Has Games Workshop been sold?

[Loken]

http://apocalypse40k.blogspot.com/2013/06/games-workshop-sold.html

Still unconfirmed, but explains a lot!

Loken

[daboarder]

http://apocalypse40k.blogspot.com/2013/06/games-workshop-sold.html

Still unconfirmed, but explains a lot!

Loken

Are they a publicly listed company? yes!

Has there been a press release by the board to the shareholders and the market that they have sold? No!

therefore your answer is no.

[Magpie]

If you check a share trading website you'll find that the majority shareholder is no longer Nomad Investments.

[daboarder]

so?

[Magpie]

So you can't actually sell a publicly listed company but the shareholders can sell their controlling interest.
The majority share holder selling their shares means a change in the board most likely and possibly may usher in a change in policy.

Or it may not.

[daboarder]

There's still not been a press release, which they need to do, so nothing.....

No public offer by another company to buy the shares.

No recommendation or notice by the board.

all that needs to be done publicly

oh and you can buy and sell a public company

[Magpie]

whatever

[Loken]

oh and you can buy and sell a public company

Actually you buy and sell the shares in a public company. But that doesn't need to be said since we all know what was actually meant.

[daboarder]

You make a public offer to buy the shares in a public company, the board offers its recommendation and then the shareholders either accept of decline the offer.

In Aus for example only 90% of the share votes need to agree, then that other 10% is forced to sell.

so yes, you do buy a public company, if you have the money.

but were basically agreeing

[lobster-overlord]

My money is on TimeWarner if anyone has picked them up as a stock holding to control. Make it a merchandising arm of New Line, since they can just crank out anything they want for LOTR

:-)

(absurd, but so what... might be interesting)

[chicop76]

You make a public offer to buy the shares in a public company, the board offers its recommendation and then the shareholders either accept of decline the offer.

In Aus for example only 90% of the share votes need to agree, then that other 10% is forced to sell.

so yes, you do buy a public company, if you have the money.

but were basically agreeing

That is correct. It depends on how many shares you buy and how much the shareholders sell them at. You can't buy stock unless someone sells it. Just cause you have the money you can't instanly be a majority share holder.

[Magpie]

Actually you buy and sell the shares in a public company.

That is however different to "buying the company"

[daboarder]

no its not, you can buy a Public company, you just buy ALL the shares

[Magpie]

no its not, you can buy a Public company, you just buy ALL the shares

And what you own are the shares, not the company.

[daboarder]

no if you 100% of the shares, YOU OWN THE COMPANY!

edit:

Watch this space

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GAW:LN/chart

[Mkvenner]

no if you 100% of the shares, YOU OWN THE COMPANY!

edit:

Watch this space

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GAW:LN/chart

What's funny is it was not until May that the increase started and that was after all the Tau Empire started selling. Is the share price related to how much GW sells in a month? I could see the price rising due to increased sales, meaning they are worth more money.

Also, I don't know economics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKHSAE1gIs

[eldargal]

I think this is bollocks, if only because the 'leak' would be insider trading and a be quite, quite illegal. If you want to risk it, buy shares now before the price jumps.

[chicop76]

And what you own are the shares, not the company.

It' rare and basically unheard off 1 person owning 100% of a large company. As long as you the majority share holder you pretty much control the company. All you need is 51% and you gravy.

If I remember corretly the sharholders are the ones who nominate and vote in the board of directors. The board runs the company and answers to the shareholders.

If you own one stock you get on vote. If you own 10 stocks you get 10 votes. Own 1 million stocks you get 1 million votes. You get dividends from the stock you own.

Let's use Disney as an example. To buy Star Wars they sould stocks and bonds. Star Wars stock went up, Disney's went down. Which would had been a good time to get into Disney stock. Let's say one stock option at the time was 50 dollars. When avengers for example came out Disney was raking in the money. No one wanted to give up said stock so stock will raise. Let's say it rose to 80 dollars. Let's say you want to own the majority. Mind you it has to be up for sale you can't just buy stock. Let's say Disney has 1billion stock options. To own half you will need to buy 500,000 options. If it is availabe and it was when for example stock was 100 dollars a share it will cost you 5 million dollars to buy in. Again it has to be available to buy.

People like to buy and sell stock which in essence is like buying and selling a home. The more stock you own the more you control and the more you make back on didvidends. Keep in mind a dividend is not garenteed and you can get like .70 cents per stock.if you own 1000 shares that will be like 700 dollars a pop. However you could had bought in when stock was like a dollar a share and over time you do get your money back, well depends.

That's why it's save to buy stock in like pampers. Until someone events a way not to use dypers it's a save invstment.

However gw stock is not a save investment. Disney is safer, Walmart

[Gir]

It' rare and basically unheard off 1 person owning 100% of a large company. As long as you the majority share holder you pretty much control the company. All you need is 51% and you gravy.


This is incorrect. Most major decisions need 70-80% of votes to pass.

[eldargal]

Also even if the majority shareholder changed it doesn't mean the way the company is run will change at all. If this is true (which I doubt) then whoever leaked the information committed a serious criminal offense and the blog in question may also have done so by releasing it to the public.

[chicop76]

This is incorrect. Most major decisions need 70-80% of votes to pass.

Yes it does. If you own 51%. That means 49% of everyone else will vote x way. All you need is 20-30% to vote your way. Unless your ideals are off the wall a 51% is enough votes to get your way so to speak or get nothing done.

[Mr Mystery]

Also even if the majority shareholder changed it doesn't mean the way the company is run will change at all. If this is true (which I doubt) then whoever leaked the information committed a serious criminal offense and the blog in question may also have done so by releasing it to the public.

I was under the impression Kirby own the controlling interest anyway?

[daboarder]

I think he does, and given he is a board member AND ceo it is highly unlikely that he is allowed to exercize those shares, and certainly not without the shareholders being aware of it.

[Mr Mystery]

So the evidence is...

1. Company soon very well.
2. Share price going up.
3. Some shares were sold.

That's it? You'll have to forgive me for being far from convinced.

[daboarder]

skratch that long day

[GrauGeist]

You'll have to forgive me for being far from convinced.

Eh, the king is dead, long live the king. For how little I now spend on GW, it hardly matters. GW is lucky to get a few Codices or Rulebooks out of me, hence them raising prices to $50 for paper. And my relative dissatisfaction with their value proposition suggests I won't be buying them next time around, but instead going back to 5th.

[lattd]

You can control a company with 25.1% in the Uk due to negative control, which normally sees you get a man on the board to keep you happy.

[Wolfshade]

In a worrying turn of events I find myself agreeing with daboarder....
No official annoucement to the stock market, no take over.

[Mr Mystery]

Eh, the king is dead, long live the king. For how little I now spend on GW, it hardly matters. GW is lucky to get a few Codices or Rulebooks out of me, hence them raising prices to $50 for paper. And my relative dissatisfaction with their value proposition suggests I won't be buying them next time around, but instead going back to 5th.

Yes I'm sure it's your buying habits, or indeed lack thereof that inform their every decision.

[Wolfshade]

Yes I'm sure it's your buying habits, or indeed lack thereof that inform their every decision.

I'm not going to by a Wraithknight now...

[Mr Mystery]

DAMN YOUR EYES!!! Now I won't be able to buy one!

[Caitsidhe]

It will be interesting to watch, the "controlling interests" I mean. Since in the United States (as I've mentioned elsewhere) many of the recent events in the last year are typical of a company in the throes of leveraging itself for sale of controlling interests or in the process of an in house coup.

[eldargal]

It will be interesting to watch, the "controlling interests" I mean. Since in the United States (as I've mentioned elsewhere) many of the recent events in the last year are typical of a company in the throes of leveraging itself for sale of controlling interests or in the process of an in house coupe.
People have been saying that for twenty years.

[bfmusashi]

Has anyone been 'OMG Hasbro' yet? Isn't someone supposed to do that? I'm going to do it.

OHMAHGEEEERD YOU GUYS! Transformers 40k yo lolz.

[Caitsidhe]

People have been saying that for twenty years.

I haven't been saying it for twenty years. :) I've only been saying it in the last year or so wherein certain key events have been taking place. I'm not well-versed in British corporate structure so I don't know if these events portend the same things. I merely comment on what they would mean in the United States to people who buy and sell stock in so far as the nature of corporate ownership. The business cultures could be so different that these things don't mean anything. Even so, I'll be interested to see how the controlling interests shift (if they do at all).

[eldargal]

You may not have but various people over the years have been seeing these 'key events' for two decades, since GW went public.

[Psychosplodge]

Has anyone been 'OMG Hasbro' yet? Isn't someone supposed to do that? I'm going to do it.

OHMAHGEEEERD YOU GUYS! Transformers 40k yo lolz.


OMG MLP cavalry. Warhammer:Equestria.

yes come on hasbro where are you?

[magickbk]

To go in the completely opposite direction, if one or more people were working to collect as much stock as possible, that could push the price up, but reduce the number of shares in the wild, which could potentially make it easier to do a sale to return to a private company. With a huge company like Dell doing that and the volatility of the market in recent years, I wouldn't be surprised to see more companies to start dropping back to private ownership.

[bfmusashi]

OMG MLP cavalry. Warhammer:Equestria.

yes come on hasbro where are you?

In all seriousness, I use Rough Riders and I would buy this so hard the cashier may go blind.

[Psychosplodge]

Now that would be a good rough rider squad...

[Caitsidhe]

To go in the completely opposite direction, if one or more people were working to collect as much stock as possible, that could push the price up, but reduce the number of shares in the wild, which could potentially make it easier to do a sale to return to a private company. With a huge company like Dell doing that and the volatility of the market in recent years, I wouldn't be surprised to see more companies to start dropping back to private ownership.

This would be the in house coup d'etat I suggest as possible.

[Wolfshade]

Special rule: Terror

[Psychosplodge]

Special rule: Terror

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/126/7/b/you_better_love_fluttershy_by_kojuro12-d3frfup.jpg

[spaceman91]

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/126/7/b/you_better_love_fluttershy_by_kojuro12-d3frfup.jpg

You feeling ok?

[Psychosplodge]

You feeling ok?

Well dodgy wrist and neck from sleeping funny, but apart from that fine...

[daboarder]

In a worrying turn of events I find myself agreeing with daboarder....

You say that like its a bad thing.....

[Wolfshade]

You say that like its a bad thing.....

I'm sure it must be, we don't normally agree..

[Arkhan Land]

is there at all a chance we might see GW split into parts to deal with media production and maybe electronic gaming as separate entities even if only through licensing?

[daboarder]

is there at all a chance we might see GW split into parts to deal with media production and maybe electronic gaming as separate entities even if only through licensing?

Doubtful, and even so, you'd still need to ask the shareholders if they were alright with the company being split up.

[rle68]

you all do realize that any public stock offering can be repurchased by the company at any time right? all they have to do is give notice and pay a current or pre agreed upon price.. im not sure which regardless

[daboarder]

you do realise that

a) they haven't done anything like that

b) no they can't if the shareholder doesn't want to sell

c) this topic is kinda dead

[Mr Mystery]

It is now a tad redundant, on account GW has neither been bought nor sold....

[rle68]

you do realise that

a) they haven't done anything like that

b) no they can't if the shareholder doesn't want to sell

c) this topic is kinda dead

maybe you should read how stock actually works, the parent co always has the right to repurchase its stock at the current or a negotiated price provided they own the majority of the stock and most co's do

but it is moot if that hasnt happend

[daboarder]

maybe you should read how stock actually works, the parent co always has the right to repurchase its stock at the current or a negotiated price provided they own the majority of the stock and most co's do

but it is moot if that hasnt happend

Just no, so much no!

companies do not maintain any right to "repossess shares at market value" at most they can force the sale of "non-marketable portions" but even then the shareholder has the recourse to say no.

[rle68]

Just no, so much no!

companies do not maintain any right to "repossess shares at market value" at most they can force the sale of "non-marketable portions" but even then the shareholder has the recourse to say no.

and how many shares of stock have you had bought back in your lifetime?

i have had it happen to me but many years ago

[lattd]

Erm only certain shares should be brought back.

[chicop76]

Shares are property which you own. Unless you give someone the authority to sell your stock on your behalf it can't be sold. It's possible for stock not to be buyable due to no one is willing to sell. However if they bought low they are willing to sell high or sell in caes the value of their stock drops too much.

Usually you finance manager won't sell your stock, especally if it's a lot. Without you knowing. They don't want to lose their job and create a bad reputation for their company. Hince is why waivers or documents are signed. They have to tell you and with your permission, unless you waive that right.

Daborder is obviously knowledgeable on the subject matter of stocks. I'm learning about it in college, last class on stocks was a year ago. I'm not an expert but have an insight on bull and bear markets, stocks and bonds. I have to look at the differant tyes of stocks you can have again to refresh my memory.

[Lexington]

More today (http://apocalypse40k.blogspot.com/2013/06/games-workshop-change-of-control-coming.html) from the original rumor source over at Apocalypse40K (http://apocalypse40k.blogspot.com/):


Another source has chimed in that Games Workshop is in fact undergoing change of control.
The chatter is picking up as doubters check with their sources, who wind up confirming that something is going down. While the source wouldn't say exactly what type of change of control that is, outright sale, merger, change of ownership of a majority of shares, it is clear something is happening.

And to those who say "We'll I am a GW shareholder and I have heard nothing." Know that a public corporation is under no obligation to tell every shareholder what is happening all the time. Being that GW is very closely held and that Chairman Tom Kirby probably has a majority of the shares with him on any type of deal, the rank and file shareholders will find out when the deal is announced.

Stay tuned as we have our ears to the ground.

Look in the comments for some interesting analysis as well, including a recent note from GW to its shareholders, re: what notification is necessary in the event of a sale.

Hm.

[eldargal]

Meh, in other words we don't know a damned thing.

[Lexington]

I dunno. Between this, similar rumblings from Natfka and some implied agreement from the BoLS folks, it seems likely that something is going on. I generally dismiss little rumors of a GW sale/ownership change as the inevitable background noise of some of GW's weirder moves, but this time seems a little different.

[Caitsidhe]

Heh. I'd love to say this is such a shock, but considering.... that I commented on it both recently and several times in the last six months... <shrugs> it is just amusing. I'm just gratified to find that Corporate culture (and signs) in the U.K. appear to be the same as those over here. I suspected as much, but it is nice to get a confirmation.

The only thing I can't tell from the clues of the last year is whether or not we are dealing with an in-house coup or a sale/takeover. If I were to make an educated guess, I would say we are looking at a sale since many of the actions we have seen are of the kind to leverage for outside sale. Internal take overs have a different hallmark wherein stock is pushed down rather than up.

[eldargal]

Yes but 'something going on' could mean anything from one of the major shareholders deciding to increase its control to Kirby selling out and retiring to being bought by bloody Hasbro.:rolleyes: Even if it something major from a corporate perspective it's not even particularly likely it will translate to any kind of change in direction for the company. See above re: knowing nothing.

Catisdhe, as I've said before people have been predicting this since GW went public in c1991, eventually someone was going to be right. Assuming something along these lines is actually happening, which is far from confirmed.

In fact if anything is happening I doubt it would be anything major or we wouldn't be hearing about it. If Hasbro were really going to buy GW, just to pick an example, the GW share price would no doubt increase. If word leaked out early people could buy shares before they went up which amounts to insider trading.

[Gotthammer]

These two linked strips (http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/book-13/05-the-death-of-snkrs/awesomeinsidesources/) from Shortpacked seem quite appropriate (http://www.shortpacked.com/2012/comic/book-13/07-this-continues-to-be-so-babies/correct/). I mean I think we're at the point that no matter what GW releases or what corporate moves they make somebody's going to be able to say they "predicted" it.

[eldargal]

Lol, those comics are really apt for GW rumourmongering and fanbase speculation.

[Caitsidhe]

These two linked strips (http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/book-13/05-the-death-of-snkrs/awesomeinsidesources/) from Shortpacked seem quite appropriate (http://www.shortpacked.com/2012/comic/book-13/07-this-continues-to-be-so-babies/correct/). I mean I think we're at the point that no matter what GW releases or what corporate moves they make somebody's going to be able to say they "predicted" it.

Funny stuff, but in fairness someone WILL have predicted it. :) And if they said it here there is a record of it and we will be able to check the accuracy of their claims. That is a nice perk of text.

[Mr Mystery]

So unless I've missed something.. We still only have anecdotal evidence about this yes, despite that we'd expect an official announcement already?

[eldargal]

So unless I've missed something.. We still only have anecdotal evidence about this yes, despite that we'd expect an official announcement already?
Yup.

[Mr Mystery]

Good good. Just making sure this remains a non-story.

[Lexington]

So unless I've missed something.. We still only have anecdotal evidence about this yes, despite that we'd expect an official announcement already?
Nope. As Stucarius explains in the comments (http://apocalypse40k.blogspot.com/2013/06/games-workshop-change-of-control-coming.html?showComment=1370857465377#c34048120534 18219845) over yonder -


GW is a closely held company with virtually all of its shares being in the hands of 5 or less owners. Deals could be struck for the purchase of those shares by another entity and thus give controlling ownership to the new stockholder. All of that can be behind closed doors to a point.

[eldargal]

That's really the point, this stuff would happen behind closed doors and 'sources' leaking it could potentially be a serious crime. Makes me sceptical.

[daboarder]

Nope. As Stucarius explains in the comments (http://apocalypse40k.blogspot.com/2013/06/games-workshop-change-of-control-coming.html?showComment=1370857465377#c34048120534 18219845) over yonder -

Just so much no, yes its tightly controlled stock, and yes owning that number of shares entitles those investors to a place on the board, but it is illegal for them to work out "super secret special snowflake" deals that give them rights over other shareholders. Look can we stop with the plastic crap rumour mongers bullsh*tting around? You want to know the latest on whats going on in the market, LOOK AT THE MARKET.

hit up the london stock exchange, read bloombergs press releases from GW, or hell even jump on the bussiness forums, such as hotcopper (though that one is to do with the ASX

[Mr Mystery]

That's really the point, this stuff would happen behind closed doors and 'sources' leaking it could potentially be a serious crime. Makes me sceptical.

Indeedy.

If I'm right in thinking, there was a significant sale/purchase fairly recently tied up in this (misreported as the majority share) which was reported, as per common practice/law (not 100% sure, hence caveats. Unlike many, I'm very happy to illustrate the exact level of my ignorance). This time around? Nowt. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Sweet Fanny Adams.

Therefore reasonable conclusion, based on lack of evidence? It remains a load of bollocks?

[Deadlift]

As long as I keep getting cool plastic toys, couldn't care less either way. I suggest most of us feel the same.

[eldargal]

As long as I keep getting cool plastic toys, couldn't care less either way. I suggest most of us feel the same.
Yep. Even if there is something in these rumours it is most likely a very tedious stockholder thing that will be utterly unimportant to those of us who just want to buy pretty things for our favourite settings.

[Defenestratus]

As long as I keep getting cool plastic toys, couldn't care less either way. I suggest most of us feel the same.

A change in ownership might produce some of the changes that we've wanted out of GW for a long time - such as a less voracious IP defense department, and a chance to see 40k done right in Hollywood...

Of course they could change things for the worse too... I prefer to be optimistic.

[Mr Mystery]

Yes. I'm sure a new owner would have no interest whatsoever in defending the IP...none at all...

[Psychosplodge]

Or possibly more, to defend their investment or some similar nonsense...

[daboarder]

Yes. I'm sure a new owner would have no interest whatsoever in defending the IP...none at all...

Maybe they'd be alturistic, and would secretly want to buy the IP before letting it go free in accordance with uK IP law for everyone to get a piece....or for some other bugger to come along and buy it

[Magpie]

Spending many millions of dollars to buy IP so you can throw it out to the public domain is not altruistic it is lunatic

[daboarder]

Spending many millions of dollars to buy IP so you can throw it out to the public domain is not altruistic it is lunatic

Sorry the above statement was missing a /sarcasm.

[Caitsidhe]

While I do believe major change of ownership is in the offing, I would be hard pressed to guess whether it is an in-house coup or external sale. However, if I was to go out on a limb and guess... simply postulating possible profit motives... I think there is probably a movie deal of some kind in development. A major motion picture means exposure on a massive level and it means TOYS, not necessarily of the class Games Workshop type, but rather of the mass market G.I. Joe variety.

People like to talk about Hasbro a lot (and they are certainly a contender) but there are other possibilities, not the least of which are the Studio doing the potential film, or the parent company who is probably also invested in Hasbro or a "like" company. If box office is predicted, and toys are the natural merchandising in addition to posters, clothes, etc. then said Studio of parent company will NOT want to have to pay per model or design concept. It is cheaper for them in the long run to simply own the product.

With Star Wars sold to Disney and already gearing up, rival Studios are preparing for a new cycle of Science Fiction films to take the place of the superhero trope which will be winding back down (burn out) in a year or two. In short, from a profit perspective, I would postulate there is a film in pre-development with a major studio and all this shifting is due to the ties therein. If I were to predict which Studio and/or parent company... I would say it is most likely the same (New Line) because of the contacts already in place due to the LOTR merchandise.

[eldargal]

Rampant speculation is rampant.

Also your last paragraph is just plain wrong. he superhero film genre is not scaling back and certainly isn't burnt out. Iron Man 3 just made over a billion dollars, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is expanding beyond Iron Man/Thor/Captain America/Avengers and there is already work starting on a sequel to 'Man of Steel' and we know that WB want to go down the Marvel Cinematic Universe route with the DC IP if they can get Superman right (which they seem to have done). The idea that with all this going on we are going to see a switch from superheroes to scifi just because Disney has Star Wars is ludicrous.

[Caitsidhe]

Rampant speculation is rampant.

Hey... why not... :) But when I am postulating and guessing... I'm up front about it. I consider these educated guesses, but guesses nonetheless. The fact that ownership is changing I consider a fact. We are just waiting to find out the "who."

[eldargal]

Facts are backed by evidence, there is none. There is just rampant speculation.

[daboarder]

seriously a social scientist would have a ball in this thread, against all experience, evidence and logic people continually come up with these weird twisted theories.

I mean what do these people seriously NOT GET, about "publicly listed company"

[eldargal]

seriously a social scientist would have a ball in this thread, against all experience, evidence and logic people continually come up with these weird twisted theories.

I mean what do these people seriously NOT GET, about "publicly listed company"
What are you willing to bet that if nothing happens in a month so we will start seeing 'rumours' from 'sources' that the deal fell through?:rolleyes:

[Minibem]

As a very small GW share holder I haven't heard anything about this or got a letter telling me that it's happening!

[rle68]

seriously a social scientist would have a ball in this thread, against all experience, evidence and logic people continually come up with these weird twisted theories.

I mean what do these people seriously NOT GET, about "publicly listed company"

well as i pointed out to you .. a publicly listed company may buy back its own shares
there are a ton of rules...they may buy them back at any time

if you want to read this be my guest
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8335.htm

im not saying they did this but it is an option if they want to sell

[Magpie]

Not sure the rules of the US Securities Commission has a lot of application to a UK company?

Reading that doesn't seem to say to me that a share holder has an automatic right to repurchase shares they have forcibly had to sell but rather they can, so long as there is no nefarious intent, repurchase their shares on the open market which seems to be other wise an illegal action.

A "Safe Harbour" (my U btw) is a provision that allows you to step outside the normal laws in certain situations. I don't see anything in there that says if you are forced to sell your shares that whom ever bought them MUST sell them back to you.

[Wolfshade]

Don't forget we are not talking about a US firm, nor is it traded through new york, it is traded through london.

1.At common law companies were prohibited from buying their own shares: Trevor v. Whitworth (1887) 12 App Cas 409.
2.Successive Companies Acts have made it possible for companies to buy their own shares in a number of ways. The current legislation is in Part 18 of the Companies Act 2006.
3.One way is for the company to create redeemable shares and then redeem them. This has long been permitted and redeemable preference shares are quite common. Redemption is subject to the rules on finance mentioned below.
4.A company listed on the Stock Exchange can make a 'market purchase' of its shares through the Exchange, if authorised to do so by an ordinary resolution in general meeting. This, too, is subject to the rules on finance.
5.Any company may make an 'off-market purchase' of its shares by contract with one or more particular shareholders. The contract must be approved by a special resolution in general meeting. The shares must be cancelled when purchased and this, too, is subject to the rules on finance.
6.Redemption, market purchases and off-market purchases are all subject to restrictions as to financing the redemption or purchase. This may come from either distributable profits (i.e. profits which could be paid out by way of dividend) or from the proceeds of issuing new shares. In either case the company's capital is maintained.
Further, a private company (only) may make a 'permissible capital payment' to finance a redemption or off-market purchase. Any available profits must be used first and the payment must be approved by a special resolution and advertised to creditors. Creditors and dissenting shareholders may object to the court against such payment.
7.Shares may be bought back as part of a reduction of capital.

[bfmusashi]

Nonononono American laws are the only laws and four hundred years of separation is not enough for there to be drastic differences in our financial regulations. This is madness!

[Caitsidhe]

There are types of Stocks that you can purchase that come with the disclaimer that the company reserves the right to buy them back from you at market price at any time. HOWEVER... that is not that common because most people don't buy them. In short, once you buy something it is your property and unless you have agreed to such a rule up front, the company doesn't have the right to take your property from you. :D

[Denzark]

As a very small GW share holder I haven't heard anything about this or got a letter telling me that it's happening!

I've got to ask - is your share of the arch-satan of wargaming so small, they wouldn't tell you, or are you a dwarf with a single share?

[lattd]

Doesn't matter how many shares he's got he would have to be notified

[daboarder]

Doesn't matter how many shares he's got he would have to be notified

But dude,


CONSPIRACY!!



What are you willing to bet that if nothing happens in a month so we will start seeing 'rumours' from 'sources' that the deal fell through? :rolleyes:

ha not a chance, but I bet we can find someone here willing to let us take their money.

Seriously guys get over it, if you want to know whats going on keep our eye on this, Why because unlike some blog where the author is either living in his mums basement or has a day job, the stock exchange is all these guys do, its what they are paid to do, and they are very very good at it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GAW:LN



Not sure the rules of the US Securities Commission has a lot of application to a UK company?

Reading that doesn't seem to say to me that a share holder has an automatic right to repurchase shares they have forcibly had to sell but rather they can, so long as there is no nefarious intent, repurchase their shares on the open market which seems to be other wise an illegal action.

A "Safe Harbour" (my U btw) is a provision that allows you to step outside the normal laws in certain situations. I don't see anything in there that says if you are forced to sell your shares that whom ever bought them MUST sell them back to you.



Thats Basically it, their are exceptions such as if 90% or so of the shareholders have accepted then the other 10% can be forced to accept an offer of purchase, or non marketable portions of the stock can be re-bought (but the shareholder can still prevent that). I have no idea what happened to RLE68 previously but it sounds like he was the victim of some seriously dubious financial advice.

[rle68]

But dude,


CONSPIRACY!!




ha not a chance, but I bet we can find someone here willing to let us take their money.

Seriously guys get over it, if you want to know whats going on keep our eye on this, Why because unlike some blog where the author is either living in his mums basement or has a day job, the stock exchange is all these guys do, its what they are paid to do, and they are very very good at it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GAW:LN



Thats Basically it, their are exceptions such as if 90% or so of the shareholders have accepted then the other 10% can be forced to accept an offer of purchase, or non marketable portions of the stock can be re-bought (but the shareholder can still prevent that). I have no idea what happened to RLE68 previously but it sounds like he was the victim of some seriously dubious financial advice.

it was 25 years ago.... the law has changed since then

[pgarfunkle]

There are types of Stocks that you can purchase that come with the disclaimer that the company reserves the right to buy them back from you at market price at any time. HOWEVER... that is not that common because most people don't buy them. In short, once you buy something it is your property and unless you have agreed to such a rule up front, the company doesn't have the right to take your property from you. :D


It sounds like you are thinking of redeemable shares which are effectively a form of loan, you buy the shares and you recieve annual interest and the company buys them back at some point in the future after a specified date at a slightly higher price than they were originally sold for.

[SteveA]

Can I just ask one question before never posting here again, what exactly you all have got against GW?

I have seen posts saying 'I wish GW would just **** off and leave the hobby alone' (in other threads)

And 'the arch Satan of war gaming' - come on guys get a life! Unless this is supposed to be amusing it is ridiculous!

Do any of you really believe that Chapter House (or any other manufaturer of minis) is not in business to make money? And let's be even more direct about this, are the companies that are producing '40k alternative' minis doing anything other than free loading not having had to invest in rules/background development.

If you really don't like the models/rules/backgrond/company so much why not just go play some other game system?

[Wolfshade]

Hey SteveA, welcome aboard.

This question has been asked many a time. Usually on the GW is too expensive. It seems to be similiar people so either they are continuing to pay and play or they are just ovedrly angry about a company/game system that they don't use.

[SteveA]

Hey Wolfshade, thanks for this, much of what I read here recently is just so negative when my experience of the hobby is very different. Had a great game in my local GW last week, a 'let's roll some dice' game - 750 points, one hour and just a blast!

[Magpie]

Hey Wolfshade, thanks for this, much of what I read here recently is just so negative when my experience of the hobby is very different. Had a great game in my local GW last week, a 'let's roll some dice' game - 750 points, one hour and just a blast!

Sadly dude the negativity is spread through out the net. Some forums sites, like this one and another I belong to are pretty even handed in how tehy talk about GW, others (which I am NOT a member of) are somewhat more militant in their approach to GW.

The problem stems from having a passionate, generally more immature consumer base that has to interact with a large BUSINESS. Some people tend to forget hat GW has differing goals to us and sometimes get a bit recalcitrant when GW doesn't pander to their wishes. Often that leads to tantrums.

But don't let that get you down, lots the crew here have a much more rational approach to things, stick around.

[Denzark]

Can I just ask one question before never posting here again, what exactly you all have got against GW?

I have seen posts saying 'I wish GW would just **** off and leave the hobby alone' (in other threads)

And 'the arch Satan of war gaming' - come on guys get a life! Unless this is supposed to be amusing it is ridiculous!

Do any of you really believe that Chapter House (or any other manufaturer of minis) is not in business to make money? And let's be even more direct about this, are the companies that are producing '40k alternative' minis doing anything other than free loading not having had to invest in rules/background development.

If you really don't like the models/rules/backgrond/company so much why not just go play some other game system?

Steve A - fret not, my 'arch-satan' comment was tongue in cheek - being British by birth and English by the grace of God, sarcasm and irony are high forms of amusement to petite ancien moi.

[Psychosplodge]

Steve A - fret not, my 'arch-satan' comment was tongue in cheek - being British by birth and English by the grace of God, sarcasm and irony are high forms of amusement to petite ancien moi.

I always thought it was English by Birth, Yorkshireman by the grace of God....

[Wolfshade]

I always thought it was English by Birth, Yorkshireman by the grace of God....

Reminds me of a sermon I once heard. "In the beging God created Yorkshire, he then created the lesser surrounding areas to put into context how great it was."

[Psychosplodge]

Reminds me of a sermon I once heard. "In the beginning God created Yorkshire, he then created the lesser surrounding areas to put into context how great it was."

Sounds about right.

[Mr Mystery]

British by Birth, English by cruel jape of an uncaring celestial being more like.....

[Psychosplodge]

British by Birth, English by cruel jape of an uncaring celestial being more like.....

aww. shush you :D

[bfmusashi]

At least you're not Welsh. We can trust you around the sheep.

[Wolfshade]

At least you're not Welsh. We can trust you around the sheep.
There once was a man from rotherham I knew of that had garnered a reputation for such things.

[Psychosplodge]

Rotherham's probably as inbred as wales...

[Wolfshade]

What's the best thing about Rotherham? The A6178...

[Mr Mystery]

There once was a man from rotherham I knew of that had garnered a reputation for such things.

Limerick fail there Wolfie. It doesn't even rhyme.

[Wolfshade]

Limerick fail there Wolfie. It doesn't even rhyme.

There once was a man from Rotherham
Who took more interest in sheep than he should have done
The ram came along
and bit off his dong
Now he can't watch sheep without pain agun.

[Denzark]

Warning! Do NOT give up the day job...

[Wildeybeast]

Good to see the horsemen have taken charge of what was a pointlessly repetitive and uninformative thread. Whilst we can bicker about which English county is the best (the correct answer is Derbyshire) all day long, we should always be grateful that we weren't born a few miles across the channel.

[Mr Mystery]

Did you just call me a puff?

[Wolfshade]

Good to see the horsemen have taken charge of what was a pointlessly repetitive and uninformative thread. Whilst we can bicker about which English county is the best (the correct answer is Derbyshire) all day long, we should always be grateful that we weren't born a few miles across the channel.

We must stop the Burtonisation of our Beer now!

The limerick works better if you miss pronounce words Rotherum, dun and agun hmm, I'll stick to modeling for advantage.

[Wildeybeast]

Did you just call me a puff?

Not that I'm aware of. Unless you are French, in which case, yes. Yes I did.


We must stop the Burtonisation of our Beer now!

You mean making it good? :confused: Why would you want to stop that?

[Mr Mystery]

Did you my puff a pint? You spill wor lass?

[Wolfshade]

Ok, I do like Burton beers and I can't really object to the perfect water for beer to be fair. Though it is nice to have something else from time to time. Imagine if Scotch all used the same water it would be quite boring.

[Psychosplodge]

Good to see the horsemen have taken charge of what was a pointlessly repetitive and uninformative thread. Whilst we can bicker about which English county is the best (the correct answer is Derbyshire) all day long, we should always be grateful that we weren't born a few miles across the channel.

You're entitled to your wrong opinion :D

Though of course you're right when it comes to the channel. We should be glad we weren't born the wrong side of the water...

[Deadlift]

Your all very wrong, Devon of course is the best place not just in the UK, but the world.

Thank god this tedious thread had been derailed. So many posters who seem to turn into Stocks and Shares experts using google. Most if not all have done a great job of knowing feck all about everything. :D

[Psychosplodge]

Devon's nice but you have too much sun...

[Wolfshade]

Devon's nice but you have too much sun...

And far too close to Cornwall...

Anyway, we've been through the arguments before and it was proven that Birmingham (or greater birminghamshire) is the best place in the world.

[Psychosplodge]

And far too close to Cornwall...

Anyway, we've been through the arguments before and it was proven that Birmingham (or greater birminghamshire) is the best place in the world.

I don't recall this being proved.

[Wolfshade]

I don't recall this being proved.

You were too busy playing with your cutlery...

[Psychosplodge]

You were too busy playing with your cutlery...

:p

You were too busy doing whatever it is you do instead...

[Wolfshade]

:p

You were too busy doing whatever it is you do instead...

Modeling for advantage?

Eating pie?

Being almost killed by busses?

Very important Yorkshire news: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/leeds-bellringers-in-national-glory-bid-1-5755077

[Psychosplodge]

That's practically east lancashire...

[Wolfshade]

It's ok, they wo'n't win.

[Psychosplodge]

:D

Are you entering?

[Wolfshade]

Not good enough. Which given my prowess is quite a scary admission.

[Psychosplodge]

Let down by the team?

[Wolfshade]

I'm not good enough to represent the Birmingham Team, who are probably the favourites to win. I think they have won more times than they have lost.

[Psychosplodge]

So not much to do in Birmingham? :D

[Wolfshade]

Less than 200 out of 1 million (http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/where-have-all-the-birmingham-bell-ringers-gone-153218)

[Psychosplodge]

I suppose that means there's plenty of venues for you?

[Wolfshade]

About 40. There are slightly more but that includes 3s and 4s which you don't do.
To put that into perspective across the whole Yorkshire area there are 50 places to ring just tonight.

[Deadlift]

Wolfie, you ring bells ?

I'm trying not to go for "carry on" humour here.

[Wolfshade]

Yes, it is the original heavy metal.

Also I figure I wouldn't get enough stick for being a table top wargamer so figured what else I could do to become less cool.

[Mr Mystery]

Vote Tory? That's pretty uncool.

But not UKIP. That makes you an illegitimate.

[daboarder]

Nevermind

[Deadlift]

Vote Tory? That's pretty uncool.

But not UKIP. That makes you an illegitimate.

Pffft stay back looney leftie :p

[Mr Mystery]

Swivel eyed loon! Swivel eyed loon!

[Wolfshade]

Swivel eyed loon! Swivel eyed loon!



That's the kind of wooly-headed liberal thinking that leads to being eaten

[Mr Mystery]

Fascist!

Haven't you got some poor disabled lesbians of ethnicity you should be kicking?

[Wolfshade]

Fascist!

Haven't you got some poor disabled lesbians of ethnicity you should be deporting?

FTFY :)

Interesting fact, the symbol of facism is twigs tied around an axe handle, these were originally carried by Lictors...

[Mr Mystery]

FTFY? Ermm.....huh?

Interesting Fact....the right wing can be downright scary. Sadly, the Left has the like of G8 protestors :(

[Wolfshade]

FTFY? Ermm.....huh?

Interesting Fact....the right wing can be downright scary. Sadly, the Left has the like of G8 protestors :(

Worryingly so; as has been shown in the last century across euro in times of depression extreme views thrive.

[Mr Mystery]

Indeed.

Still. G8 Protestors can sod off, and only come back when they have come up with a novel, practicable alternative to global capitalism. It's beyond me personally.

Or they can get a job and make an actual tangible difference. And I mean more than just not washing.

[Psychosplodge]

FTFY? Ermm.....huh?

Interesting Fact....the right wing can be downright scary. Sadly, the Left has the like of UAF :(

FTFY

I know which bunch of nutters gave the the SO a panic attack on Saturday

[Mr Mystery]

SO? Damn your acronyms!

[Psychosplodge]

Significant other? GF? Girlfriend?

[Wolfshade]

SO? Damn your acronyms!

S0 - lenticular galaxy
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/File-Ngc5866_hst_big.png/292px-File-Ngc5866_hst_big.png

[Alqualonde]

Good to see the horsemen have taken charge of what was a pointlessly repetitive and uninformative thread. Whilst we can bicker about which English county is the best (the correct answer is Derbyshire) all day long, we should always be grateful that we weren't born a few miles across the channel.

By best I can only assume you mean least bad?

[Wildeybeast]

By best I can only assume you mean least bad?

That sort of talk sounds distinctly unpatriotic. Though I'd expect nothing less from you rebellious colonial types.

[bfmusashi]

You'd think we were still under the crown given the American Broadcasting Company's love of the royal family.

[Mr Mystery]

Yes.....you'd think......

[Wildeybeast]

You'd think we were still under the crown given the American Broadcasting Company's love of the royal family.

They are just representing the desire of the people. We all saw the entire female staff of your government fawning over Harry recently. And he's the illegitimate ginger one, God knows what you lot would be like if Kate and Wills came to see you.

[bfmusashi]

They did that as part of their post wedding tour>.>

[Wildeybeast]

We call it a honeymoon.

[Alqualonde]

I see that there has been a increase in the holdings of Nomad Investments past the threshold of 15% in GW. Not sure of the significance of this under UK listing requirements. In South Africa crossing a threshold can trigger a forced offer to buy the company.