PDA

View Full Version : Gw ks



Demiurg
22-06-2013, 12:10
This is purely theoretical could a KS theoretically make enough money to Buy GW ? or even a significant part to force other shareholders to bail out? which is about 30 percent as I understand

According to my understanding GW is roughly worth 235 million pounds with each share worth 740 pounds am I correct?

GraemePaul
22-06-2013, 12:30
This is purely theoretical could a KS theoretically make enough money to Buy GW ? or even a significant part to force other shareholders to bail out? which is about 30 percent as I understand

According to my understanding GW is roughly worth 235 million pounds with each share worth 740 pounds am I correct?



Shares are displayed in pence, not pounds so 740 is 7.40 per share. Most companies do not like the price of an individual share to exceed 100 as it makes the stock look expensive. When this happens they usually do a stock split which increases the shares In issue and reduces the price e.g. If a share is worth 100 and a company does a 1:100 stock split the investor will receive 100 new shares valued at 1

To answer your question. Would say no. Kick starter is unlikely to raise enough capital to even purchase a controlling interest. Also, share prices have a tendency to increase if the market knows someone is trying to get that controlling interest (supply and demand) so it could end up significantly more expensive then it appears at first.

Kalidane
22-06-2013, 12:48
This is purely theoretical could a KS theoretically make enough money to Buy GW ? or even a significant part to force other shareholders to bail out? which is about 30 percent as I understand

According to my understanding GW is roughly worth 235 million pounds with each share worth 740 pounds am I correct?


Theoretically, yes of course.

Buuut it wouldn't get there with hobbyists chipping in a couple thousand pounds each. It would require parties with serious money. People with serious money don't like setting fire to sacks of cash (unless it's Guy Fawkes night) so they would be looking at it as an investment. These monied parties would need to put in place a super-duper management team with a plan so cunning that even Blackadder could not characterise it. We're talking level 9000 here.

Pages could be written but in short GW is too expensive for what could be done with it. In practical terms such a KS would not get the kind of money required.

the anti santa
22-06-2013, 13:19
Why not do a Kickstarter to create a brand new wargaming company?

You could let the GW General run it and I'm sure the company would easily dominate the market.

SVKBaki
22-06-2013, 13:49
I would love to see a GW kickstarter and the amount of internet rage which will cause :) Rather than controlling GW I would rather have kickstarter which would make Avatars of War bigger company and on par with GW, that would be awesome.

ehlijen
22-06-2013, 15:51
How exactly would a KS project gain a controlling share in GW? Wouldn't it be many people paying a little money to get a lot of shares collectively? Ie many people buying a few shares each? Or do you intend to have all shares bought through this kickstarter under one direct controlling party?

In that case, the big question would not be whether you can raise the money but if anyone can convince enough people that they and they alone should be in charge of GW.

Then there is the problem of shares not magically going to whoever wants them. There is a limited supply and for every share you want, you first have to get someone to sell it to you. Once your intentions become clear, that will get very difficult.

Chaos and Evil
22-06-2013, 20:06
Why not do a Kickstarter to create a brand new wargaming company?

You could let the GW General run it and I'm sure the company would easily dominate the market.

I volunteer to be in charge!

Kalidane
22-06-2013, 21:27
How exactly would a KS project gain a controlling share in GW? Wouldn't it be many people paying a little money to get a lot of shares collectively? Ie many people buying a few shares each? Or do you intend to have all shares bought through this kickstarter under one direct controlling party?

In that case, the big question would not be whether you can raise the money but if anyone can convince enough people that they and they alone should be in charge of GW.

Then there is the problem of shares not magically going to whoever wants them. There is a limited supply and for every share you want, you first have to get someone to sell it to you. Once your intentions become clear, that will get very difficult.

I imagine the funds raised by such a venture would go into an LLP which would purchase and vote the shares. The managing partner would be predetermined at the outset. With a reasonable % of GW that person would join the board. In the event of 100% acquisition and taking GW private, the LLP would be appointing all board members and it would be the board which fires the entirety of middle and upper management to build anew.

Yes, the shares would be bought from existing shareholders. Acquiring the shares would be no more difficult than any other acquisition of any other public company. Cheaper to execute after the New Line agreement ends and unit sales on all lines are demonstrably in freefall. I think it's safe to assume that most external shareholders are in it for the dividends. When GW has 6 quarters of deteriorating metrics shareholders will be begging to have the shares taken off their hands. And the share price won't have a '7' in front either.

Agree with SVKBaki that it would be far more fun to fund an outfit like Avatars of War.

the anti santa
23-06-2013, 18:45
I volunteer to be in charge!

With that username aren't you already running GW?

Chaos and Evil
23-06-2013, 19:32
With that username aren't you already running GW?
Aww what a nice thing to say. :-)

outbreak
24-06-2013, 03:22
I think a new company is more feasible and more likely.

Autumn Leaves
24-06-2013, 09:06
Put Ronnie Renton in charge and let him incorporate it under the Mantic wing and bring Paul Sawyer back into the fold.

ac4155
24-06-2013, 10:24
Put Ronnie Renton in charge and let him incorporate it under the Mantic wing and bring Paul Sawyer back into the fold.

I'd rather see GW move forward and develop with some new talent, than just bringing back ex-employees.

Chaos and Evil
24-06-2013, 10:40
Put Ronnie Renton in charge and let him incorporate it under the Mantic wing and bring Paul Sawyer back into the fold.
No fair, I called dibs first!

(is this topic OT enough to be locked yet?)

blongbling
24-06-2013, 12:53
IN theory you could have a KS to raise funds, where things would get sticky is that you are then using that cash to buy a company which could cause a legal nightmare.

Avatar_exADV
25-06-2013, 04:29
Wouldn't work. The share price would tend to increase in direct proportion to the size of the KS - if the market knew that $20 million would be spent on GW shares in the next week, it would drive up the price of those shares, making your attempted takeover fall short.

You'd literally have a better chance of winning the lotto and using THAT money to buy GW.

blackcherry
25-06-2013, 11:13
Wouldn't work. The share price would tend to increase in direct proportion to the size of the KS - if the market knew that $20 million would be spent on GW shares in the next week, it would drive up the price of those shares, making your attempted takeover fall short.

You'd literally have a better chance of winning the lotto and using THAT money to buy GW.

Thats a very good point and even if it were sucessful, what if people do not want to see their shares? Would people want some random internet guy they don't know having a controlling stake in a business they like (unless of course there were rewards such as a share percentage relative to what people paid into the kickstarter). Also, for the amount needed, I cannon see it being sucessful. The Veronica Mars kickstarter was very popular and has been one of the most sucessful kickstarters out there, but I doubt there would be enough interest from people to reach even that goal. GW is a niche part of an niche hobby.

Reinholt
25-06-2013, 14:46
A few notes...

1 - Your timing is off. Wait until GW starts losing enough people that they reduce dividends or lose money. Buy when there is blood in the street.

2 - In theory, raising money should push the price of the shares up, but there are also ways around this; the first of them is discipline. You would need someone who understood trading and portfolio management, as if you are willing to buy shares, but not at any price (or perhaps not even higher than some predetermined price), you can limit price inflation (rather, you just put a floor under things).

3 - The structure for this kind of thing would need to be some kind of LLC where all the people who contributed money were shareholders, but the actual shares were voted by a single individual with some understanding of corporate governance. This is how mutual funds are supposed to work, but in reality, most PMs couldn't care less about the voting / shareholder rights part.

Horus38
25-06-2013, 15:07
3 - The structure for this kind of thing would need to be some kind of LLC where all the people who contributed money were shareholders, but the actual shares were voted by a single individual with some understanding of corporate governance. This is how mutual funds are supposed to work, but in reality, most PMs couldn't care less about the voting / shareholder rights part.

All good points, but I did want to point out that mutual funds do not usually conform to this kind of structure. The prospectus would lay out what the goals of the funds are and what constraints are placed on the portfolio manager. There really isn't any "voting" structure in place for mutual fund shareholders.

Reinholt
25-06-2013, 16:28
All good points, but I did want to point out that mutual funds do not usually conform to this kind of structure. The prospectus would lay out what the goals of the funds are and what constraints are placed on the portfolio manager. There really isn't any "voting" structure in place for mutual fund shareholders.

I mean that mutual funds hold securities, and the owners of the fund hold a proportional interest in those securities. Also, typically the company running the fund does the voting for their shares (though this is not always true, thanks to the proliferation of weird and entertaining laws and practices in finance).

redben
27-06-2013, 09:24
Would KS even sanction this? It seems to fall well outside their remit.

xxRavenxx
27-06-2013, 11:25
Would KS even sanction this? It seems to fall well outside their remit.

I doubt they would, but Indiegogo specialise in these kinds of things.

It still wouldn't work though. The notion of a bitter webforum raising the millions needed to buy GW, then handing it over to some random guy the like is crazy...

If people had the money to do this, a better method would be to arrange to all buy your own shares, and then start putting in votes for changes. (People don't have the money to do this though...)

Reinholt
27-06-2013, 16:13
(People don't have the money to do this though...)

Or have more profitable things to do with the money. Unless you really want to get deep into the weeds and rebuild the thing, GW is not a compelling investment opportunity.

xxRavenxx
28-06-2013, 09:59
Or have more profitable things to do with the money. Unless you really want to get deep into the weeds and rebuild the thing, GW is not a compelling investment opportunity.

True that.

Do you a) invest thousands in a toy soldier company because you don't like what they've done to your favorite game, or b) suck it up and get some property. I know I'd like a house more than I'd like to GIVE the money to someone to let them run GW (most likely in exactly the same way it runs now, once they've consulted the accountant).

ratlingwei
01-07-2013, 14:55
I'm sorry, I guess things are different outside Norway as here GW prices has remained stable and many GW products are actually cheaper than 10 years ago, and if you take inflation and wage increase into account they are alot cheaper.

My questions is, what would you change if you had control?

Inquisitor Engel
01-07-2013, 15:23
My questions is, what would you change if you had control?

Honestly? Outside of price increases, GW has, over the past year or so, been doing EXACTLY what I would do - regular codex and army book releases, all of good quality (given the effort that goes into them, GW books are pretty reasonably priced compared to school textbooks), as well as solid, rule and background supplements. Black Library has gone 'all in' with the quality authors and is letting them have some creative freedom, all of GW (except FW) has embraced digital and Forge World is cranking out what is likely to be GW's most profitable individual models are rule sets.

What I would do:



Create a loyalty program. $5 for every $200 you spend in-store back in store credit. More on certain weekends, during events etc. Basically, steal Best Buy's RewardZone program. Special promotions for members, special game nights for members etc. This is how you cater to veterans.
Hire someone with real, solid video game retail experience. Move the inventory when it needs to be moved. GW's already pretty good at logistics, the problem is saved stock when new things come out. Clear house! New Tyranids coming out in a month? All models being replaced get 25% off. New army comes out that month? All non-new boxes get 25% off that month if you buy them with a Codex or something. Give people INCENTIVES to buy when things come out.
Bundles and sales. The one-click bundle makes no sense.
Cut WD in half, both in size of the publication itself and price. Kill the filler sections that contain opinion on nothing (*cough*jervis*cough) and focus on news, hobby and battle reports. Rather than keeping it all in-house, seek out good writers with excellent hobby skills to freelance with modeling and painting articles, etc. To keep the suits happy, emphasis on new releases will be kept but the 'rah rah rah' propaganda machine will end.
Repackage Space Hulk and Dreadfleet for mass consumption, distribute to stores outside GW. Maybe water the boxes down a bit to make people feel like they weren't getting a raw deal if they bought the collection.
Reverse course on GW Stores. No more 'one-man' operations. Perhaps consolidate 'markets' and hire a few extra people. Each store has one manager and the market sends a pool of other employees around as-needed. I've seen it done. It can work.
SHOP THE IP AROUND TO ANYONE WHO WILL LISTEN. They've got a decent handle on video games at this point, but let's branch out shall we. Game of Thrones has shown that HBO is willing to take big risks with large properties. Pitch them a mini-series based on a specific event in WFB and 40k. Showtime, AMC, HBO and SyFy are also potential candidates. Hire a scriptwriter who's also a fan (and there are sure to be some) and court a well known actor (Vin Diesel maybe? There are quite a few.) who's into GW to shop a script around to Hollywood.


But you know, those are only ideas. Just spitballing.

Thorin
01-07-2013, 15:30
Inquisitor Engel, you are a genius. If you ran the company, I'd buy far more GW stuff.
The KS might be fun, but hey - I wouldn't expect people to take it seriously...
Greetings
Thorin

Inquisitor Engel
01-07-2013, 16:18
Inquisitor Engel, you are a genius. If you ran the company, I'd buy far more GW stuff.


Heh, thanks. I've done retail management on a store and corporate level for my entire professional career almost. That said, no Masters and no Business School means I haven't a chance. ;)

EDIT: Oh, and I'd bring back the bitz service in a cost-effective manner. Probably on a sprue-by-sprue basis now that everythings going plastic, as well as investigate the profitability of Forge World selling some bitz here and there. It wouldn't be perfect, or a return to the glory days, but an improvement on the current situation.

ratlingwei
02-07-2013, 07:32
Yeah, those are excellent suggestions. I was expecting rants but got owned instead :P

Even though most money comes from attracting new consumers, having a reliable and loyal consumer group is a must long term. I don't know how GW runs it corporate structure but if it's like communication industry or huge engineer firms you have a small group of insiders who switch top executive jobs every one or two years going from rival to rival and earn bonus based on the stock market value, this encourages short term profits which is mostly achieved by selling off property and cutting employees, which is good short term but devestating long term (this is what communal governments do too) only to have the blowback come later in terms of loss of income/consumers.

You have a good point about entertainment industry, especially using Game of Thrones as an example. Isn't it wierd that suddenly everyone is a nerd? Everyone loves fantasy, comic book heroes and sci fi, I think it is because it is presented in a medium that is acceptable too non geeks, though my theory falls short since fantasy movies has existed for quite some time, so I really don't know. Still though it is amazing that almost every person from age 16-50 is a fanboy and fangirl of game of throne and walking dead. Presenting warhammer universe in a medium that is accessible and especially acceptable to the majority would attract consumers who would otherwise not have been exposed to tabletop miniature gaming, in addition to the royalties GW would get from the movies/series.

Reinholt
02-07-2013, 21:19
Even though most money comes from attracting new consumers...

I'm not so sure this is true.

Bursts of money come from new consumers when they start, but I would wager long-term hobbyists are more proliferate and more profitable buyers over time. I think much of the misconception comes from the fact that businesses often make the fatal mistake of looking at customer value in a short window vs. life of the customer.

For instance, take a new player that will quit in six months vs. a long-term player who is already in the hobby and will be for another 10 years.

The new guy will drop $250 in one quarter, then $100 in the next, then vanish. The long-term player will drop $50 per quarter. Who is more profitable in one month? One year? Two years? Five years? How much work do you have to do to keep each one buying? I think proving that new players are more profitable when compared to existing gamers is a non-trivial exercise (primarily because it's wrong), and obviously the most profitable path would be recruiting new gamers and turning them into long-term players with 100% success (a pipe dream, but one to strive for).

The bottom line is that new players are more expensive to recruit than existing customers, and will buy more but then often buy less. The reality is that good long-term businesses tend to exist by recruiting and retaining, and focusing strongly on both (acquire, then monetize, in corporate speak).

redben
04-07-2013, 09:28
GW don't work on a 6 month life-cycle for new gamers, they work on a 2-3 year life-cycle. They also know, and have done from pretty much the time the minis-business took off in the 80's, that a certain demographic represents the bulk of their income stream, that it will stay for 2-3 years no matter what they do, and that they'll drop a ton of money in that time if squeezed enough for it.

Chaos and Evil
06-07-2013, 08:29
GW's own figures say that at any one time, the average GW customer has been playing GW games slightly less than one year. Either side of that average are some players who've been playing ten years, and a large group of players who've been playing for six months and will soon quit. The customer turnover at the short-term side of the average is very significant, both in cash and quantity they represent GW's largest customer group.