pay employees more money? When they're worried about losing them, and when employees leave for greener pastures because there are lots of jobs. Most commonly, for minimally skilled workers, this occurs when construction is booming, because "anyone can be a carpenter" (this is just an expression; it just means, there are a lot of good-paying construction jobs).

At the moment, employment is still very weak; in this respect, the UK is not doing well at all, so GW isn't afraid that their workers will flee. And if they do, there will be lots of other eager folks to fill those shoes, at wage-frozen rates.

Not kind, but pretty common.

 Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
How's that hard to grasp?

"The car is going to crash, unless it steers around the wall"

It is a fairly elementary concept, how long the car takes to crash depends on the speed it is travelling and how far away the wall is, but if the car doesnt change direction it will hit the wall.

Yes, but the wall could be 30,000 light years away, and all the fuel on the planet could be consumed and everyone relevant could be dead before the car got there.

The prognostications are only helpful with a time frame attached: "Within 5 years on the current track, company X will be bankrupt." or "In 3 years, if no adjustments are made, this company will become largely irrelevant."

To say, "This company will eventually die if changes aren't made" is a such a vague prediction that can't be wrong, because eventually, GW, like every other company on Earth, WILL die, and then the prediction would be right It's like saying an earthquake is going to wipe out Los Angeles. Nobody really doubts that statement, just most people aren't going to pick up and move unless more specificity with reasoning is available.

Yes, but if one analyzes their annual sales loss, you could easily project how much sales are anticipated to drop under the current dynasty.

 Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
How's that hard to grasp?

"The car is going to crash, unless it steers around the wall"

It is a fairly elementary concept, how long the car takes to crash depends on the speed it is travelling and how far away the wall is, but if the car doesnt change direction it will hit the wall.

Yes, but the wall could be 30,000 light years away, and all the fuel on the planet could be consumed and everyone relevant could be dead before the car got there.

The prognostications are only helpful with a time frame attached: "Within 5 years on the current track, company X will be bankrupt." or "In 3 years, if no adjustments are made, this company will become largely irrelevant."

To say, "This company will eventually die if changes aren't made" is a such a vague prediction that can't be wrong, because eventually, GW, like every other company on Earth, WILL die, and then the prediction would be right It's like saying an earthquake is going to wipe out Los Angeles. Nobody really doubts that statement, just most people aren't going to pick up and move unless more specificity with reasoning is available.

a painter and a thinker, I think I am in love

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

Yes, but if one analyzes their annual sales loss, you could easily project how much sales are anticipated to drop under the current dynasty.

Very fair -- so following that line of thought, an actual analysis of some sort with a prediction with some specificity would be worthy of debate (even if one disagreed). All I'm saying is that, "GW on its current track is going to die some time in the future" is not really worth debating, as it's obviously true that every company will eventually go out of business.

It's perfectly reasonable to say that if GW shrinks by x percent each year after y years, it will be so small that nobody will care about it. Then you can track it and see if GW actually shrinks by x percent each year, to see if the hypothesis pans out. I mean, people make a good living of that A lot of those pros are wrong a lot of the time, too...

 Talys wrote:
as it's obviously true that every company will eventually go out of business.
.

Nonsense.

Companies are not organic life forms. There is no sell by date or natural lifespan. A company goes out of business when it ceases to make money, but there's no law that says this must happen.

 Talys wrote:
Yes, but the wall could be 30,000 light years away, and all the fuel on the planet could be consumed and everyone relevant could be dead before the car got there.

The prognostications are only helpful with a time frame attached: "Within 5 years on the current track, company X will be bankrupt." or "In 3 years, if no adjustments are made, this company will become largely irrelevant."

To say, "This company will eventually die if changes aren't made" is a such a vague prediction that can't be wrong, because eventually, GW, like every other company on Earth, WILL die, and then the prediction would be right It's like saying an earthquake is going to wipe out Los Angeles. Nobody really doubts that statement, just most people aren't going to pick up and move unless more specificity with reasoning is available.

You seem to be assuming that the point is to predict exactly when GW will die.

It's not.

The point being made is simply that the downward trend in their financial results is a sign that they are doing something wrong. The fact that continuing to follow that trend will eventually lead to their demise is ultimately secondary to that point.

People have been saying for some time now that GW's current direction is not the best way to go. The fact that this direction is seeing their financial results continue to get worse seems to back that up.


Of course, that may not actually be the case. It's entirely possible that GW's current business direction actually is resulting in the best result that would have been possible in the current market, and that doing all of the things that their customers are asking for would have actually made things worse. Obviously, we have no way to know for sure, other than to look at the apparent growth of other companies that are doing those things...

insaniak wrote:You seem to be assuming that the point is to predict exactly when GW will die.

It's not.

The point being made is simply that the downward trend in their financial results is a sign that they are doing something wrong. The fact that continuing to follow that trend will eventually lead to their demise is ultimately secondary to that point.

People have been saying for some time now that GW's current direction is not the best way to go. The fact that this direction is seeing their financial results continue to get worse seems to back that up.

Of course, that may not actually be the case. It's entirely possible that GW's current business direction actually is resulting in the best result that would have been possible in the current market, and that doing all of the things that their customers are asking for would have actually made things worse. Obviously, we have no way to know for sure, other than to look at the apparent growth of other companies that are doing those things...

Well, that is reasonable.

However, I would argue that with new entrants to the market, established companies must struggle just to maintain marketshare, much less grow (the larger your marketshare, the harder it is to grow). The miniature wargames market was flat in 2014 (at least, we're told so), and GW was also flat. Since GW has no plans to launch its own TCG, I think it's pointless to compare its profitability or growth to YuGiOh or Magic the Gathering.

To me, the strongest valid criticism of Games Workshop comes not in its success or failure measured in dollars, but in its willingness to sacrifice players for profits. In other words, Games Workshop is happy to please the few who spend a lot of money, creating an ecosystem that is less attractive to the many, who spend an order of magnitude less money. That lines GW's pockets, at the expense of shrinking its playerbase and perhaps reducing their relevancy.

I am not certain if this action is because GW is philosophically like-minded with their best customers, or if it's purely profit-driven. I suspect it's a combination of the two.

Azreal13 wrote:Companies are not organic life forms. There is no sell by date or natural lifespan. A company goes out of business when it ceases to make money, but there's no law that says this must happen.

Unless we find a way to leave this planet, eventually, this star system and everything in it will turn to cosmic dust. But that's irrelevant, because long before that, the organic life forms running and owning GW will be extinct, and long before that, Games Workshop will shutter its doors anyways. Unless robots or zombies decide that 40k is cool.

 Talys wrote:
However, I would argue that with new entrants to the market, established companies must struggle just to maintain marketshare, much less grow (the larger your marketshare, the harder it is to grow).

GW was an established company in the late '90s, when they were practically the only game in town when it came to fantasy and scifi miniature gaming. And they grew like nobody's business.

People's resistance to shifting games worked in GW's favour for a long time, and other companies had to work like hell against the GW inertia just to get any sort of foothold. In that environment, I very much doubt that GW had to work 'harder' than all of those startups in order to continue to grow.


I don't think that GW's growth fell because other companies started taking market share. From where I'm sitting, it looked far more like other companies were allowed to grab market share when GW started assuming that they knew what their customers wanted without actually bothering to talk to those customers... because that was when those customers started looking around and wondering if there was maybe something better out there to replace the mess that their current favourite had become.

GW grew the hobby in general intentionally or not in the late 90s and very early 00s.
Games Days, GTs, Golden Demon....just the coverage of those events were hugely formative for anyone already into, or on the fringe of getting in to gaming. Golden Demon alone set the stage for painters and sculptors that are relevant across the industry today.
I think the LOTR bubble hid the importance of all of that event support and it's online coverage on communities like this for the growth of the game. That swell of interest and inspiration was palpable.
Other companies were able to ride that wave of interest. Which isn't to undermine their value, but it's hard to see Warmachine taking off without tournament gaming becoming established with the GT and indie circuit. It's hard to see Rackham having the succes it squandered without GD coverage, the superstar painters it produced and the interest that created in showcase quality miniature painting that followed. Etc. Etc.

They worked to establish themselves, and in doing so established the market for gaming that allowed small companies to establish themselves, often by focusing on elements of the market that GW never addressed fully, or chose to drop.

I don't find 40k to be a mess, it's probably as enjoyable to me at the moment as it was 25 years ago, but that's me. At some point GW stopped leading the market and decided to focus on things that they could see direct, immediate returns on. While I enjoy 40k right now as I said I think that in general is a detriment to the market.