Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2023/07/12 21:40:54
Subject: Re:GW "Doomsayers" may have been more right than you thought.
RaptorusRex wrote: As has been stated elsewhere, GW couldn't have lied without breaking the law.
And this would be the first time corporate broke the law?
What are you referring to? What have they done before?
I think it was meant to be a more general statement about the things corporations do.
Doesn't come across like that to me considering he specifically said "Corporate", implying GW rather than just the vague idea of corporations in general.
2023/07/12 21:42:28
Subject: Re:GW "Doomsayers" may have been more right than you thought.
RaptorusRex wrote: As has been stated elsewhere, GW couldn't have lied without breaking the law.
And this would be the first time corporate broke the law?
What are you referring to? What have they done before?
Corporate in my post refers to "any corporates" rather than just GW. You'd be naive to believe anyone running a company that large was a stand up person with their morality intact though.
It has not much to do with morale, though. Falsifying investor reports is a pretty serious crime, has a good chance to be caught immediately, usually produces additional problems down the road because a single round of falsification is usually not enough to deal with an ongoing, unsolved problem, so the discrepancies between books and reality tend to grow and grow, and when (not if) you get caught it's jail-time and loss of employment (possibly forever) for those in the know and usually ruinous fines for the company. The system is set up extremely harsh on purpose, to make it really unattractive to try stuff like that.
2023/07/12 21:47:51
Subject: GW "Doomsayers" may have been more right than you thought.
I feel like it's far more likely that this is either a misunderstanding, misremembering, a hyopthetical they were told or something along those lines rather than having either lied and committed a crime or it actually having been the case but conveniently somehow got solved in such a short time period that it doesn't show up in the financial reports.
2023/07/12 21:56:04
Subject: GW "Doomsayers" may have been more right than you thought.
I'd be very surprised if none of you have worked in companies where exaggerated rumours took on a life of their own,even amongst middle ranking management. That seems to be what is happening here. There's that famous old saying that a little knowledge is sometimes more dangerous than no knowledge. No doubt people knew the company was struggling at the time and it got exaggerated.
A FTSE250 listed company, that is the leading wargames manufacturer in the world, sitting on a trove of IP that was well regarded even in 2016, even pre the modern renaissance of the company does not beome '4-6 weeks from closing down' without some of that information becoming public. Furthermore if things truly were that bad, they would not struggle to find a loan facility with one of the UK's big banks or outside investment. Even during the Gorkmorka fiasco in the late 90s, when the company was smaller, less known worldwide and more vulnerable it didn't get to the stage of being '4-6 weeks from locking the doors'. This is not my personal opinion it's simple logic, anyone with a bit of business knowledge would know this.
The only way this could have happened is some kind of financial/accounting scandal matching the collapse of Carillion etc, that's the only way such a cashflow issue could have occurred out of nowhere without the company seeking relatively easily found solutions. There is no evidence of this happening at all. This is also ignoring all the public financial information that GW published during this period, which other posters have already cited.
I hated the late Kirby era (people do forget that he did have some successful ideas in the 90s), I hated the way they killed WHFB, I hated the cack handed way they handled the launch of AOS and I hated their approach to the community at the time. Despite all this, GW were not close to financial collapse.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/07/12 22:02:47
2023/07/12 22:01:22
Subject: GW "Doomsayers" may have been more right than you thought.
Londinium wrote: I'd be very surprised if none of you have worked in companies where exaggerated rumours took on a life of their own,even amongst middle ranking management. That seems to be what is happening here. There's that famous old saying that a little knowledge is sometimes more dangerous than no knowledge. No doubt people knew the company was struggling at the time and it got exaggerated.
A FTSE250 listed company, that is the leading wargames manufacturer in the world, sitting on a trove of IP that was well regarded even in 2016, even pre the modern renaissance of the company does not beome '4-6 weeks from closing down' without some of that information becoming public. Furthermore if things truly were that bad, they would not struggle to find a loan facility with one of the UK's big banks or outside investment.
Even during the Gorkmorka fiasco in the late 90s, it didn't get to the stage of being '4-6 weeks from locking the doors'.
This is ignoring all the publically cited financial information that GW published during this period, which other posters have already cited.
I’ve had worse.
No. Really.
Proper proper Hatchet Job by Channel 4’s “Dispatches”. Not saying that show was the result of dishonest journalism, but any colleague could spot where the answer given just didn’t match the question apparently asked.
I think the Exec actually sued, but in a shocking display of honesty for this thread? I can’t say if that was just a staff rumour or not.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Londinium wrote: I'd be very surprised if none of you have worked in companies where exaggerated rumours took on a life of their own,even amongst middle ranking management. That seems to be what is happening here. There's that famous old saying that a little knowledge is sometimes more dangerous than no knowledge. No doubt people knew the company was struggling at the time and it got exaggerated.
A FTSE250 listed company, that is the leading wargames manufacturer in the world, sitting on a trove of IP that was well regarded even in 2016, even pre the modern renaissance of the company does not beome '4-6 weeks from closing down' without some of that information becoming public. Furthermore if things truly were that bad, they would not struggle to find a loan facility with one of the UK's big banks or outside investment. Even during the Gorkmorka fiasco in the late 90s, it didn't get to the stage of being '4-6 weeks from locking the doors'. This is not my personal opinion it's simple logic, anyone with a bit of business knowledge would know this.
The only way this could have happened is some kind of financial/accounting scandal matching the collapse of Carillion etc, that's the only way such a cashflow issue could have occurred out of nowhere without the company seeking relatively easily found solutions. There is no evidence of this happening at all. This is also ignoring all the public financial information that GW published during this period, which other posters have already cited.
I hated the late Kirby era (people do forget that he did have some successful ideas in the 90s), I hated the way they killed WHFB, I hated the cack handed way they handled the launch of AOS and I hated their approach to the community at the time. Despite all this, GW were not close to financial collapse.
All that aside, the only time I've ever sat in a meeting with senior management and been told we were in financial trouble, we were in financial trouble.
Ultimately things worked out, at least for a year or two, but there's a whole world of difference between hearing a rumour, and being sat in the meeting, which is what's discussed here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/12 22:03:29
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
You can look at your forecast earnings, your market growth and all your other numbers and decide that its better to simply cease production and close down - or close down a significant portion of the company; or start a shutdown process of winding up departments and projects.
It might be that Management was considering a shut down at one stage as one option instead of re-investment so that they could close down and leave the firm with money in their pockets instead of pushing on. Esp a firm that has a policy of not taking out loans and thus the option of taking out a loan isn't on the cards.
It might even be that one set of forecasts predicted that they'd have to strip significant portions of the firm to reduce costs so that they could cut losses to have enough money to re-invest and continue on with a portion of the firm.
These are all things that could have been discussed and might have filtered down to staff outside of upper management meetings and quickly boiled down to the quick statement of 1-2months and we could be shut down.
It could also just be the "worst case" financial predictions that were potentially possible and were more possible because of their weakened position, but were not as likely to happen as other financial predictions.
In the end GW didn't close down; they didn't burn; in fact they turned around in what I think is one of the best displays of a firm adjusting their policies, practice and interaction and customer input and all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/12 22:42:18
RaptorusRex wrote: As has been stated elsewhere, GW couldn't have lied without breaking the law.
And this would be the first time corporate broke the law?
They don't have to, which I think those that are clutching their pearls over this don't quite get.
They can start the year with £15m cash in the bank, within 6 months they can have spent the £15m, gone £15m into their overdraft and be really feeling the pinch.
If on the last day of their financial year they're £15m in the black again, you just don't see the massive crisis that happend in the middle because that's outside of the scope of the report.
You'd need bank statements to see that, and that's something we're not privy to as customers or investors.
I used to work for a marine company that owned many companies about 10 years ago. I worked in the office under the owner and had to dip my toes in all sorts of roles. One thing I found a bit distasteful and wrong was report manipulation. One that stands out is when selling a company, its not uncommon for the seller to run his business at unattainable levels for more profit for a period (usually a year from my limited experience) before selling, to inflate its on paper worth. Without actually visiting the business with some understanding of the industry you're buying, it's impossible to see from reports alone the health of a company. A hobby example of this, I think War Cradle purchased Spartan Games when it was going bankrupt. When it started taking years for any of the Spartan IPs to be used, they released a post talking about how much of a mess Spartan Games was and they didn't know when buying it. They didn't realize until after the purchase. I suspect reporting hid much of the problems which would later become evident with ownership.
Now my career is completely different to the one I started being mentored in, but in my 6 years there I got a small insight to that world. Being profitable on its own does not actually tell you the full story, so if you're buying a business don't be impressed with profit margins without scrutiny. It's always in peoples interest to make things look better than they are when money depends on it.
2023/07/12 22:56:51
Subject: GW "Doomsayers" may have been more right than you thought.
I don't think it's that difficult to understand that being "former GW employees" doesn't make this objectively correct just because of that. They may very well have been told this or something along those lines at the time, but without any actual evidence beyond that then taking it at face value as being outright the case irrefutably is a bit odd. This is what someone, who wasn't directly involved in that financial aspect themselves, would have been told by others at that time so someone or something could easily have been a misunderstanding, misinformed, misremembering, hypothetical etc.
To me at least, anecdotal evidence of an employee who was there years ago doesn't override what properly audited financial reports and information shown to investors suggests was the case.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/07/12 22:59:04
2023/07/12 22:57:32
Subject: GW "Doomsayers" may have been more right than you thought.
Swastakowey wrote: A hobby example of this, I think War Cradle purchased Spartan Games when it was going bankrupt. When it started taking years for any of the Spartan IPs to be used, they released a post talking about how much of a mess Spartan Games was and they didn't know when buying it. They didn't realize until after the purchase. I suspect reporting hid much of the problems which would later become evident with ownership.
Spartan Games were in a mess, but part of it is that they went into liquidation and administration. They weren't sold/sellout, they were auctioned off.
As a result there wasn't really any part of SG trying to make the numbers look good, they simply fell apart and went into liquidation. So part of the mess is that some parts were missing because they'd been cutting costs to try and survive. I seem to recall that the inventory software that catalogued which mouldparts went together and made what was not upkept for a while because they cut paying for the software licence. Another is that because it fell apart they got stuff like moulds on a pallet just chucked on there; some items were missing from the inventory and it was just a huge mess.
Likely because some items got lost between shutting down and the administrators walking into strip assets and likely because some were just packaged up by the court and not by the company and soforth.
It certainly wasn't a clean company sale like when the company behind Dropzone/fleet sold to stay afloat and such.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/12 22:58:03
Y'all should actually WATCH the video, it's a 2 hour interview and the "4-6 weeks from failure" is really short part of it,
We're talking about that part specifically because this thread and the article in the OP is literally about that part specifically, not the whole video.
So you should just read the title of a news article and not the article itself, right? And then you should argue with others using ONLY the info gleaned from the title, no need to read the actual article for context? No need to go to the original source either, right?
None of the "discussion" regarding the financials actually matters, it's all just armchair internet accountants arguing over whose take on incomplete info is better. Whether the "4-6 Weeks from Doom" was a literal timeline or an exageration from corporate management to push sales, GW obviously survived it. The video is about how Tom's department of the company responded to bad sales. How they came up with products, why they chose what products to use and which to rebrand vs recreate in-house. The title of this thread and the article linked are just clickbait throwaways, at least the clickbait-titled video has firsthand anecdotes backing it up. The real value here is finding out why the GW painting handle fits your camera equipment. The real value is why your corax white separates into black oil, then goes white again when you shake it. The real value is why GW dice used the 1s for the special symbols for years and years until suddenly they didn't, and why they got rid of Badaab Black and Devlan Mud.
Devlan Mud being discontinued because it had too many organic compounds and would rot in the pot has much more of a direct affect on my hobbying than Mad Doc Grotsnik arguing cash flow vs net worth with Azreal13, and is a FAR more interesting bit of news.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/12 23:01:52
Swastakowey wrote: A hobby example of this, I think War Cradle purchased Spartan Games when it was going bankrupt. When it started taking years for any of the Spartan IPs to be used, they released a post talking about how much of a mess Spartan Games was and they didn't know when buying it. They didn't realize until after the purchase. I suspect reporting hid much of the problems which would later become evident with ownership.
Spartan Games were in a mess, but part of it is that they went into liquidation and administration. They weren't sold/sellout, they were auctioned off.
As a result there wasn't really any part of SG trying to make the numbers look good, they simply fell apart and went into liquidation. So part of the mess is that some parts were missing because they'd been cutting costs to try and survive. I seem to recall that the inventory software that catalogued which mouldparts went together and made what was not upkept for a while because they cut paying for the software licence. Another is that because it fell apart they got stuff like moulds on a pallet just chucked on there; some items were missing from the inventory and it was just a huge mess.
Likely because some items got lost between shutting down and the administrators walking into strip assets and likely because some were just packaged up by the court and not by the company and soforth.
It certainly wasn't a clean company sale like when the company behind Dropzone/fleet sold to stay afloat and such.
Ah yeah, I remember reading about it years ago and got a chuckle out of the state of Spartan Games.
2023/07/12 23:05:51
Subject: GW "Doomsayers" may have been more right than you thought.
Its entirely possible GW to have gone "we have £10m in the bank, over the next 4-6 weeks we are forecasting spend of £15m (on staff, new inventory, rent, rates etc), but our revenue is only looking like £5m.
£10m+£5m-£15m=£0m. Therefore we are only 4-6 weeks away from being insolvent. We'll have a lot of stock floating round the world - but its not selling and turning into cash fast enough to meet our outgoings.
But its only a forecast. Have crisis meetings. Trim spending. Try and push sales. Maybe take out small loans. Net result in 4-6 weeks the cash in the bank doesn't go to zero.
And the next 6 weeks after that are better. You sell inventory for cash, and don't spend as much. Revenue from selling stock exceed spending, so the cash in the bank recovers. Since you only have to report on what it is at year end, this blip isn't going to appear.
2023/07/12 23:08:31
Subject: GW "Doomsayers" may have been more right than you thought.
Tyel wrote: Its entirely possible GW to have gone "we have £10m in the bank, over the next 4-6 weeks we are forecasting spend of £15m (on staff, new inventory, rent, rates etc), but our revenue is only looking like £5m.
£10m+£5m-£15m=£0m. Therefore we are only 4-6 weeks away from being insolvent. We'll have a lot of stock floating round the world - but its not selling and turning into cash fast enough to meet our outgoings.
But its only a forecast. Have crisis meetings. Trim spending. Try and push sales. Maybe take out small loans. Net result in 4-6 weeks the cash in the bank doesn't go to zero.
And the next 6 weeks after that are better. You sell inventory for cash, and don't spend as much. Revenue from selling stock exceed spending, so the cash in the bank recovers. Since you only have to report on what it is at year end, this blip isn't going to appear.
Or? Being demonstrably solvent you apply for an overdraft, overdraft extension or bridging loan.
To be “five to six weeks” from closing the doors, you need to be not only knee deep in the muck, but leveraged to the hilt to boot.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Swastakowey wrote: A hobby example of this, I think War Cradle purchased Spartan Games when it was going bankrupt. When it started taking years for any of the Spartan IPs to be used, they released a post talking about how much of a mess Spartan Games was and they didn't know when buying it. They didn't realize until after the purchase. I suspect reporting hid much of the problems which would later become evident with ownership.
Spartan Games were in a mess, but part of it is that they went into liquidation and administration. They weren't sold/sellout, they were auctioned off.
As a result there wasn't really any part of SG trying to make the numbers look good, they simply fell apart and went into liquidation. So part of the mess is that some parts were missing because they'd been cutting costs to try and survive. I seem to recall that the inventory software that catalogued which mouldparts went together and made what was not upkept for a while because they cut paying for the software licence. Another is that because it fell apart they got stuff like moulds on a pallet just chucked on there; some items were missing from the inventory and it was just a huge mess.
Likely because some items got lost between shutting down and the administrators walking into strip assets and likely because some were just packaged up by the court and not by the company and soforth.
It certainly wasn't a clean company sale like when the company behind Dropzone/fleet sold to stay afloat and such.
Ah yeah, I remember reading about it years ago and got a chuckle out of the state of Spartan Games.
It's a huge shame they went they way they did; they designed some phenomenal models. Sadly they got locked into a "new hotness" release pattern which resulted in them having so many factions for so many games. The Halo licence also didn't help them as, again, it was yet another big thing that they had to manage and upkeep. So many systems and not enough resources to keep up with them all. I also recall their CEO was ill for quite a time before their downfall, which in a small firm where everyone does a bit of everything; likely didn't help them at all.
Warcradle are doing really well now and they are pushing better designs and modular plastics and such. It's in a good place and growing once again, but you can certainly see that there's a style shift. Not better not worse just a different focus.
Swastakowey wrote: A hobby example of this, I think War Cradle purchased Spartan Games when it was going bankrupt. When it started taking years for any of the Spartan IPs to be used, they released a post talking about how much of a mess Spartan Games was and they didn't know when buying it. They didn't realize until after the purchase. I suspect reporting hid much of the problems which would later become evident with ownership.
Spartan Games were in a mess, but part of it is that they went into liquidation and administration. They weren't sold/sellout, they were auctioned off.
As a result there wasn't really any part of SG trying to make the numbers look good, they simply fell apart and went into liquidation. So part of the mess is that some parts were missing because they'd been cutting costs to try and survive. I seem to recall that the inventory software that catalogued which mouldparts went together and made what was not upkept for a while because they cut paying for the software licence. Another is that because it fell apart they got stuff like moulds on a pallet just chucked on there; some items were missing from the inventory and it was just a huge mess.
Likely because some items got lost between shutting down and the administrators walking into strip assets and likely because some were just packaged up by the court and not by the company and soforth.
It certainly wasn't a clean company sale like when the company behind Dropzone/fleet sold to stay afloat and such.
FASA unexpectedly ceased active operations in early 2001. Contrary to popular belief, the company did not go bankrupt; it still exists as a corporation holding IP rights which it licenses to other publishers. According to the owners, they decided to quit while the company was still financially sound in a market they perceived as going downhill. Mort Weisman had been talking of retirement for some years and his confidence in the future of the paper-based games business was low.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2023/07/12 23:15:35
Subject: GW "Doomsayers" may have been more right than you thought.
Azreal13 wrote: Once more, and for the last time, both what is asserted by the guys in the video and the GW financial reports for the equivalent period can be true.
I am not, and, go back and look, never have, disputed the veracity of the end of year reports.
They can't both be true due to many of the things MDG listed above, but one in particular, who you and your side of the argument undervalue greatly.
GW had no to little debt.
4-6 weeks of liquidity left is not the same thing as 4-6 weeks to bankruptcy. Liquidity crisis can only be deadly if, and only if, you can't get a short term loan from anywhere, usually because you're drowning in debt already. Public company the size of GW, with their IP, with audited financial reports clean as theirs were, can go and get such a loan literaly anywhere they like. What is more - GW, even back then, would be welcomed in any investment bank in the world if they ever wanted to change their finance model from their self-financed-growth to growth-from-perpetual-debt. Companies with such healthy finances as GW has, had and will have as long as they are dominantly self-financed, have years long eventual downward spirals ahead of them.
This whole thread is just a haters wet dream and nothing else. And yes, two guys, even insiders, talking on the podcast about topics they were not responsible for, and which are completely outside their areas of expertise, are not even in the same league of credibility as official financial reports of public company.
2023/07/12 23:20:04
Subject: GW "Doomsayers" may have been more right than you thought.
Swastakowey wrote: A hobby example of this, I think War Cradle purchased Spartan Games when it was going bankrupt. When it started taking years for any of the Spartan IPs to be used, they released a post talking about how much of a mess Spartan Games was and they didn't know when buying it. They didn't realize until after the purchase. I suspect reporting hid much of the problems which would later become evident with ownership.
Spartan Games were in a mess, but part of it is that they went into liquidation and administration. They weren't sold/sellout, they were auctioned off.
As a result there wasn't really any part of SG trying to make the numbers look good, they simply fell apart and went into liquidation. So part of the mess is that some parts were missing because they'd been cutting costs to try and survive. I seem to recall that the inventory software that catalogued which mouldparts went together and made what was not upkept for a while because they cut paying for the software licence. Another is that because it fell apart they got stuff like moulds on a pallet just chucked on there; some items were missing from the inventory and it was just a huge mess.
Likely because some items got lost between shutting down and the administrators walking into strip assets and likely because some were just packaged up by the court and not by the company and soforth.
It certainly wasn't a clean company sale like when the company behind Dropzone/fleet sold to stay afloat and such.
Ah yeah, I remember reading about it years ago and got a chuckle out of the state of Spartan Games.
It's a huge shame they went they way they did; they designed some phenomenal models. Sadly they got locked into a "new hotness" release pattern which resulted in them having so many factions for so many games. The Halo licence also didn't help them as, again, it was yet another big thing that they had to manage and upkeep. So many systems and not enough resources to keep up with them all. I also recall their CEO was ill for quite a time before their downfall, which in a small firm where everyone does a bit of everything; likely didn't help them at all.
Warcradle are doing really well now and they are pushing better designs and modular plastics and such. It's in a good place and growing once again, but you can certainly see that there's a style shift. Not better not worse just a different focus.
Yeah I was huge into Planetfall and Firestorm. Just the other month I sold my fleets and ground forces after many, many years of use. Im waiting for firestorm from warcradle. However I have seen the dystopian fleet plastics and im in 2 minds, I don't like the style that much but on a technical level the models are great. So if they can get the style for Firestorm i'll be happy.
2023/07/12 23:29:55
Subject: Re:GW "Doomsayers" may have been more right than you thought.
Further on how the world of banking and borrowing works.
One can have unsecured debt, and still obtain secured debt. Because the two are different considerations. As is Guaranteed Debt.
With unsecured debt? The banks absolutely will get their bit by hook or by crook. This is the highest risk category of course, and Their Bit might be a mere fraction of the principle sum, depending exactly how deep in the mire the borrower ended up.
Secured Debt is less risky. The most common form of secured debt would be a Mortgage. If for whatever reason the borrower can no longer service the debt? The lender takes possession of the security. As such, Loan To Value is almost always in the lender’s favour ( as in, if you put up your £150,000 thing, we’ll lend you £50,000) so if they do need to take possession they get their principal sum and interest due back, with a comfortable buffer to absorb the costs incurred in getting to that stage.
Guaranteed Debt is kind of somewhere in the middle. This is where another business or private individual acts as a Guarantor. Super short version of that is the main borrower defaults, the Guarantor is on the hook.
Even in its darkest days? GW, due to super low debt levels, would’ve had all those options open.
And that’s not raking into account Director’s Loans, which are another path to short, mid and even long term cashflow issues.
Good gravy! It’s….it’s as if I really know my onions, isn’t it?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/12 23:53:49
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Since you're obviously smart about Financials, how much money you think they made with that "clickbait" with the clicks and views?
Couldn't tell you, but I will say this video is the first time this channel has ever appeared in my feed, so I'd guess it was worth more than average for them.
So you agree, you don't really know if that click bait worked just because YOU saw this podcast for the first time.
I'm not sure I understand. What I'm saying is the algorithm decided this video was popular enough that it should be the one they put in my feed. That likely means it got more views (and therefore generated more money) than other videos from the channel.
To be clear this video started showing up in my feed yesterday or the day before. I didn't come across it on this thread initially.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/12 23:37:25
2023/07/12 23:38:25
Subject: Re:GW "Doomsayers" may have been more right than you thought.
One can have unsecured debt, and still obtain secured debt. Because the two are different considerations. As is Guaranteed Debt.
With unsecured debt? The banks absolutely will get their bit by hook or by crook. This is the highest risk category of course, and Their Bit might be a mere fraction of the principle sum, depending exactly how deep in the mire the borrower ended up.
Secured Debt is less risky. The most common form of secured debt would be a Mortgage. If for whatever reason the borrower can no longer service the debt? The lender takes possession of the security. As such, Loan To Value is almost always in the lender’s favour ( as in, if you put up your £150,000 thing, we’ll lend you £50,000) so if they do need to take possession they get their principal sum and interest due back, with a comfortable buffer to absorb the costs incurred in getting to that stage.
Guaranteed Debt is kind of somewhere in the middle. This is where another business or private individual acts as a Guarantor. Super short version of that is the main borrower defaults, the Guarantor is on the hook.
Even in its darkest days? GW, due to super low debt levels, would’ve had all those options open.
And that’s not raking into account Director’s Loans, which are another path to short, mid and even long term cashflow issues.
Good gravy! It’s….it’s as if I really know my onions, isn’t it?
I vaguely remember you being professionally in some finance related profession from some old "what do you do for a living" thread or some "off-topic" discussions, when they were still a thing here. Am I correct?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/12 23:54:06
2023/07/12 23:40:27
Subject: GW "Doomsayers" may have been more right than you thought.
Azreal13 wrote: Once more, and for the last time, both what is asserted by the guys in the video and the GW financial reports for the equivalent period can be true.
I am not, and, go back and look, never have, disputed the veracity of the end of year reports.
They can't both be true due to many of the things MDG listed above, but one in particular, who you and your side of the argument undervalue greatly.
GW had no to little debt.
4-6 weeks of liquidity left is not the same thing as 4-6 weeks to bankruptcy. Liquidity crisis can only be deadly if, and only if, you can't get a short term loan from anywhere, usually because you're drowning in debt already. Public company the size of GW, with their IP, with audited financial reports clean as theirs were, can go and get such a loan literaly anywhere they like. What is more - GW, even back then, would be welcomed in any investment bank in the world if they ever wanted to change their finance model from their self-financed-growth to growth-from-perpetual-debt. Companies with such healthy finances as GW has, had and will have as long as they are dominantly self-financed, have years long eventual downward spirals ahead of them.
This whole thread is just a haters wet dream and nothing else. And yes, two guys, even insiders, talking on the podcast about topics they were not responsible for, and which are completely outside their areas of expertise, are not even in the same league of credibility as official financial reports of public company.
Given the context I more or less took that to be what was intended? We have 4-6 weeks until we have to shut the doors unless we do something.
Much like all of the credible arguments at the time were GW is going to go out of business unless they do something.
You also have to remember that we're taking 8 or so years ago here, end phase Kirby, very early Rountree. Before the COVID bump, before share prices in double figures. GW showed flat to negative growth in this period too, albeit while maintaining a profit and paying a dividend.
There's also the question of the £15m that Peachy mentions, now that could represent a variety of things, but, if true, that represents about 20% of GW's annual turnover at the time.
So while, fundamentally, I agree, if things hadn't transpired as they have, they'd have probably found another solution, GW were, at the time, a shrinking company with a notable liability and, because they don't borrow, no track record for credit. Plus, of course, anything you borrow you have to pay back, and if you're looking at flat to falling sales forecasts that may not fill an accountant with optimism.
Ultimately, it's all hypothetical of course because they did turn things around, I simply found it interesting to hear from what I assumed would be trusted sources how close to needing to take serious action they actually were. But I appear to have stepped on ak ideological landmine in the process.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Swastakowey wrote: A hobby example of this, I think War Cradle purchased Spartan Games when it was going bankrupt. When it started taking years for any of the Spartan IPs to be used, they released a post talking about how much of a mess Spartan Games was and they didn't know when buying it. They didn't realize until after the purchase. I suspect reporting hid much of the problems which would later become evident with ownership.
Spartan Games were in a mess, but part of it is that they went into liquidation and administration. They weren't sold/sellout, they were auctioned off.
As a result there wasn't really any part of SG trying to make the numbers look good, they simply fell apart and went into liquidation. So part of the mess is that some parts were missing because they'd been cutting costs to try and survive. I seem to recall that the inventory software that catalogued which mouldparts went together and made what was not upkept for a while because they cut paying for the software licence. Another is that because it fell apart they got stuff like moulds on a pallet just chucked on there; some items were missing from the inventory and it was just a huge mess.
Likely because some items got lost between shutting down and the administrators walking into strip assets and likely because some were just packaged up by the court and not by the company and soforth.
It certainly wasn't a clean company sale like when the company behind Dropzone/fleet sold to stay afloat and such.
Ah yeah, I remember reading about it years ago and got a chuckle out of the state of Spartan Games.
It's a huge shame they went they way they did; they designed some phenomenal models. Sadly they got locked into a "new hotness" release pattern which resulted in them having so many factions for so many games. The Halo licence also didn't help them as, again, it was yet another big thing that they had to manage and upkeep. So many systems and not enough resources to keep up with them all. I also recall their CEO was ill for quite a time before their downfall, which in a small firm where everyone does a bit of everything; likely didn't help them at all.
Warcradle are doing really well now and they are pushing better designs and modular plastics and such. It's in a good place and growing once again, but you can certainly see that there's a style shift. Not better not worse just a different focus.
Yeah I was huge into Planetfall and Firestorm. Just the other month I sold my fleets and ground forces after many, many years of use. Im waiting for firestorm from warcradle. However I have seen the dystopian fleet plastics and im in 2 minds, I don't like the style that much but on a technical level the models are great. So if they can get the style for Firestorm i'll be happy.
Some of the styles have grown on me. I think one difference is that Spartan used resin for every model so each model ship class was unique. WC used plastics for core ships and cruisers and frigates use a lot of the same core hulls and parts. So whilst they cover a wide range of ships, they can all look very similar. So it takes a while for them to get to the fancy ships, the unique ones and the different stuff. The more the armies have grown the better its looked in my view because you go from a few ships to a fleet. You start getting the big chunks of detailed resin; the walking titans; the airships and such. Which I think really brings in the visual fun and starts to make factions stand out more.
I'm also hoping for Firestorm - esp since that market is basically ignored. Dropfleet has never taken hold the way it should have considering they got the market handed to them (Gothic has rumbled but never resurfaced and Firestorm fell with Spartan and even if WC get it back it will likely be still a year or two away - giving Dropfleet a huge time alone).
One can have unsecured debt, and still obtain secured debt. Because the two are different considerations. As is Guaranteed Debt.
With unsecured debt? The banks absolutely will get their bit by hook or by crook. This is the highest risk category of course, and Their Bit might be a mere fraction of the principle sum, depending exactly how deep in the mire the borrower ended up.
Secured Debt is less risky. The most common form of secured debt would be a Mortgage. If for whatever reason the borrower can no longer service the debt? The lender takes possession of the security. As such, Loan To Value is almost always in the lender’s favour ( as in, if you put up your £150,000 thing, we’ll lend you £50,000) so if they do need to take possession they get their principal sum and interest due back, with a comfortable buffer to absorb the costs incurred in getting to that stage.
Guaranteed Debt is kind of somewhere in the middle. This is where another business or private individual acts as a Guarantor. Super short version of that is the main borrower defaults, the Guarantor is on the hook.
Even in its darkest days? GW, due to super low debt levels, would’ve had all those options open.
And that’s not raking into account Director’s Loans, which are another path to short, mid and even long term cashflow issues.
This is an accurate take - though your views on the sanctity of audited accounts are somewhat..... optimistic
There are a lot of bad takes on corporate financing and accounting in this topic, I think I'm going to have to go and cuddle a few IRFS' to recover from the trauma of reading it.
Ex-Mantic Rules Committees: Kings of War, Warpath
"The Emperor is obviously not a dictator, he's a couch." Starbuck: "Why can't we use the starboard launch bays?"
Engineer: "Because it's a gift shop!"
2023/07/12 23:50:59
Subject: GW "Doomsayers" may have been more right than you thought.
Azreal13 wrote: Ultimately, it's all hypothetical of course because they did turn things around, I simply found it interesting to hear from what I assumed would be trusted sources how close to needing to take serious action they actually were. But I appear to have stepped on ak ideological landmine in the process.
It's interesting to see this information crop up and revist some older threads and debates such as the one I posted above. A lot of people at the time were pointing out that the then path GW was taking was not sustainable and was likely to cause problems. Seems a few commentors were a lot closer to the mark than they thought.
One the last line and not necessarily aimed at anyone in this thread, but it may suggest that having a corporate IP product become part of your identity could lead a person to see criticism of a company as an attack on the self...
2023/07/12 23:52:48
Subject: GW "Doomsayers" may have been more right than you thought.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: Once more, and for the last time, both what is asserted by the guys in the video and the GW financial reports for the equivalent period can be true.
I am not, and, go back and look, never have, disputed the veracity of the end of year reports.
They can't both be true due to many of the things MDG listed above, but one in particular, who you and your side of the argument undervalue greatly.
GW had no to little debt.
4-6 weeks of liquidity left is not the same thing as 4-6 weeks to bankruptcy. Liquidity crisis can only be deadly if, and only if, you can't get a short term loan from anywhere, usually because you're drowning in debt already. Public company the size of GW, with their IP, with audited financial reports clean as theirs were, can go and get such a loan literaly anywhere they like. What is more - GW, even back then, would be welcomed in any investment bank in the world if they ever wanted to change their finance model from their self-financed-growth to growth-from-perpetual-debt. Companies with such healthy finances as GW has, had and will have as long as they are dominantly self-financed, have years long eventual downward spirals ahead of them.
This whole thread is just a haters wet dream and nothing else. And yes, two guys, even insiders, talking on the podcast about topics they were not responsible for, and which are completely outside their areas of expertise, are not even in the same league of credibility as official financial reports of public company.
Given the context I more or less took that to be what was intended? We have 4-6 weeks until we have to shut the doors unless we do something.
Much like all of the credible arguments at the time were GW is going to go out of business unless they do something.
You also have to remember that we're taking 8 or so years ago here, end phase Kirby, very early Rountree. Before the COVID bump, before share prices in double figures. GW showed flat to negative growth in this period too, albeit while maintaining a profit and paying a dividend.
There's also the question of the £15m that Peachy mentions, now that could represent a variety of things, but, if true, that represents about 20% of GW's annual turnover at the time.
So while, fundamentally, I agree, if things hadn't transpired as they have, they'd have probably found another solution, GW were, at the time, a shrinking company with a notable liability and, because they don't borrow, no track record for credit. Plus, of course, anything you borrow you have to pay back, and if you're looking at flat to falling sales forecasts that may not fill an accountant with optimism.
Ultimately, it's all hypothetical of course because they did turn things around, I simply found it interesting to hear from what I assumed would be trusted sources how close to needing to take serious action they actually were. But I appear to have stepped on ak ideological landmine in the process.
Track record of credit is only a concern of individuals asking banks for loans, not public companies going out in search for a liquidity loan. And you even underline, that they were still making profit back then. Popular "no growth equals imminent doom" mentality is clouding your judgement here. Ask yourself this - why COVID was not only not a problem for GW, but a bump? The answer is exactly the same, as in the thread subject case - because they mantain very strict "no debt" policy, then in times of smaller or bigger crisis they have all the room in the world to "unless we do something". The event we're debating over in this thread was really small, and moreover, very common short term liquidity problem, not a bankruptcy perspective. "Unless we do something" back then was more like "unless we do literalily anything else apart of running around with our hands in the air, screaming".
