Australian site The Combat Company. Considering legal action against Games Workshop.

[mr_draken]

As the title says, an Australian company have widely announced this on many forums and their main site, that they are considering Legal action against GW on the grounds of uncompetitive business practices.

Link here: What's happening with the Eldar release? (http://www.thecombatcompany.com/whats-happening-with-the-eldar-release/)

Quote of interest:

We’ve had enough. We’re looking into legal action against GW on the grounds of uncompetitive business practices, blatantly establishing a monopoly on the market and, consequently, forcing customers to deal directly with GW

Now before anyone gets into this, realize that in Australia we have protection in built into our laws for independent business. Its one of the reasons they have not been able to shut down Australian online retailers as of yet.

I for one stand firmly behind The Combat Company in this, its bad enough the huge price differences us Aussies have to deal with from GW (and other companies, but GW is one of the worst) But the limits on stock, (people here are still waiting on tau products, not just a few either, ALOT of people) are way to much. Ill be watching this very closely.

Link to Wargamerau forum post direct from The Combat Company: What's going on with the Eldar new releases? - WargamerAU Forums (http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=153951&hl=)

[Gir]

So there is no actual confirmation of the withheld amounts? just numbers they pulled out their ***?

My local FLGS is have none of these issues, so I don't know what's happened with this place.

As far as the price difference between Aus and US, the difference of new releases is ~10%, which is pretty much the best comparison in Australia.

[Lexington]

Interesting stuff. I've ordered from The Combat Company before - good web store. GW has been weirdly aggressive about bringing in direct sales lately, so there's at least the possibility that there's truth to this. If there's a real case here, good on TCC for pursuing it.

[LostInTheDark]

So there is no actual confirmation of the withheld amounts? just numbers they pulled out their ***?

My local FLGS is have none of these issues, so I don't know what's happened with this place.


I doubt they put the page up on their website because they were bored. Perhaps GW are restricting stock to online retailers and your local FLGS is not one of those?

I've always had the best of service from The Combat Company so I hope they get it sorted out. Its just another supporter of the gaming scene in Australia turning away from GW, which is sad for the future.

[Gir]

The whole complaint is just that there's a shortage of stock. Seems like a massive over-reaction to me.

[jgebi]

well I like their prices, might start shopping through them

[daboarder]

The whole complaint is just that there's a shortage of stock. Seems like a massive over-reaction to me.

Look Gir, are you a lawyer?

How about your opinions to yourself and let the courts settle it. I'm pretty sure if their willing to take legal action then they have access to far more information than you have.

[Denzark]

They seem very OTT.

[sangrail777]

Look Gir, are you a lawyer?

How about your opinions to yourself and let the courts settle it. I'm pretty sure if their willing to take legal action then they have access to far more information than you have.

WOW daboarder,
I thought this was a forum for talking about stuff, are you really telling everyone on this to not talk about anything if they are not a lawyer?! In that case maybe this thread should be closed becouse we are not all lawyers and no one here should be talking. (dripping with sarcasm)

and to Gir, I agree with you.

[Magpie]

Given that GW shops are struggling to keep up with the demand for their own sales then its only reasonable that other shops who are in competition should be second in line.

The Combat Company does sell at reduced prices but I for one would not want to see such suppliers make the brick and mortar GW shop become unviable as there is a lot more provided by the shops than just selling stock.

[pgarfunkle]

If it's just a case of there being limited stock and GW is directing the majority of it through their own sales channels I can't really see what TCC's case is. Frankly GW doesn't have to sell to them at all! There is a case for doing so, i.e. reducing your fixed costs and potential for a greater geographical reach but it's not required that a manufacturer sells to an intermediary.

In a purely business sense you focus your efforts at the customers which give you the greatest return, if GW feel that they get less of a return from independents than they do their own outlets they are well within their rights to focus on those areas first.

[Gir]

Look Gir, are you a lawyer?

How about your opinions to yourself and let the courts settle it. I'm pretty sure if their willing to take legal action then they have access to far more information than you have.

This will never make it to court, anyone with a half a brain can see that. GW have the right to sell however much they want to whoever they want. It's like trying to sue Coles because they ran out of milk.


Given that GW shops are struggling to keep up with the demand for their own sales then its only reasonable that other shops who are in competition should be second in line.

The Combat Company does sell at reduced prices but I for one would not want to see such suppliers make the brick and mortar GW shop become unviable as there is a lot more provided by the shops than just selling stock.


My flags is the same price as this place (20% RRP) and is brick and mortar only. I would expect pure online to be cheaper then that.

[eldargal]

They will look like real idiots if they end up getting 90% of the order from GW, all GW said was 'it was uncertain...' after all.:rolleyes: Also, they don't seem to know what 'monopoly' means.

[LostInTheDark]

Given that GW shops are struggling to keep up with the demand for their own sales then its only reasonable that other shops who are in competition should be second in line.

Which is fair enough. I have no information to make an informed opinion, but what I got from reading the TCC complaint was that weeks after placing in effect a back order with the manufacturer (GW) the manufacturer is unable to advise when they can provide stock. They appear however to be holding stock and fulfilling orders from their own website with no such issues.

This is a restrictive trade practice. Whether this is true or not, I don't know.


The Combat Company does sell at reduced prices but I for one would not want to see such suppliers make the brick and mortar GW shop become unviable as there is a lot more provided by the shops than just selling stock.

TCC is an active supporter and promoter of GW products and the gaming scene in general. If they withdraw that support from GW products and move it over to other games then it will negatively impact GW. How much is debatable, but as more and more people and suppliers move away for GW the negative effects accumulate.

Australia is a big place with relatively few GW stores so there is to some extent a reliance on 3rd parties providing the "hook" for gamers.

If the "hook" they are supplying is for other games then these are the ones that new people will start with. After all gamers want to play games and will likely join an existing group playing what they play.

[Gir]

Australia is a big place with relatively few GW stores so there is to some extent a reliance on 3rd parties providing the "hook" for gamers.

If the "hook" they are supplying is for other games then these are the ones that new people will start with. After all gamers want to play games and will likely join an existing group playing what they play.

So maybe they want to distribute stock evenly across all independent retailers, and not just dump $10k on one store.

[mr_draken]

This may come in handy for some people when looking at the facts of this. Its not about distributing stock evenly, or them being butthurt, or anything of the sort.
http://www.australiancompetitionlaw.org/law/mmp.html

About Misuse of Market Power

Section 46(1) prohibits a corporation with substantial market power taking advantage of that market power for a prohibited purpose. The prohibited purposes include

(a) Eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor … in that or any other market

(b) Preventing entry of a person into that or any other market

(c) Deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market

The purpose element has generally been easy to establish; the stumbling blocks have been market power and 'taking advantage'. Recent legislation - the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Act 2008 - has also provided some guidance on the 'taking advantage' requirement designed to make it easier to prove.

Basically, there is a trade agreement law they have to follow. There was a contract signed by independants. Basically if the company is purchasing $10000 of stock and only being provided with $2000 of it for invalid reasons, GW are in breach of said law.

And as for this comment:

As far as the price difference between Aus and US, the difference of new releases is ~10%, which is pretty much the best comparison in Australia.
Id beg to differ on 10% difference....

Dire Avengers US35.00 - AUD55.00
War Walker Squad US75.00 - AUD130.00
Vyper Squadron US75.00 - AUD130.00
Vaul's Wrath Support Battery US65.00 - AUD105.00

(and before i get the "oh are you a lawyer?" argument, i am not a lawyer, but i have worked closely with fair trading and keep up to date with fair trade laws in Australia, so wile i don't know every in and out of it, i have a very good grasp of the way it works and what can and cannot be done)

[Mr Mystery]

Not sure that competition law would apply here.

If TCC were trying to release their own game, and GW were attempting to interfere there (not sure how they'd do that though, unless they shared a manufacturing facility?) the sure. That's trying to prevent a competitor entering the market.

But this is a supply issue yes? And certainly under UK law, you're within your rights to refuse sale, and don't need a reason. Can't see it being that different globally.

[pgarfunkle]

This may come in handy for some people when looking at the facts of this. Its not about distributing stock evenly, or them being butthurt, or anything of the sort.
http://www.australiancompetitionlaw.org/law/mmp.html


Basically, there is a trade agreement law they have to follow. There was a contract signed by independants. Basically if the company is purchasing $10000 of stock and only being provided with $2000 of it for invalid reasons, GW are in breach of said law.



I get restrictive trade practices but as GW classifies itself as a manufacturer and independent stockists are customers rather than competitors. So again they do not have to sell to someone they do not want to and if they do sell to someone they can sell in whatever quantities they wish.

For instance I could open a small store and sell drinks but I think it is unlikely that I could take out a lawsuit against Coca-Cola if they decide not to sell to me.

Another question to ask is what will the demand be through GW stores and its own web presence? Are they keeping a huge chunk of the available stock because they feel that they will be able to meet that demand from their own internal distribution system? If so then quite rightly their own channels will take priority as they want to record the revenue as internal sales (via GW store and website rather than independents) to cover the fixed costs of their own stores, this makes it easier to justify retaining the stores to shareholders versus closing the stores are relying on independents who have no real loyalty to GW

[mr_draken]

I get restrictive trade practices but as GW classifies itself as a manufacturer and independent stockists are customers rather than competitors. So again they do not have to sell to someone they do not want to and if they do sell to someone they can sell in whatever quantities they wish.

For instance I could open a small store and sell drinks but I think it is unlikely that I could take out a lawsuit against Coca-Cola if they decide not to sell to me.

Another question to ask is what will the demand be through GW stores and its own web presence? Are they keeping a huge chunk of the available stock because they feel that they will be able to meet that demand from their own internal distribution system? If so then quite rightly their own channels will take priority as they want to record the revenue as internal sales (via GW store and website rather than independents) to cover the fixed costs of their own stores, this makes it easier to justify retaining the stores to shareholders versus closing the stores are relying on independents who have no real loyalty to GW

As GW maintain their own store fronts, and sell at a retail price in Australia, they are considered a retailer as well, which then puts them under these laws.

Telstra got smashed over this (they owned all the phone lines, and had a retail side)and were very restrictive of what other companies could use the lines, as well as allocation of bandwidth, and pricing to other companies on the wholesale side was through the roof. They have since been forced to separate their retail and wholesale sides into 2 separate businesses because of their shoddy business practices.

Add to that the trade agreement they have made independents sign, and TCC have a strong case, as GW are under pressure to fulfill their side of the agreement just as much as the indies. (Id also like to point out that Aussie fair trade law is the reason GW cannot crush the Aussie online retailers, as that is classed as restricting free trade.)

[Magpie]

Id beg to differ on 10% difference....



It's not as simple as a direct comparison of prices. You have to factor in exchanges rates but more importantly you have to look at costs of living, average weekly wage and the "buying power" of a US dollar in the US to an Aussie Dollar in Oz.

When you do all that the US price and the Aus price are about the same.

[mr_draken]

It's not as simple as a direct comparison of prices. You have to factor in exchanges rates but more importantly you have to look at costs of living, average weekly wage and the "buying power" of a US dollar in the US to an Aussie Dollar in Oz.

When you do all that the US price and the Aus price are about the same.

I would agree with that, if the % markup was about the same across the board, but its not. the massive jumps and randomness of prices in AUD compared to USD (including the factors you have stated) throws that out the window.

[pgarfunkle]

Telstra got smashed over this (they owned all the phone lines, and had a retail side)and were very restrictive of what other companies could use the lines, as well as allocation of bandwidth, and pricing to other companies on the wholesale side was through the roof. They have since been forced to separate their retail and wholesale sides into 2 separate businesses because of their shoddy business practices.

Add to that the trade agreement they have made independents sign, and TCC have a strong case, as GW are under pressure to fulfill their side of the agreement just as much as the indies. (Id also like to point out that Aussie fair trade law is the reason GW cannot crush the Aussie online retailers, as that is classed as restricting free trade.)

If Telstra is anything like BT in the UK they owned only network going at the time so once a market is opened up like when BT was privatised they had to share the lines with new telecoms companies.

The difference is that TTC does not need GW product to operate, they can quite happily sell other companies products (whether or not I think that is a good thing for GW is another conversation).

[legalsmash]

So maybe they want to distribute stock evenly across all independent retailers, and not just dump $10k on one store.

The amount of stock given is usually required by the contract with GW, when my FLGS got its citadel paint rack, they wanted a minimum buy in of like 1000-1500 USD in supplies with the rack and display specs desired by GW. It may be that they are trying to "direct" people to their stores, but that is not particularly new; just look at the "direct order only" items.


Look Gir, are you a lawyer?

How about your opinions to yourself and let the courts settle it. I'm pretty sure if their willing to take legal action then they have access to far more information than you have.

First, you do not need to be a lawyer to understand when supply/stock availability issues can result in a contract disagreement. Second, generally a plaintiff can seek a claim that is not likely to succeed, even a claim that is less than well planned... all you need to file a claim in a nation that uses a variety of common law is a complaint and a request for relief of some sort. People file preemptive lawsuits all the time on the basis that the individual or company the lawsuit is aimed at will just relent and do what they want. In the US its pretty much an industry. Now, while there are penalties for spurious claims; this often doesn't deter people from doing it all times. These guys may be going off half cocked, but I think its too early to tell if its a miscommunication or an actual problem with the contract.

While I am not an australian lawyer that specializes in anticompetition and trade practice, I can tell you that the subject matter is nuanced and there is often more than meets the eye in the situation. You really have to let it play out a little more before any real predictions can be made.

Its "they're" in the manner you were trying to use the term.

Be nice. He wasn't doing more than speculating, just like the rest of us on the forum. Rudeness is unbecoming and unpleasant when trying to drink my morning coffee.

[Gir]

Id beg to differ on 10% difference....


None of those are new releases. They are all repacks.




Telstra got smashed over this (they owned all the phone lines, and had a retail side)and were very restrictive of what other companies could use the lines, as well as allocation of bandwidth, and pricing to other companies on the wholesale side was through the roof. They have since been forced to separate their retail and wholesale sides into 2 separate businesses because of their shoddy business practices.

This is completely different, and misinformed. Telstra has been "separated" since it was privatized, but only recently forced to go through a full structural separation. This has nothing to do with "shady business practices" and all to do with the fact that other telecoms in Australia could not do business at all without buying from Telstra. The Retail arm (even before Separation) still "buys" capacity and network access from wholesale, the same as any other telecom, and both arms are completely separate (retail employees entering a wholesale facility is grounds for immediate termination, for example on how seriously it is taken).

For this to apply in anyway, it must be impossible for a games store to conduct business without GW, which it isn't, as there are many other games they can stock.



Add to that the trade agreement they have made independents sign, and TCC have a strong case, as GW are under pressure to fulfill their side of the agreement just as much as the indies. (Id also like to point out that Aussie fair trade law is the reason GW cannot crush the Aussie online retailers, as that is classed as restricting free trade.)

Ever read the trade agreement you're referring too? I'm sure there is a line in that states that all orders might not be fulfilled if there is a stock shortage, in the same way if you order from TCC and they can't forfill the order immediately, you can't sue them.

Remember that this whole issue only exists because GW warned them they might not be able to fulfill their entire due to potential stock shortages, based on the preorders GW have received. Of course GW will fill their own orders first, the people who buy off them are essentially paying a premium.

[Magpie]

Ever read the trade agreement you're referring too?

Here it is if you're interested in debating facts over supposition.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3150131a_AU_Trade_-_Terms_and_Conditions_of_Sale.pdf

[Magpie]

I would agree with that, if the % markup was about the same across the board, but its not. the massive jumps and randomness of prices in AUD compared to USD (including the factors you have stated) throws that out the window.

That is not even remotely my experience. Of all the products I have bought from the US they all had a consistent difference to the Oz price.

What "massive jumps" are you talking about?

[Gir]

Here it is if you're interested in debating facts over supposition.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3150131a_AU_Trade_-_Terms_and_Conditions_of_Sale.pdf

Section 2.2 pretty much covers what's happening here. They can order what they want, but it's not a contract until GW either delievers, or calls and accepts.

Also, if the stock shortage is due to any reason in 11 (which we don't know if it is or isn't), they are covered as well.


That is not even remotely my experience. Of all the products I have bought from the US they all had a consistent difference to the Oz price.

What "massive jumps" are you talking about?

Riptide: US $85, AUD $90 for example?

[Magpie]

Riptide: US $85, AUD $90 for example?

Yep that looks to be the first in a new wave of prices. US matching Oz or is it the other way around ?

[mr_draken]

That is not even remotely my experience. Of all the products I have bought from the US they all had a consistent difference to the Oz price.

What "massive jumps" are you talking about?

How about the new codex, almost double the cost in australia, where as if we look to the big seller for this release, the wraith knight.... theres a $10au markup? if that is not a massive jump in pricing differences then i don't know what is.

[Magpie]

There is certainly a change in prices now which is more an indication of a shift in the US market not the Aus.
It really means the US are now paying much more than they were before, an indication of the popularity of the latest releases no doubt.

[Gir]

Yep that looks to be the first in a new wave of prices. US matching Oz or is it the other way around ?

Happened for Dark Angels flyer as well.

[Sonikgav]

Games Workshop are doing everything they can to stomp out the little guy at the min. My local club, here in the UK, has its own store and is finding it harder and harder to get certain items.

More and more stock (especially Finecast) is being put on 'Direct Order Only' so the smaller stores cant stock them etc and its not just the Charachter models. My club cant get hold of Tyranid Biovores or Tau Sniper Teams etc.

Theyve already shut down the USA in a 'if you arent GW you dont sell GW' way. Is it really so hard to believe they wouldnt do the same everywhere else if there werent laws in place to stop companies doing exactly that? They know they cant withhold stock from independant companies, but if they move more and more of their range to direct order, (ie they dont even stock it their own stores) then i guess thats a direction theyre trying to take.

[Kirsten]

have the Australian store considered that GW is maybe not actually a vast company and maybe they can't provide everyone around the world exactly what they want when they want it? It is perfectly possible that no retailer is getting $10,000 of stock anywhere in the world, GW stores included. I think it is easy for people internationally to overestimate the size of the business.

[sublimebrushwork]

I'm not going to pitch in with the arguement over whether GW is right or wrong in this, as I am no expert in business law or GW's distribution model but here is something to add to kill off one bit of the conversation, which is irrelevent to the topic at hand-that of price discrepancies and exactly how much extra Australia has to pay...

Exchange rate: £70=$106US £70=$108AUS
Wraithknight price UK £70, US $115, AUS $125

There you go. USA has to pay $9 more than it should (going by what we pay in the UK), Australia has to pay $17 more. As far as I can work out that doesn't even cover standard shipping costs from the UK (where the products are manufactured, as far as I know) and I'm not even attempting to think what import/export duties are added (if any...)

[AaronMint]

I don't mean to sound like an ***, but it doesn't matter what games workshop "Wants to do", If they do not wish to sell to said independent retailer they can not take an order. An order has been placed and Games workshop have the money. This requires them to ship the product, whether they will make more on the online store or not. Once GW takes an order from a company it is obligated to fill the order as quickly as possible.

What appears to have happened is that they are keeping stock back to fill orders that may be made on thier online store and not dispatching product that stores have paid for.

In Australia (and the U.K / Europe for that matter) this is unfair business practice. If this store can show dates of orders and can show that GW have held stock they have a case. GW are renowned for the quality of their record keeping... so unless they have improved recently they may even have a good case.

[Gotthammer]

I didn't see anywhere saying GW have taken money - rather they've advised they probably won't be able to fulfil the order immediately and CC is having a fit over it. Very, very few wholesalers charge upon ordering (it's what a trade account is), they send invoices with stock when it is delivered, so if you order $10,000 dollars of stock but only get $500 of that order you'll only be invoiced for that $500 (probably with 30 days to pay).




More and more stock (especially Finecast) is being put on 'Direct Order Only' so the smaller stores cant stock them etc and its not just the Charachter models. My club cant get hold of Tyranid Biovores or Tau Sniper Teams etc.

That's also true at most brick and mortar GWs, and has been for some time.


I doubt claims of monopolising their business will get far as GW will just say "we're only one part of the wargames industry - look at Mr Combat's own claim he'll be recommending other similar products to his customers. Also here are our distribution reports showing that stock was indeed distributed as we said. Orders were filled as soon as we were able."
Also claims of "You have the right to buy GW from wherever you want" are just false. You don't. You have the right to buy GW products from places that sell that particular product. I mean it'd be hella convenient if I could just go down the road and buy GW from the local supermarket, but I can't. Should I complain about that infringement on my rights? :rolleyes:

[Sonikgav]

That's also true at most brick and mortar GWs, and has been for some time.


Yeah but what i meant is, if they dont stock it in their own stores, and it can only be ordered direct then thats the excuse theyre using for not supplying/Making available some of their kits to independant retailers.

[Magpie]

I'm not going to pitch in with the arguement over whether GW is right or wrong in this, as I am no expert in business law or GW's distribution model but here is something to add to kill off one bit of the conversation, which is irrelevent to the topic at hand-that of price discrepancies and exactly how much extra Australia has to pay...

Exchange rate: £70=$106US £70=$108AUS
Wraithknight price UK £70, US $115, AUS $125

There you go. USA has to pay $9 more than it should (going by what we pay in the UK), Australia has to pay $17 more. As far as I can work out that doesn't even cover standard shipping costs from the UK (where the products are manufactured, as far as I know) and I'm not even attempting to think what import/export duties are added (if any...)

The Australian price will include 10% Sales Tax, so moving it even closer to parity.

[Jordan Raskopoulos]

I think the real question is "is there an actual supply issue?"

If there is a legitimate issue with supply then fine. However, if GW are pretending that there is a supply issue so they can knock back orders to third party retailers in an attempt to drive sales to its own storefronts then there might be a problem under Australian law.

It seems fishy when the last two 40k releases have had the same "supply problem" and the situation certainly works in GWs favour. It's been able to take away customers from combat company and other third party retailers because GW is the only one with stock.

[Gir]

Most new releases for Australian's are made in Australia. There is obviously limited ability to make huge amounts, and if one release requires extra production time to meet demand, it reduces production time of other releases.

[daboarder]

Most new releases for Australian's are made in Australia. There is obviously limited ability to make huge amounts, and if one release requires extra production time to meet demand, it reduces production time of other releases.

They're not actually.

they may have the Made in australia logo on them but all you need for that is to have the box printed here.

[Gir]

They're not actually.

they may have the Made in australia logo on them but all you need for that is to have the box printed here.

The rules of country of origin representations

Part 5-3 of the ACL sets out the regime in determining whether a good or product which claims to be Australian, can make such an assertion, or whether the claims are actually false, misleading or deceptive.

The country of origin representations regime as outlined in the ACL, interact with ss 18 or 29(1)(a)(k) as well as 151(1)(a)(k). In order for a person not to contravene the country of origin representation provisions, there are certain general requirements that need to be met:

• the goods must have been substantially transformed in Australia
• 50% or more of the total cost of producing or manufacturing the goods occurred in Australia, and conform to the s 256 calculations under the ACL
• Australia was the country of origin for each significant ingredient or component
• all, or virtually all, of the processes involved with production or manufacturing happened in Australia.

[daboarder]

The rules of country of origin representations

Part 5-3 of the ACL sets out the regime in determining whether a good or product which claims to be Australian, can make such an assertion, or whether the claims are actually false, misleading or deceptive.

The country of origin representations regime as outlined in the ACL, interact with ss 18 or 29(1)(a)(k) as well as 151(1)(a)(k). In order for a person not to contravene the country of origin representation provisions, there are certain general requirements that need to be met:

• the goods must have been substantially transformed in Australia
• 50% or more of the total cost of producing or manufacturing the goods occurred in Australia, and conform to the s 256 calculations under the ACL
• Australia was the country of origin for each significant ingredient or component
• all, or virtually all, of the processes involved with production or manufacturing happened in Australia.

sprues split and packaged, job done.

An easier way to find out would be to identify where GW produce within australia.


Product and Supply. This includes the design and manufacture of the products and incorporates production facilities in the UK, North America and until
November 2010 in China.

From Gamesworkshop's 2012 annual report....thanks for playing

More fuel


production facilities
in the UK and North America.

2013 half yearly statement

so unless they've got a full production facility up and running from scratch since december this year, without mentioning it to their investors then.......

[Jordan Raskopoulos]

Most new releases for Australian's are made in Australia. There is obviously limited ability to make huge amounts, and if one release requires extra production time to meet demand, it reduces production time of other releases.

From my understanding GW doesn't manufacture in AU only in the UK and US.

That said, I really doubt there has been overwhelming demand for these new releases. GW has never had stock problems in the past and the fact that these "supply issues" are coming in at the same time GW is shutting down US and European web stores and taking austerity measures with staff cuts across the board suggests, to me, that there is a nefarious intention and that they are purposefully withholding wholesale supply to drive customers to their own retail channels. Under Australian law, this is an anti competitive practice.

[Magpie]

Again if you have a preference for facts over bollocks

http://transition.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=789654&nodeId=c30df5d913755357aac104a80227bfec&fn=The%20Trade%20Practices%20Act%20and%20the%20ACC C%E2%80%94an%20overview.pdf

The only test case of the Trade Practises Act in Oz :

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=blr

In a nutshell

"A brief recital of the facts of Queensland Wire provides contextual background for analysis of the above elements. BHP, responsible for approximately 97 per cent of Australia's steel output, produced Y-bar30 which it sold exclusively to its wholly owned subsidiary Australian Wire Industries (AWI). AWI produced fence posts from the Y-bar and sold these as a producer. Queensland Wire Industries (QWI) sought supply of the Ybar produced by BHP in order to produce fence posts and compete against AWI in the rural fencing market. BHP offered to supply the Y-bar at prices which were so high that its conduct amounted to a constructive refusal to supply."


This is a long, long, long way from GW limiting supply to independent retailers.

BTW GW DOES NOT have a manufacturing plant in Australia.
All the stuff I have says "Made in the UK", "Made in China" and I've never seen anything different.

[Gir]

BTW GW DOES NOT have a manufacturing plant in Australia.
All the stuff I have says "Made in the UK", "Made in China" and I've never seen anything different.

There are heaps of kits market with "product of Australia" or whatever it is. Even if it i just packaging here, it can still explain a shortage that only effects us.

[Gir]

BTW GW DOES NOT have a manufacturing plant in Australia.
All the stuff I have says "Made in the UK", "Made in China" and I've never seen anything different.

There are heaps of kits market with "product of Australia" or whatever it is. Even if it i just packaging here, it can still explain a shortage that only effects us.

[daboarder]

There are heaps of kits market with "product of Australia" or whatever it is. Even if it i just packaging here, it can still explain a shortage that only effects us.

And if that is the case then I'm sure GW will be able to prove it. As they will have to if this goes to court.

[Magpie]

There are heaps of kits market with "product of Australia" or whatever it is. Even if it i just packaging here, it can still explain a shortage that only effects us.

Scan a box that says that and post the picture.

[daboarder]

Scan a box that says that and post the picture.

I've heard this from enough people to personally take Gir's word for it. I mean they still don't produce here but it wouldn't be the first time a company tried to claim their product was australian when it wasn't.

[Magpie]

I've heard this from enough people to personally take Gir's word for it.

Not me, given the level of utter BS that is talked about GW, hard evidence is the only thing I believe.

[Gir]

Scan a box that says that and post the picture.

K

http://i.imgur.com/ZLolnpy.jpg

[Magpie]

That says "Produced in Australia" not "Product of Australia" there is a difference.

[Gir]

That says "Produced in Australia" not "Product of Australia" there is a difference.

And I said in my post I wasn't 100% on the wording, just that Australia is involved in the process.

[Magpie]

We are a long way from

"Most new releases for Australian's are made in Australia. "

Produced in Oz is like daboarder says, they assembled the pack here.

[AtmaTheWanderer]

While I most definitely feel for the Aussies and the long standing issues with pricing in that area, isn't this website rather flagrantly violating the retailer policy by directly discounting on their website? Seems kind of like a "Hello Kettle, I am Pot. You are black." situation.

[Gir]

We are a long way from

"Most new releases for Australian's are made in Australia. "

Produced in Oz is like daboarder says, they assembled the pack here.

And we're a hell of a long way from an online retailer whining because there's limited stock.

[Magpie]

True, perhaps in future you can confine your comments to that.

[daboarder]

And I said in my post I wasn't 100% on the wording, just that Australia is involved in the process.

If that was the case Gir why did you follow your post up with the guidelines for "product of australia" when I challenged the claim? You already had access to the material and its clear that the label in question is most certainly NOT the product of Australia symbol and as such likely doesn't qualify for the product of australia symbol.

For your future knowledge.

http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/money/shopping-and-legal/shopping/made%20in%20australia.aspx

[Gir]

If that was the case Gir why did you follow your post up with the guidelines for "product of australia" when I challenged the claim? You already had access to the material and its clear that the label in question is most certainly NOT the product of Australia symbol and as such likely doesn't qualify for the product of australia symbol.

For your future knowledge.

http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/money/shopping-and-legal/shopping/made%20in%20australia.aspx

Because I've been working for the last 20 hours, am extremely tired, and it doesn't take away from my point that Australia is involved in the process, so might be the cause of the shortage.

[Magpie]

We can only assume that the guy buys off GW Oz so I'd reckon you might be right.

Supply of product around the world is in great demand and I don't think The Combat Company is alone in being unable to get the orders it wants filled.

[Gir]

They are also requesting a huge amount of product.

[Magpie]

$10k I wouldn't have thought is all that much as compared to what some orders must be.

I know of two guys at my local shop who each dropped 2k on the Tau release.

[2dfnd]

As far as the price difference between Aus and US, the difference of new releases is ~10%, which is pretty much the best comparison in Australia.

this is what i don't understand
usa aus
le codex 100 160
wrathknight 115 125
dire av 35 55
wrath 50 55
wtf the au $ is higher but we ar paying more why
i understand som differences but its not a set % its looks like whatever the feel ?

[Magpie]

The big thing with the latest releases is they are so popular they can raise the price point and the demand won't suffer.

It looks very much like the US price for things like the Riptide and Wraithknight have been raised closer to our own to capitalise on the popularity. It also makes it pretty much pointless for Oz gamers to order them from the US.

[Gir]

According to my FLGS, the only stock there is a shortage on is Wraithknights.

[Magpie]

Only shortage they have or the only shortage world wide ?

[Gir]

It's the only item they have been limited in the amount they are able to order.

[Herzlos]

The Australian price will include 10% Sales Tax, so moving it even closer to parity.

The UK price includes 20% sales tax, moving it even further out of parity.


As to the whole stock thing, it's certainly suspicious that GW's own stores still have a lot of stock whilst the independents don't, and GW have in the past made a big thing of it (at least, local stores facebook pages have pointed out that they've still got stock). That independents can't fill pre-orders whilst GW B&M stores have some sitting on shelves indicates a bad split of stocking due to either 1. incompetence or 2. malice.

[Wolfshade]

Oh no!
Games Workshop give preference of its stock to its stores?! Like Apple giving preference to Apple stores and not independent retailers...

I would imagine that the whole stocking thing is done on a first come first served basis, with the GW stores having their quotas/requests filled first as they were ordered first.

The other thing to consider here is whether or not this is a monopoly as has previously been mentioned. I am disinclined to agree that it is and even if it is the issue of price fixing especially given GWs profit margin, which isn't terribly high.

Another thing to consider in the "price fixing" argument is whether or not the price of the item is part of its intrinsic value, the way that perfumes and certain brands of jeans have previously sucessfuly argued.

The argument about prices is terribly moot as we know that the prices are not based on a direct conversion. There are very few places where that happens. The cost of songs on itunes for instance (and in that the "shipping" element is non-existant). Look at the prices of everything.
Should I complain that while in Cape Town I could buy an 8oz steak for £1, yet in the UK it costs £10+? Or that beer is only 15p per pint? No, direct conversions do not work and that is without having to take into account the issues of currency fluctuations.

[jgebi]

I've finally caught up on my reading sorta, and they have no case form what I can tell and I guess this goes with most things to do with GW pricing and supply, of course you'd supply your own stores first as you make a greater profit of it and looks better at the end of the business year. I can't see though how one company can price fixing it's own product or get in trouble for looking after it's own interests. just makes no sence

[daboarder]

I've finally caught up on my reading sorta, and they have no case form what I can tell and I guess this goes with most things to do with GW pricing and supply, of course you'd supply your own stores first as you make a greater profit of it and looks better at the end of the business year. I can't see though how one company can price fixing it's own product or get in trouble for looking after it's own interests. just makes no sence

do you know much about Australian trade law?

If so prove it mate

[Magpie]

I can't see anything in what GW is doing, (and let's be clear all they are saying is they can't guarantee supply) that would constitute a breach of the Trade Practices Act.

From :
GAMES WORKSHOP OZ PTY LIMITED - CONDITIONS OF SALE

4.12 For the avoidance of doubt Recommended Retail Prices (RRPs) are not binding in any way upon the Buyer. The
Buyer is entirely free to select its own retail prices for the Products.


Makes it pretty clear that price fixing is a ridiculous suggestion

[eldargal]

do you know much about Australian trade law?
Do you?

[daboarder]

Do you?

Not a lot no, but I've never professed that they "have no chance" without any supporting evidence.

If a person wants to make bold claims about the various legalities of a situation and they're not talking out their a** its not actually hard to post the references and quotes to the actual law, particularly Australian legislation which is all available form the relevant government websites..

Edit:

For example like magpie has done here


Again if you have a preference for facts over bollocks

http://transition.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=789654&nodeId=c30df5d913755357aac104a80227bfec&fn=The%20Trade%20Practices%20Act%20and%20the%20ACC C%E2%80%94an%20overview.pdf

The only test case of the Trade Practises Act in Oz :

http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=blr

In a nutshell

"A brief recital of the facts of Queensland Wire provides contextual background for analysis of the above elements. BHP, responsible for approximately 97 per cent of Australia's steel output, produced Y-bar30 which it sold exclusively to its wholly owned subsidiary Australian Wire Industries (AWI). AWI produced fence posts from the Y-bar and sold these as a producer. Queensland Wire Industries (QWI) sought supply of the Ybar produced by BHP in order to produce fence posts and compete against AWI in the rural fencing market. BHP offered to supply the Y-bar at prices which were so high that its conduct amounted to a constructive refusal to supply."


This is a long, long, long way from GW limiting supply to independent retailers.

BTW GW DOES NOT have a manufacturing plant in Australia.
All the stuff I have says "Made in the UK", "Made in China" and I've never seen anything different.



Or like the referencing I have posted with regards to GW production in Australia, even Girs counter point was well thought out and contained supporting information (that may have been mis-interpreted but at least it was provided)

Edit II: for example a close reading of this


competitors agreeing to prevent another from acquiring
or receiving goods and services

would suggest that Combat do have a case. If the above poster refutes this it would be of great benefit if he would go into detail about why, while providing the appropriate information.

[Kirsten]

there is no case here at the moment. maybe there is some detail left out, or the trader knows something not mentioned here. But so far all that is happened is that they have placed a large order, and been told they may not get all of it. From that reply, they have then decided that GW are giving more stock to their own stores and their own sales than they are to independent stores. Quite aside from whether or not that breaks some sort of law, which is frankly irrelevant right now, I would like to see what their proof of this is. Where is their evidence that GW stores are being guaranteed more stock than what they themselves have ordered?

[Wolfshade]

It would fall under Australian Competition Law, or specifically Competition and Consumer Act 2010 - Part IV Cartels


The issue of supply would fall under 3.a.iii "[Preventing, restricting or limiting ].. the supply, or likely supply, of goods or services to persons or classes of persons by any or all of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding; "

While I am not an Australian legal expert in my own opinion I cannot see this criteria being met given that there is a supply shortage in Australia and that based on what the combat company says, that is GW is trying to fairly distribute the limited stock amongs all those who request it.

Also given that the re-sellers contract with GW (assuming they have the blanket one on their [GW] website the contract is clear that if there is more demand then there is product then the completion of the order will occur once stock arrives. That is stock allocated to the Australiasin Re-seller stock.

It would be naive to believe that the stock for GW stores and re-sellers are taken from the same allocation. Certainly, the annual reports suggest that they are accounted seperately.

There is an argument that it could be under the "Anti-competative business" but given that GW sells the product natively without discount and do not enforce a minimum pricing (or maximum discount) and all other re-sellers have the same issues it does not seem to anti-competitive.

Any challange on the mis-use of market power is likely to fail given that the prices are higher in GW stores than re-sellers and given the wording that the items have to be on sale below cost, which has never happened.

The exclusive dealings clause is not really applicable here, but interestingly, if GW did fully complete some re-sellers orders and not others it could be argued that GW were foul of this clause.

[daboarder]

It would fall under Australian Competition Law, or specifically Competition and Consumer Act 2010 - Part IV Cartels


The issue of supply would fall under 3.a.iii "[Preventing, restricting or limiting ].. the supply, or likely supply, of goods or services to persons or classes of persons by any or all of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding; "

While I am not an Australian legal expert in my own opinion I cannot see this criteria being met given that there is a supply shortage in Australia and that based on what the combat company says, that is GW is trying to fairly distribute the limited stock amongs all those who request it.

Also given that the re-sellers contract with GW (assuming they have the blanket one on their [GW] website the contract is clear that if there is more demand then there is product then the completion of the order will occur once stock arrives. That is stock allocated to the Australiasin Re-seller stock.

It would be naive to believe that the stock for GW stores and re-sellers are taken from the same allocation. Certainly, the annual reports suggest that they are accounted seperately.

There is an argument that it could be under the "Anti-competative business" but given that GW sells the product natively without discount and do not enforce a minimum pricing (or maximum discount) and all other re-sellers have the same issues it does not seem to anti-competitive.

Any challange on the mis-use of market power is likely to fail given that the prices are higher in GW stores than re-sellers and given the wording that the items have to be on sale below cost, which has never happened.

The exclusive dealings clause is not really applicable here, but interestingly, if GW did fully complete some re-sellers orders and not others it could be argued that GW were foul of this clause.

See now thats how we engage in meaningful discussion.

[Magpie]

Or like the referencing I have posted with regards to GW production in Australia, even Girs counter point was well thought out and contained supporting information (that may have been mis-interpreted but at least it was provided)

An interesting aside on that is a response I received from GW when I questioned them on the "Produced in Oz" sticker.

"Good Morning (Magpie's Mortal Alter-ego)

All of our Core box games are packaged here in Australia, but not cast here. Also some of the plastic new releases are packaged here also. If you have any other questions please contact us again."

So there must be some technicality that allows the repackaging of something to be "Produced in Australia", which is a bit odd because the criteria for "Produced in" is much more strict than "Made in" in terms of the country of origin of the contents.

[Magpie]

It would fall under Australian Competition Law, or specifically Competition and Consumer Act 2010 - Part IV Cartels

The issue of supply would fall under 3.a.iii "[Preventing, restricting or limiting ].. the supply, or likely supply, of goods or services to persons or classes of persons by any or all of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding; "

That relates to Cartel Provisions which are designed to create a cartel for the supply of a particular good or service.

The important bit is (later in the act):

A corporation commits an offence if:
(a) a contract, arrangement or understanding contains a cartel provision; and
(b) the corporation gives effect to the cartel provision.

So they have to make a clear statement of a cartel provision by contract, arrangement or understanding but not only that they much also enact that provision.

"We cannot guarantee supply of what you have ordered off us" is not a a contract, arrangement or understanding contains a cartel provision. GW's trade agreement states quite clearly that a contract does not exist at the purchase order stage but rather at delivery of the goods.

I'd also point out that the Part quoted "Cartels" is about cosy deals between manufacturer and retailer and that sort of thing, it deals with standing arrangements or agreements designed to pus out others in the market. It has nothing to do with the present situation of GW being unable to guarantee the supply of an order.

If anything the seeming even distribution of some product to all retailers rather than a lot to a few is in fact the very opposite of a Cartel Provision.

[Herzlos]

Oh no!
Games Workshop give preference of its stock to its stores?! Like Apple giving preference to Apple stores and not independent retailers...

I would imagine that the whole stocking thing is done on a first come first served basis, with the GW stores having their quotas/requests filled first as they were ordered first.


That's exactly what makes it anti-competitive. GW acts as both a manufacturer and retailer and therefore must treat all retailers (including it's own stores) the same. If it's prioritizing it's retail branch then it's abusing it's position as manufacturer in order to harm the other retailers.

The same thing would happen with apple if they claimed to have a shortage of phones and yet supplied their own stores with plenty whilst giving almost none to other retailers, but they don't. Their own stores run out just as quickly, and probably have a higher sales ratio to independents than GW's stores do.

[daboarder]

there is no case here at the moment. maybe there is some detail left out, or the trader knows something not mentioned here. But so far all that is happened is that they have placed a large order, and been told they may not get all of it. From that reply, they have then decided that GW are giving more stock to their own stores and their own sales than they are to independent stores. Quite aside from whether or not that breaks some sort of law, which is frankly irrelevant right now, I would like to see what their proof of this is. Where is their evidence that GW stores are being guaranteed more stock than what they themselves have ordered?

From the judges findings in the BHP case Magpie posted, and the discussion of its impact upon trade law in Australia, the convention seems to be that the onus is upon the manufacturer to disprove the allegation rather than the customer to prove it.


As this article demonstrates, a refusal to supply will be excused by the courts provided there is some
legitimate business explanation for it.

[Mr Mystery]

A bit of general knowledge on GW's internal supply chain.... It's all preset.

The size/success of your store means you get a set allocation of toys for your shelves. Post-release, you should have a running stock of 2 of everything at a minimum (going on my experience from 2010. Allow for some changes I wouldn't be aware of). Releases? Smaller stores might get 5 or 6 of each release box.

How much were TCC ordering? I think I read it was several thousand dollars worth of stock. That's an awful lot more than any given GW store would ever receive for release day. Offers some perspective on TCC's frankly champion teddy throwing. Especially as to date, they have precisely sweet f.a. to sue over, apart from a heads up/warning from their supplier that their entire may not be fulfilled...... Nothing to sue over, yet.

Though no doubt if they do get their full allocation, it'll be winkle-in-hand time as they crow they defeated the big bully, even though the big bully didn't actually do anything.

[eldargal]

Not a lot no, but I've never professed that they "have no chance" without any supporting evidence.
Looking at Gws terms and conditions and what TCC have actually provided by way of evidence to support their claims is supporting evidence, though.

[Herzlos]

I have to think here that most of the blame lies within the tiny pre-order window now; they can't be making and shipping stock round the world in that window, so GW must just be guessing at production volumes and trying to make do with what they've got and making pessimistic estimates to keep costs down. Whereas most companies use pre-orders to get a better gauge of what needs to be made, GW are doing it backwards and pre-orders are just a way to get one of the limited first run of items being made.

In any case having such limited availability doesn't make them look good.

[Caitsidhe]

It's not as simple as a direct comparison of prices. You have to factor in exchanges rates but more importantly you have to look at costs of living, average weekly wage and the "buying power" of a US dollar in the US to an Aussie Dollar in Oz.

When you do all that the US price and the Aus price are about the same.

You see this is a very alien concept to me. I understand the "conversion" rate, i.e. whatever it costs American to buy should probably convert directly by the rate of exchange to what the Australians pay. It is my understanding that isn't the case and it is actually a fact of someone literally saying... "Screw you Dingo-Breath... since you make more money... we are gonig to take you to the cleaners." :) This attitude doesn't fly with me and in a shrinking world where people can see instantly what other people are paying, I don't think it is going to fly with most people for very much longer.

[Mr Mystery]

Yes. Because appearing to be an in demand and exclusive product is every manufacturers worst nightmare?

[eldargal]

In any case having such limited availability doesn't make them look good.
Or it makes it look like the product is in great demand.

[Mr Mystery]

Haha! Zinged you! :p

[pgarfunkle]

So there is limited stock of the Eldar release and TCC is complaining that there was limited stock of the TAU release (and possibly still is). Perhaps we have found a downside to the monthly release schedule so far this year.

P.S. I am not complaining about the monthly releases, it beats slow news weeks!

[Caitsidhe]

<chuckles> You can visualize me wearing a funny tin-foil hat if you like, but I don't believe for a moment there are any "actual" supply issues. There are only two possiblities when a company fails to meet demand:

1. They are incompetent. When many people pre-order (most do in fact for GW product including vendors) there really is no excuse for not having mass-produced plastic toys ready on the date that they themselves set.

2. They are manipulating the situation to create an impression of being sold out, delays in some places, and creating a buzz that things are selling faster than they can make them.

There are no other options. Games Workshop sets the release date of the product. Games Workshop takes all the orders for the product before they release it. Games Workshop know exactly how long it takes to make the product. :) They have all the information required as well as the power to set the dates however they need. Which of the two options above do you THINK is happening.

[eldargal]

Yep, you definitely qualify for the tin foil hat. As hard as it may be for you to believe, sometimes demand simply exceeds what is predicted. We also know with Tau at least the issue concerned packaging as people started receiving kits in plain boxes.

[Mr Mystery]

Indeed. Caitsidhe. You always do this. You come up with some theory, without anything even remotely resembling evidence, and then claim the lack of evidence is the evidence you need. It's kind of scary at times.

[Caitsidhe]

Hey I gave you the caveat about the hat didn't I? I'm willing to accept short supply problems now and then as legitimate. However, when it KEEPS HAPPENING one right after another... I have to start looking incompetency or plan again. If we are saying that supply simply exceeded "predicted" demand again... they are incompetent. They should have known. How many times do they get to screw it up before we start saying, perhaps they need to FIRE someone who does the predicting? :D

[eldargal]

Actually when two similar events related to production happen on after another the safe assumption is that the problem is ongoing, not that there is something sinister happening. If indeed GW had trouble with a packaging supplier for the Tau then the obvious explanation for similar problems with eldar is an ongoing issue with the supplier, not malevolence on GWs part.

[Mr Mystery]

Define predicted demand. Define incompetence in that regard.

Production time is finite. They'll have projected sales figures, and produce to meet that. Seems those projections are now somewhat conservative. Tau? Could have been a fluke. Monitor from there. Eldar too? New pattern developing, unprecedented demand.

Incompetence? Where? Seriously. Outside of your fevered imaginings, where exactly is the incompetence there?

Oh of course. Your back up. Their lying. Why? Share price is healthy. Company isn't in financial doody (very, VERY little debt. Not many companies can say that in the current environment). They know it will sell anyway. So why purposefully reduce availability on release day?

As for your options....

c) Against all interwebular opinion, GW have struck chords, and the sales are coming in thick and fast, at a higher than predicted level.

[eldargal]

Eldar used to be the second most popular army after Marines, sometimes third if IG got a new book, according to several ex-GW bigwigs I've spoken too. Of course you'll have to take my word for it (though one of them at least still posts on Warseer) I can well believe that a lot of old eldar players came out of the wood work to buy new pretties.

[Caitsidhe]

Incompetence is taking pre-orders and having a fairly reliable estimate of demand, setting your own release dates so you can make sure you can meet said demand, and having years of experience to guide you in knowing what demand is likely to be and still managing (time and time again) to fail to meet said demand.

There are two options. There is the one where they are manipulating stock (listed as sinister by Eldargal but NOT by me) supplies to achieve certain marketing goals, and there is the one where they simply cannot get their damn act together, i.e. incompetence. If it is the former, good for them. It means they have a plan and they they are following it up. They wouldn't be the first and they won't be the last who manipulate release of their product to artificially affect prices and buzz. I see nothing sinister in it, but I accept it is to the consumer's disadvantage. If it is the latter, they need to fire somebody. This has been a problem with the last four releases in a row. At some point the excuses wear thin. Games Workshop doesn't get to pass the buck. If they can't manage to meet the demand on the date they THEY THEMSELVES SET then they are incompetent.

[eldargal]

Twice is not 'time and time again'. It is twice. You're still just spouting bollocks with no evidence. We know they had a packaging shortage with Tau. We know some stores POSSIBLY won't get as much eldar as they ordered initially. That is all.

[Caitsidhe]

Share price is healthy. Company isn't in financial doody (very, VERY little debt. Not many companies can say that in the current environment). They know it will sell anyway. So why purposefully reduce availability on release day?

This is quite true and very interesting. In the United States (and I won't pretend to know how it works in the UK) a company whose stock is being pushed up cutting overhead (closing stores, changing hours, altering policies, etc.) and which has VERY little debt is what we call putting lipstick on a pig. These things tend to happen (in the U.S.) when there is an attempt to sell a company to another company. In short, you want Stock as high as possible and debt as low as possible, to be able to leverage the best possible price. This makes sense because few companies want to spend a lot on a company whose stock in the hole or is carrying a lot of debt.

I'm not not predicting or postulating because I haven't a clue how European companies buy and sell each other. I'm merely commenting on the fact that over here everyone would be assuming that Games Workshop is already in talks with a larger company about a possible sale.

*The debt thing being considered a "tell" because companies looking long term incur debt to build infrastructure and are planning for the long haul.

[Mr Mystery]

Utter twaddle and you know it. You're determined to see them as some kind of moronic corporate beast.

You project your sales volumes, you set your release date, your ensure suitable production. Boom. Orders come flooding in. Your stock pile is not sufficient, as order volumes are higher than predicted.... That is not incompetence. That's a surprise sales surge. Surprise, as in...cannot be predicted accurately yes?

As for their lack of debt....they've never, ever been big borrowers. Most financial years, there was little to no borrowing. Which kind of poo-poos your other paranoid ramblings.

[Caitsidhe]

Ok. Color me paranoid, although that wouldn't be an apt choice. Paranoid would mean I think Games Workshop is out to get me and fear them. I don't. Cynical would be more correct. :) I prefer pragmatic, but unless born out by events cynical will apply (and wrong). I'm willing to wait and see. I told you I don't know anything about European companies or how they function (or how they play the debt game). I'm just saying (and quite accurately) that those conditions indicate probable sale IF they were in the United States.

[Wolfshade]

You see this is a very alien concept to me. I understand the "conversion" rate, i.e. whatever it costs American to buy should probably convert directly by the rate of exchange to what the Australians pay. It is my understanding that isn't the case and it is actually a fact of someone literally saying... "Screw you Dingo-Breath... since you make more money... we are gonig to take you to the cleaners." :) This attitude doesn't fly with me and in a shrinking world where people can see instantly what other people are paying, I don't think it is going to fly with most people for very much longer.

No. Seriously, this is very far from reality and indeed your own experiance, for example a single mp3 download is 89p in the UK, the same is 89c in USA, now convert 89p to USD and you get $1.48, so why is this a 66% price increase.

SAB Miller beer in South Africa equivalent of 15p per pint, same beer in the UK £3.00 per pint. You do not convert prices directly for luxury goods. You proportion it based on some metric, like median wages or minimum wage, you also factor in compulsory deductions and the price eventually boils down to "how many hours would someone need to work to buy this". The base price converted to local currency is just the first step to formulating the price of something.

The reason why the US, UK and AUS prices seem to be in fairly good agreement is that the economies are all developed 1st world, with similiar standards of living, similiar infrastructure and similiar governments.

[Defenestratus]

"Never attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by gross incompetence."

[eldargal]

Yep, in this case an incompetent package printer.

[Mr Mystery]

Ok. Color me paranoid, although that wouldn't be an apt choice. Paranoid would mean I think Games Workshop is out to get me and fear them. I don't. Cynical would be more correct. :) I prefer pragmatic, but unless born out by events cynical will apply (and wrong). I'm willing to wait and see. I told you I don't know anything about European companies or how they function (or how they play the debt game). I'm just saying (and quite accurately) that those conditions indicate probable sale IF they were in the United States.

So any company doing well without digging itself into a big old debt hole must clearly be looking to sell....erm. Nope?

[Caitsidhe]

So any company doing well without digging itself into a big old debt hole must clearly be looking to sell....erm. Nope?

For corporate entities in the United States, yes... that is about the size of it. We are the country of predatory companies, wherein liquidation is seen as a viable strategy. There are companies that produce nothing whatsoever over here, whose entire purpose is to buy up controlling stakes in companies which are "healthy" and carry low debt. These are easily dismantled and sold off for parts. :) I'm not saying it is good . I'm just saying that is a reality over here. A successful company whose stock is stable, has low debt, and isn't "too big" is consider the ideal prey. It is kind of like whaling back in the day. There is a whale whose name is actually the "Right Whale" because its habits made it ideal for whalers (it was easy to catch since it hung out near the surface sleeping). Companies in the state you describe are the "Right Whale" for corporate raiders. :) *Said Raiders always assisted by the company itself which has certain people who make a mint off the sale.

[Kirsten]

From the judges findings in the BHP case Magpie posted, and the discussion of its impact upon trade law in Australia, the convention seems to be that the onus is upon the manufacturer to disprove the allegation rather than the customer to prove it.

they don't have to disprove anything just because some company are throwing the teddy out of the pram over something they have made up in their heads. It is unlikely it could ever get to court unless they start offering up some sort of proof there is a case to answer, which so far they have not. If they go to someone to initiate proceedings saying 'we ordered $10,000 dollars of stock and have been informed we may not get all of it' they will be laughed out of the room.


Hey I gave you the caveat about the hat didn't I? I'm willing to accept short supply problems now and then as legitimate. However, when it KEEPS HAPPENING one right after another... I have to start looking incompetency or plan again. If we are saying that supply simply exceeded "predicted" demand again... they are incompetent. They should have known. How many times do they get to screw it up before we start saying, perhaps they need to FIRE someone who does the predicting? :D

it doesn't keep happening, it happened last month when Tau proved far and away more popular than anyone expected, and that might be why it is still happening this month, if indeed it is still happening. GW cannot wave a magic wand and make things appear, it is perfectly common across any other sort of business you can name to wait a while to get something you have ordered. The Australian company in question wont have even paid for the stuff yet, so they don't have anything to complain about.

[Mr Mystery]

And again, $10,000AUS of stock is a lot of stock for one company. Stock is finite. Orders less so.

GW have a responsibility to ensure as many orders as possible are fulfilled. That's just good business sense. I think we can safely infer they wish to see all those wanting their new toys have their order at least partially fulfilled, rather than see some miss out because of massive orders. To my mind, that is the very antithesis of wanting a monopoly, as you're spreading the supply love as widely as you possibly can.

Or it's all part of scheme so devious, so utterly Machiavellian that it appears to have no actual pay off, and thus no point.

Then again, GW are apparently without business sense at all according to those who hate them, so its seriously confusing.

[Caitsidhe]

That's not actually true though. There is a pay off to this style of sales. Games Workshop sees itself as producing and selling luxury product. That is reinforced by dripping out supply. The only thing that matters, long term, for Games Workshop is hitting the sales goals and sustained income.

The theory behind limited supply (on purpose) is that you aren't losing any sales by turning the valve down to a drip. You will still get those guaranteed sales no matter what. It is low risk because of the nature of the product. Those that have to have it, i.e. those that pre-order and so on, aren't going to suddenly change their minds. Thus, the drip method just stretches the incoming funds as guaranteed sales over more quarters. They can make sure that they sell enough to hit projections this quarter and artificially keep up following quarters. From their standpoint, having one really HUGE quarter followed by a poorly performing one is a pain. The side benefit to purposely manipulating those sales to come in over time is the "buzz factor" provided. THESE THINGS ARE HOT! WE CAN'T KEEP UP WITH DEMAND. People think "whoah" they must have something there.

This sales approach is used heavily by luxury car dealerships as well as certain upper end clothing designers and jewelry. I'm not saying that I know for a fact that Games Workshop is doing this, but it isn't a bad business approach if you are a small corporate entity that wants the books to look solid EVERY quarter.

[Magpie]

You see this is a very alien concept to me. I understand the "conversion" rate, i.e. whatever it costs American to buy should probably convert directly by the rate of exchange to what the Australians pay. It is my understanding that isn't the case and it is actually a fact of someone literally saying... "Screw you Dingo-Breath... since you make more money... we are gonig to take you to the cleaners." :) This attitude doesn't fly with me and in a shrinking world where people can see instantly what other people are paying, I don't think it is going to fly with most people for very much longer.

What it comes down to is that despite 1 aussie dollar being about the same worht as 1 US dollar on the global money market what you can buy for $1 in the US will cost you about $1.60 in Aus, more or less. Buying power is what is important.


There are no other options.

Rubbish there are 100's of other options.

The most likely is that amount of stock produced for a release will be a carefully regulated thing. You have to pay on delivery which for GW is a long time before distribution so there is a limit to the funds they can have tied up in each new release. Given that there is a HEAP of new releases this year there will be a very discreet and tight budget for each release. They can only "afford" to produce so many minis for each release.

[Caitsidhe]

What it comes down to is that despite 1 aussie dollar being about the same worht as 1 US dollar on the global money market what you can buy for $1 in the US will cost you about $1.60 in Aus, more or less. Buying power is what is important.

Again, this notion is alien to me. You are simply repeating what I said, albeit leaving off the "Dingo-Breath." You are arguing that since they make more in Australia they DESERVE to be overcharged for the same product. :D I suppose as long as they continue to pay it, the market will bear it but I don't think they appreciate it very much. I can't say I blame them, particularly since Games Workshop is going out of its way to try and close any other avenues to the product besides paying the premium. It makes me wonder if those in charge got their girlfriends stolen by some Aussies at some point and this is payback.


Rubbish there are 100's of other options.

The most likely is that amount of stock produced for a release will be a carefully regulated thing. You have to pay on delivery which for GW is a long time before distribution so there is a limit to the funds they can have tied up in each new release. Given that there is a HEAP of new releases this year there will be a very discreet and tight budget for each release. They can only "afford" to produce so many minis for each release.

Again, you are really repeating what I'm saying. Let me explain. You are suggesting that they have to regulate their product. This means they are either in complete control (planned) of this release and mean for it to be staged and limted, or they simply are unable to meet demand. If you know you aren't going to be able to meet demand and control the release dates, it seems to me that they have a solution to the issue. I happen to agree with you that it isn't an accident and I do think they are very carefully regulating the release of their product. That falls under one of the two options I suggest.

[Gotthammer]

Well given the new Eldar products are far closer to US prices (Wraithlord is $125AUD vs $115USD) while old stuff is still out of wack (we're paying hte same for Wraithguard as Dire Avengers [$55AUD] while they're $50 & $35 in the US) GW is obviously listening and attempting to amend the discrepancy with the new prices.
The exceptions are the codexes, but that may also be a by-product of Australia's publishing/book importing laws.

[Magpie]

You are arguing that since they make more in Australia they DESERVE to be overcharged for the same product.

No I am telling you that comparing dollar for dollar doesn't work.

Things cost more dollars in Aus. Forget GW products. Look at petrol in the US a litre of petrol costs around about 0.97c (2012 figure) in Australia the same litre would cost about $1.50.

Things in Australia have a higher number on them, it's not that we are charged more per se.

[Alqualonde]

No. Seriously, this is very far from reality and indeed your own experiance, for example a single mp3 download is 89p in the UK, the same is 89c in USA, now convert 89p to USD and you get $1.48, so why is this a 66% price increase.

SAB Miller beer in South Africa equivalent of 15p per pint,

Okay where you getting your beer? That's less than the tax on a pint in South Africa. Last time (yesterday) I bought beer (in SA) it was a bit more than than at around GBP1.70 for a quart

[Mr Mystery]

That's not actually true though. There is a pay off to this style of sales. Games Workshop sees itself as producing and selling luxury product. That is reinforced by dripping out supply. The only thing that matters, long term, for Games Workshop is hitting the sales goals and sustained income.

The theory behind limited supply (on purpose) is that you aren't losing any sales by turning the valve down to a drip. You will still get those guaranteed sales no matter what. It is low risk because of the nature of the product. Those that have to have it, i.e. those that pre-order and so on, aren't going to suddenly change their minds. Thus, the drip method just stretches the incoming funds as guaranteed sales over more quarters. They can make sure that they sell enough to hit projections this quarter and artificially keep up following quarters. From their standpoint, having one really HUGE quarter followed by a poorly performing one is a pain. The side benefit to purposely manipulating those sales to come in over time is the "buzz factor" provided. THESE THINGS ARE HOT! WE CAN'T KEEP UP WITH DEMAND. People think "whoah" they must have something there.

This sales approach is used heavily by luxury car dealerships as well as certain upper end clothing designers and jewelry. I'm not saying that I know for a fact that Games Workshop is doing this, but it isn't a bad business approach if you are a small corporate entity that wants the books to look solid EVERY quarter.

And again the baseless, non evidenced assumption that the restricted quantities are a deliberate strategy yes?

Face it dude, you've got nowt. You blow a lot, but the tune isn't coming through.

[Wolfshade]

Okay where you getting your beer? That's less than the tax on a pint in South Africa. Last time (yesterday) I bought beer (in SA) it was a bit more than than at around GBP1.70 for a quart

This was several years ago, actually come to think of it it was over a decade ago. last time I was out I don't recall how much I was paying.
Though SABmiller puts its price at $1/pint which is still 66p which is still signficantly less than the cost in the rest of the world.

Regardless of the outdatted headline figure, the point is that no seller (other than perhaps raw materials, oil, metals etc) just has one price that is then converted to the local currency.

And beer tax is about 4p/pint (2,563 cents per litre of absolute alcohol)

2001 Rugby Tour. The rand had dropped to being worth less than 7p following the issues in zimbabwe

[Mr Mystery]

Wish my Beer was that cheap.

I went out at the weekend on the pop, and when I ordered my beer (not Lager...proper manlymanbeer) you know what that barman say to me? He say 'that'll be £3.50'. Now, it was about that time I noticed the barman was 50' long and from the pleisoscene era, and I said ' DAMMIT LOCH NESS BARMAN! I AIN'T GIVEN YOU NO TREEFIDDY!'

[Wolfshade]

Wish my Beer was that cheap.

I went out at the weekend on the pop, and when I ordered my beer (not Lager...proper manlymanbeer) you know what that barman say to me? He say 'that'll be £3.50'. Now, it was about that time I noticed the barman was 50' long and from the pleisoscene era, and I said ' DAMMIT LOCH NESS BARMAN! I AIN'T GIVEN YOU NO TREEFIDDY!'

Real time beer prices & menu :) http://www.thewellingtonrealale.co.uk/pages/beerboard.php

[Mr Mystery]

Nice!

Still, 33rd Birthday this Friday, and yes, out on the pop once again. Should be a cheap night, as everyone else has to buy my drinks because it's my birthday and I'm great!

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5018154855367691&pid=1.7&w=147&h=151&c=7&rs=1&url=http%3a%2f%2fcommunity.flixster.com%2fpoll%2fb ottom-richard-richard-v-eddie-hitler