PDA

View Full Version : GW Corporate



Magos Telok
11-29-2013, 01:54 AM
Interesting item:
http://www.stockmarketwire.com/article/4714439/Games-Workshop-strengthens-its-board.html
Her specialty is mergers and acquisitions.

Bigred
11-29-2013, 09:02 AM
Games Workshop has appointed Elaine O'Donnell as a non-executive director with immediate effect. A chartered accountant by profession, until recently she was a corporate finance partner with EY.

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=68572387&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=LZ4l&locale=en_US&srchid=75166381385736914973&srchindex=5&srchtotal=37&trk=vsrp_people_res_name&trkInfo=VSRPsearchId%3A75166381385736914973%2CVSRP targetId%3A68572387%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary

Elaine O’Donnell steps down from Ernst & Young (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/professionals/elaine-odonnell-steps-down-from-ernst-800136)

The 42-year-old has spent 15 years at the firm's Manchester office, during which time she has advised on deals worth more than £2bn.

Elaine joined E&Y in 1997 as a manager, having trained with PwC and is the only female mergers and acquisitions partner at a big four firm in Manchester...

Wolfshade
11-29-2013, 09:13 AM
Surely this should go here: http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/forumdisplay.php?122-Wargames-Corporate-Discussion

As this is a discussion of the corporate structure of GW, not a discussion of 40k explicitly.

But it is an interesting move, the question is is this strengthening for a merger, or for an aquisition, either being aquired or aquirining.

Psychosplodge
11-29-2013, 09:45 AM
Either way it doesn't necessarily bode well for the future.

Wolfshade
11-29-2013, 09:49 AM
Nor specifically does it bode ill. It is curious.

A non-executive role so the board control nominally does not alter.

GAW.L 732.60 2.60(0.36%) @14:49. So the shares are up though fractionally. I would suggest the stock market doesn't really care about this change.

eldargal
11-29-2013, 09:50 AM
It doesn't bode poorly either, we have nowhere near enough information to make any kind of judgement. However:

'GW Purchases Privateer Press; Mass Fanboy Head Explosions Reported'

would make my year.:p

Wolfshade
11-29-2013, 10:05 AM
It doesn't bode poorly either, we have nowhere near enough information to make any kind of judgement. However:

'GW Purchases Privateer Press; Mass Fanboy Head Explosions Reported'

would make my year.:p

That would be awesome.

Then of course GW release a special model for Wammarhordes "Troll"

Deadlift
11-29-2013, 10:11 AM
It doesn't bode poorly either, we have nowhere near enough information to make any kind of judgement. However:

'GW Purchases Privateer Press; Mass Fanboy Head Explosions Reported'

would make my year.:p

Take over like you've got a pair.

Mr Mystery
11-29-2013, 10:46 AM
BWahahaha!

I suspect it may be more of the acquistions thing if that's what they've hired her for. Not really sure there's anyone in the same industry that they'd be better off merged with.

And I too would wet myself if they buy up PP, especially if they then promptly bury the games in a Microsoft stylee! :p

But back to thinking rationally (I know, I know).... could be she's a new shield system against acquisition and mergers. Because if you know how to do them, you know how to avoid them/delay them I'd guess.

Psychosplodge
11-29-2013, 01:15 PM
Well the easiest way is to retain 20% of the shares so as not to allow anyone to trigger a buyback?

But who knows?

Lexington
11-29-2013, 02:38 PM
I don't think GW's got anything to worry about, re: being acquired against the board's will. Unless things have changed quite a bit lately, GW's primarily owned by a handful of investment firms. If they don't want the company to be merged or acquired, it won't be. However, there's been a lot of talk in the last year or two of GW acting like they want to be bought. That might just have some truth to it.

xcom
11-29-2013, 03:11 PM
It doesn't bode poorly either, we have nowhere near enough information to make any kind of judgement. However:

'GW Purchases Privateer Press; Mass Fanboy Head Explosions Reported'

would make my year.:p

I know you're just joking, but the reality is that would not happen. (At least not anytime soon.) Privateer Press is a privately held company. So unless Matt Wilson decides to sell off the company, that's never could happen.

Serphi
11-29-2013, 03:54 PM
Perhaps it could be something as simple as GW wanting to merge in one of its sub companies into the parent. Maybe merging Forgeworld into GW.

Cpt Codpiece
11-29-2013, 04:03 PM
Perhaps it could be something as simple as GW wanting to merge in one of its sub companies into the parent. Maybe merging Forgeworld into GW.

look at the bottom of FW web pages.

FW is and always has been part of GW, they were separate entities as businesses so that the specialist items would have no reflection on the main core company..... like if they tanked (bah dum tisst) it would have little fallout on GW as a whole.

Serphi
11-29-2013, 04:29 PM
look at the bottom of FW web pages.

FW is and always has been part of GW, they were separate entities as businesses so that the specialist items would have no reflection on the main core company..... like if they tanked (bah dum tisst) it would have little fallout on GW as a whole.

I know that GW already own FW, however there is a lot of legal tape around abolishing the identity of a sub company to take it into its parent. She is a merger specialist as much as she is a acquisitions specialist it seems.

Just a speculation!

Mr Mystery
11-29-2013, 04:59 PM
I know you're just joking, but the reality is that would not happen. (At least not anytime soon.) Privateer Press is a privately held company. So unless Matt Wilson decides to sell off the company, that's never could happen.

To counter that one, without suggesting some conspiracy, every man has his price.

Wildeybeast
11-30-2013, 03:17 AM
Maybe they are thinking the would be better off if they owned one of the licensed games companies, rather than receiving royalties? Owning the likes of fantasy flight or their computer games developer would creat a lot of interesting business opportunities.

eldargal
11-30-2013, 05:30 AM
I know you're just joking, but the reality is that would not happen. (At least not anytime soon.) Privateer Press is a privately held company. So unless Matt Wilson decides to sell off the company, that's never could happen.

It's extremely unlikely certainly and while Mr Mystery is correct that they could effectively drive a truckload of money to the door of the owner(s) of PP it probably wouldn't be worthwhile their doing so.

Wolfshade
12-01-2013, 05:30 PM
Yes most of GW competitors seem to be converting the existing GW base, rather than expanding the wargaming base as an whole.

weeble1000
12-02-2013, 01:42 PM
Forge World is not a sub company. It is Games Workshop. That can't be why she was brought in. And I seriously doubt GW is in any sort of position to be acquiring a worthwhile competitor. It is a good bet she was retained in connection with GW being acquired by another company, like Hasbro, for example.

Much of GW's aberrant behavior in the past 12+ months can easily be explained by GW preparing itself for acquisition or attempting to attract a buyer.

This is simply another piece that fits pretty well into the now-rapidly forming puzzle. I'm not saying this is the only explanation, mind, simply one that fits with the facts, and I have not seen any evidence that makes the above inference unreasonable. I happen to think that it is also the most likely scenario.

Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 are and will remain valuable pieces of property, almost entirely regardless of how Kirby chooses to manage the company. GW won't license its rights in any meaningful way, especially to a big dog, so if a serious company out there (like Hasbro) wants that property it probably means acquiring GW in its entirety, which I suspect the board and especially Kirby would be only too willing to agree to.

Psychosplodge
12-02-2013, 05:14 PM
I thought Kirby had gone?

eldargal
12-03-2013, 12:21 AM
The problem I have with the expected merger stuff is that people have been saying it for twenty years, there were even people say it becoming a publically listed company was in anticipation of a giant pay-off when it was then acquired by Hasbro. I mean that isn't to say it won't happen but if it does it won't be a case of 'we were right' but 'we said something for twenty years and it coincidentally came true'.

Yes, Kirby has left.

daboarder
12-03-2013, 12:34 AM
The problem I have with the expected merger stuff is that people have been saying it for twenty years, there were even people say it becoming a publically listed company was in anticipation of a giant pay-off when it was then acquired by Hasbro. I mean that isn't to say it won't happen but if it does it won't be a case of 'we were right' but 'we said something for twenty years and it coincidentally came true'.

Yes, Kirby has left.

Caveat, To those in the business (my father among them, being a CFO) a lot of the things GW has been doing for the last 10 years HAS looked like they are driving up their price to sell the company.....at least from an investment perspective. (however this isn't in regards to their sale decisions but more things such as their control of the share price by limiting access to the stock and minimizing their exposure to the price of metals, so your point still kinda stands)

lattd
12-03-2013, 03:56 AM
I'm pretty sure GW could afford a few of their competitors, GW has a ridiculously low debt, £10 million gross profits on £125 million gross. I'm sure they could afford wyrd or infinity.

Wolfshade
12-03-2013, 04:14 AM
The question is why would they bother. GW is all about expanding it's market, not necessarily expanding it's market share. Reading on various fora and it becomes self evident most players of these alternative systems were WFB/40k players at some point.

The other thing to consider daborder is that by minimising their exposure to metal price fluctuations they are controlling their external factors and securing a profitablility margin. Also by minising the availability of stock, firstly it can inflate the current shareholders value of their shares, which for the board and share holders is a good thing, the other side to that is that they create a fairly stable market without risking exposure to the whims of fisical markets.

weeble1000
12-03-2013, 11:44 AM
Okay, so when did we learn that Tom Kirby has left GW? See, if you look on this page (http://investor.games-workshop.com/the-board-of-directors/), it clearly states that Tom Kirby is both chariman and acting CEO. This page was updated, at the latest, on November 28th, as it lists Elaine O'Donnell as as an independent director. I would love to be enlightened.

weeble1000
12-03-2013, 11:53 AM
The problem I have with the expected merger stuff is that people have been saying it for twenty years, there were even people say it becoming a publically listed company was in anticipation of a giant pay-off when it was then acquired by Hasbro. I mean that isn't to say it won't happen but if it does it won't be a case of 'we were right' but 'we said something for twenty years and it coincidentally came true'.

Yes, Kirby has left.

I haven't been saying for 20 years Eldargal. I have been saying it for about 6 months or so. And pointing out that people have been saying it for years is not evidence that makes the inference unreasonable. I think you understand that, but I am emphasizing this for clarity.

And I agree with Wolfshade. GW may have the cash...well GW could go into debt...to buy a company like Wyrd, but GW is not in a position to do so because there is not enough to be gained from such an acquisition. GW does not want to saddle itself with another game, that much is clear, so the only reason GW would acquire a company like PP or Wyrd would be to remove competition. GW does not feel such competition is even competition, much less a threat, so why would the company go into debt to buy something that it believes has no value.

At the same time, companies like PP and Wyrd are privately owned, are expanding, and are doing well financially from what we can tell. They would know an acquisition would mean the death or castration of the products that they have worked hard for years to build, and they are also made up of folks who arguably have a less than stellar opinion of the folks at GW HQ. Consequently, GW would probably have to pay something above reasonable value to acquire one of those companies.

GW is not in a position to acquire a company like Wyrd or Privateer Press.

DarkLink
12-03-2013, 01:33 PM
Eldargal never said that you yourself said that. She said that people in general have been saying that. You are not legion.

weeble1000
12-03-2013, 02:48 PM
Eldargal never said that you yourself said that. She said that people in general have been saying that. You are not legion.

I made a prediction.

Eldargal indirectly responded to my prediction by stating that she believed there to be a "problem" with it and explained that the problem related to the prediction having been made for a long time without ever thus far being correct. She lumped those that have made such a prediction together as a collective that has been making said prediction for 20 years, which can simply be taken as her making a point about the reliability of predictions based on a scanty amount of data, confirmation bias, etc., and need not have been taken literally.

I responded by amiably pointing out that my prediction is inherently unrelated to the prior predictions of others.

This was not a confrontational dialog, nor am I claiming to speak for everyone. Eldargal was however most likely responding to what I had written, which is perfectly fine, but in doing so she inherently lumped me together with the "we" who had been saying the same thing for 20 years. She made a fine point, understanding, as I expect, that my prediction is not related to the prior predictions of others and not intending to be taken literally.

I merely made explicit the point that I am independent of her rhetorical "we" for the benefit of folks such as yourself.

I am sure that Eldargal can shed some light on this matter.

DarkLink
12-03-2013, 02:56 PM
Ah, I see what you meant. As you wrote it, it sounded like you were claiming that when eldargal said people, you thought she meant you.

Also, if you're being amniable, you should probably start sounding like it. I've seen your posts in other threads, and despite your claim here from what I've seen you consistantly sound condescending and argumentative. Maybe you don't mean to come off that way, but don't talk **** when you're being hypocritical.

weeble1000
12-03-2013, 03:11 PM
Ah, I see what you meant. As you wrote it, it sounded like you were claiming that when eldargal said people, you thought she meant you.

Also, if you're being amniable, you should probably start sounding like it. I've seen your posts in other threads, and despite your claim here from what I've seen you consistantly sound condescending and argumentative. Maybe you don't mean to come off that way, but don't talk **** when you're being hypocritical.

Don't talk **** if you don't want to get talked **** to.

See, I talked **** to you because you talked **** to me. I did not talk **** to Eldargal because while we have differing opinions I have found her to be polite, cogent, informative, and civil even while vehemently disagreeing. Thus I endeavor to respond in kind.

There's no reason for discussions to devolve, and it is posts like your that encourage such devolution. Did you really have to leap in dramatically and defend Eldargal from a fairly benign response on my part? You went straight to pointing out that I was wrong without couching that statement in much of any civility.

Maybe you could have started with 'I don't think Eldargal was responding to you in particular. I think she was just making a broader point about these buyout predictions.'

If you were concerned about my tone you could have added something like, 'I could be wrong, but it seems like you feel she was insulting you or something, and I do not think she intended to do so'.

Then you could have added something productive and constructive to the discussion like, 'I do agree with what Eldargal said. I personally think that these predictions of a buyout are rather premature. There isn't very much data to go on, not that I have seen at any rate, and it seems an awful lot like wishful thinking to me.'

There's a difference between something like that and what you wrote, which is objectively antagonistic on the page regardless of how one decides to interpret it.

Let's break it down:

The entirety of your post was an attempt to pick out one part of what I wrote and demonstrate that I was objectively incorrect, leaving open no possibility for the error to in fact be yours in any way, shape, or form. As written, you were telling me that I am wrong and you are right.

Second, my response was to Eldargal's post, not yours. This implies that you went out of your way to assert your rightness and my wrongness.

To top it all off, you threw in the statement "You are not legion," which clearly implies that I am in some way self absorbed, grandiose, narcissistic, puffed up, etc. and so forth. The implication was that I believed that I am in fact "legion," which again represented you telling me that I am wrong, only in a more insulting manner.

I think your post was unnecessary, aggressive, and unproductive. That is a pretty terrible trifecta. But you are absolutely right that I have a more aggressive tone on BOLS Lounge than anywhere else on the internet. This is because the posts on BOLS are on the whole both far less constructive and informed than those on other wargaming forums and on the whole more antagonistic and aggressive on top of that.

Most of the time when I post something, even something incredibly benign, on BOLS it is met with derision, insults, umbrage, and hyperbole. This is simply another example. You went right for the throat; jumped right in with you're wrong, I'm right. That kind of behavior is a great way to start arguments.

With more than 8,000 posts under your belt, you should be aware of how to engage in respectful dialog with people of differing opinions. But as you seem to have trouble with that, your 8,000+ post count is a really strong indication of why the BOLS Loung writ large seems to have such a negative and antagonistic atmosphere.

Maybe you should consider the manner in which you post and think about the impact that has on the quality of the discussion on the forums you seem to clearly enjoy so well.

DarkLink
12-03-2013, 05:54 PM
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSrUcKsAPoD9Yoir56DWWnFMqrlzE37V ijyIrjhgsOGI9nw-iL-

Well, not really worth derailing the thread with a flame war. Chill out, dude, it's the internet. Try not to take it too seriously.

weeble1000
12-03-2013, 06:12 PM
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSrUcKsAPoD9Yoir56DWWnFMqrlzE37V ijyIrjhgsOGI9nw-iL-

Well, not really worth derailing the thread with a flame war. Chill out, dude, it's the internet. Try not to take it too seriously.

This is quite amusing. See, you were the first to make an antagonistic post, and you were the first to asterisk out profanity. Pretend to take the high road all you like, but just because I wrote more than you did does not mean I escalated anything, and it does not mean I am the one being antagonistic and profane. And a plea to not take the internets seriously is pretty amusing coming from the guy who A) jumped in half cocked to attack a perfectly polite response to someone else's post and B) accuses someone of talking **** when being hypocritical.


Eldargal never said that you yourself said that. She said that people in general have been saying that. You are not legion.


Maybe you don't mean to come off that way, but don't talk **** when you're being hypocritical.

You want to see escalation, hypocricy, and antagonism, all you have to do is read your posts.

DarkLink
12-03-2013, 08:54 PM
My first post was no more intended to insult than your response to eldargal. If it pissed you off, well, my bad, but considering your overwrought response I don't really feel bad. Your response to my response sounded condescending, and in your own words, which I see you edited away, was "not amniable". So I said, more or less, 'dude, don't be a dick'. If you don't feel like you were being rude, then my bad, but then your next post literally accused me of singlehandedly causing an atmosphere of "less constructive, less informed, more aggressive, and antagonistic" on bols, which I think is actually the most insulting thing anyone has ever said to me on this forum. So, meh. If you want to jump to conclusions about me as a person, go right ahead. I don't mind. I didn't really mean to say anything more than 'chill out, you're sounding kinda rude, and then you're being kinda hypocritical for accusing other people of sounding rude while you're sounding kinda rude'. If you take such personal offense to that that you feel like writing essays on how terrible I am as a person, then carry on, I guess. But holding grudges is probably bad for your blood pressure.

Anyways, with how secretive GW tends to be, and if as daboarder says GW has consistently managed themselves to maximize their stock as if prepping for a merger or acquisition, then without hearing anything specific I personally wouldn't make any calls. Then again, I'm generally more of a wait and see sort of guy.

(pssst, it's really actually daboarder who's dragging bols down, that guy's a total ***, just look at his signature;) :p).

weeble1000
12-03-2013, 09:22 PM
I see you are continuing the "flame war" you felt was off topic.

I explained why your first post was aggressive, insulting, and completely unproductive. It's fairly objective and not a matter of opinion. If you wanted to tell me to chill, I already explained how there was a far more polite way to do that. You respond with insults and profanity and you think that isn't dragging down the forum?

And there was no need to tell me to chill in the first place. My post was perfectly polite. If you feel the need to jump in when there's absolutely no need to and reprimand someone for no good reason, how does that promote healthy discussion. My response to you was indeed a bit condescending, but if you are going to wade in swinging you should be able to take a little chaffing in response without resorting to profanity and insults. If you can't, we'll, with 8,000 posts of that sort of behavior on these boards...what do you expect the environment to be like. Seriously, a little self evaluation goes a long way.

DarkLink
12-03-2013, 10:16 PM
I don't think that saying "hey, didn't really mean to insult you" counts as continuing a flame war. If you find me a little blunt and profane, less than a year ago I was literally a yes/no away from being an officer in the USMC, decided civil engineering was a better fit, and now I work on construction sites. It's a wonder I don't ******* swear after every ******* ************** word now. Though funnily enough, most of what I picked up from the OCS Marines was frikin'. They say it like a shy kid says 'ummm'. And then Gunnery Sergeant Yahzee said "doggon frikin' " after literally every other word. But at this point I'm kind of just rambling.

lattd
12-04-2013, 12:24 AM
I'm going to agree with they are not ramping up for a merger, I think they are just being much more efficient. Also people chill out a bit no need to get so aggressive I find bols is a very nice forum compared to many others, so let's try and keep it that way.

eldargal
12-04-2013, 04:04 AM
I made a prediction.

Eldargal indirectly responded to my prediction by stating that she believed there to be a "problem" with it and explained that the problem related to the prediction having been made for a long time without ever thus far being correct. She lumped those that have made such a prediction together as a collective that has been making said prediction for 20 years, which can simply be taken as her making a point about the reliability of predictions based on a scanty amount of data, confirmation bias, etc., and need not have been taken literally.

I responded by amiably pointing out that my prediction is inherently unrelated to the prior predictions of others.

This was not a confrontational dialog, nor am I claiming to speak for everyone. Eldargal was however most likely responding to what I had written, which is perfectly fine, but in doing so she inherently lumped me together with the "we" who had been saying the same thing for 20 years. She made a fine point, understanding, as I expect, that my prediction is not related to the prior predictions of others and not intending to be taken literally.

I merely made explicit the point that I am independent of her rhetorical "we" for the benefit of folks such as yourself.

I am sure that Eldargal can shed some light on this matter.

I wasn't really responding you actually, I was really just expressing my bemusement that this discussion has been going on so long with people seeing signs of possible pre-acquisition for so long. As I said that doesn't mean it won't happen, it may well happen and if it does I think it would probably be a good thing for the hobby (GW with the kind of capital Hasbro could invest into them...). I'm absolutely not saying 'ha! all you people saying it now are wrong because other people have been saying it since the early nineties!' I'm just amused that it's such a pervasive idea, it's nearly always Hasbro that is mentioned as well.:)

My personal opinion is that I am sceptical that GW are preparing for a merger, but that's only because I'm sceptical of any kind of armchair analysis of business dealings by community members however knowledgeable some may be (like yourself, weeble). This doesn't mean I take issue with people who think it will happen or that it is some kind of kneejerk defense of GW (which no one here has implied). I just think predicting the behaviour of GW is fraught with peril and the path littered with predictions that were wrong.:)

Mr Mystery
12-04-2013, 05:57 AM
It's also alleged to have happened months ago, according to unsubstantiated rumours.

But no official announcement. Which is required in the UK for plc's.

eldargal
12-04-2013, 06:18 AM
Yeah, when we get to the 'rumour of secret corporate meetings' I just stop reading.

Wolfshade
12-04-2013, 06:21 AM
Yeah, when we get to the 'rumour of secret corporate meetings' I just stop reading.

It is the lizard men using the builderberg group.

DarkLink
12-04-2013, 11:55 AM
We could retitle this thread 'Shocking news that GW doesn't want you to know!'

Whether or not GW is trying to get acquired, I don't know how much it will matter. It's not like GW doesn't already monetize the crap out of their IP. I don't think we're in danger of GW selling out.

lattd
12-04-2013, 01:18 PM
If someone was going to buy them it would have happened years ago, they are just too strong a company now, very few companies could afford to buy them. Hasbro, are probably the only two companies that would even consider it, imo.

DarkLink
12-04-2013, 03:59 PM
Does that rule out a merger of some sort?

Psychosplodge
12-04-2013, 05:43 PM
Okay, so when did we learn that Tom Kirby has left GW? See, if you look on this page (http://investor.games-workshop.com/the-board-of-directors/), it clearly states that Tom Kirby is both chariman and acting CEO. This page was updated, at the latest, on November 28th, as it lists Elaine O'Donnell as as an independent director. I would love to be enlightened.

Well someone at the top went, as there was a thread on here somewhere about it, that looked pretty similar to this one overall...

eldargal
12-05-2013, 12:53 AM
If someone was going to buy them it would have happened years ago, they are just too strong a company now, very few companies could afford to buy them. Hasbro, are probably the only two companies that would even consider it, imo.

That is a valid point. If someone was going to buy them, why not do it in 2008 when it;s share price was at an all time low? As opposed now where it's at a five year high and around the level it's only been at two other points in the companies history (1998 and 2005 just before the LOTR bubble burst).

lattd
12-05-2013, 03:21 AM
Yes I would say it does rule out a merger because who would merge with them? Hasbro would rather buy as GW are too small to merge with and GW is too large to merge with any other game designers in the market ATM.

Mr Mystery
12-07-2013, 10:23 AM
Seems the theory that they're preparing to sell up is based entirely on them being profitable and continuing to seek to increase turnover and profit both.

Or in other words, doing exactly what all other companies strive to do, all day every day.

Though for years now people have claimed without a shred of evidence that they've been cooking their books, simply because their published results (which by UK law have to be independently verified) shows year on year growth, as opposed to the bottomless spiral the interwebs claims GW is in....

lattd
12-07-2013, 11:24 AM
GW are a surprisingly good way of how to run a business, low debt high investment growth most years.

Mr Mystery
12-08-2013, 04:18 PM
Yup.

Given what happened in 2008, their personal crash came just in time. By the time it all went entirely tits up for everyone, they were well into the streamlining process, and had reduced their debt considerably (possibly entirely, memory doesn't serve that well).

The simple fact they continue to grow in this ongoing economic climate speaks volumes.

daboarder
12-08-2013, 08:50 PM
I always loved how people believed that a publicly listed company could sell itself without informing the shareholders....

Wolfshade
12-09-2013, 03:36 AM
The simple fact they continue to grow in this ongoing economic climate speaks volumes.

IIRC they actually decreased sales but increased profits, so I am not sure it counts as growth as that usualy implies market share/volume of sales.

But yes, being in this sector and increasing profitability is a very signifcant thing..

Psychosplodge
12-09-2013, 10:18 AM
IIRC they actually decreased sales but increased profits, so I am not sure it counts as growth as that usualy implies market share/volume of sales.

I'm pretty sure you're right, but it was definitely spun as growth...

Mr Mystery
12-10-2013, 03:09 PM
Growth is growth to the investor.

As well as increased prices and reduced overheads, there's also the reorganisation into plastic needs taking into account.

Take Monstrous Infantry as a good example. If I wanted three river trolls previously, I'd need to buy three blisters. That's potential three separate sales depending on the buyers pocket. But now, it's a single unit sale.

Ditto previously metal boxes for infantry. Typically came in fives. Now, it's tens. That alone will affect your unit for unit sales.

lattd
12-10-2013, 03:43 PM
On the decreased sales front I think many hobby members have got wiser and are maximising the kits now.

Wildeybeast
12-10-2013, 03:43 PM
Which is why those single boxes now cost more than three blisters. :p

Mr Mystery
12-11-2013, 12:36 AM
That's a fib and well you know it :p

Well. It is for some of them anyways!