# Games Workshop PLC Annual Profits



## piemaster (Oct 9, 2009)

I guess this is the place to post this in. Sorry if this isn't news to people. It was news to me. GW PLC posts their annual profits and reports and whatnot. Thought people would be interested.

*Here*


----------



## Llamafish (Mar 3, 2009)

Other things we have found are: better trade terms - designed to help those who make the serious commitment of having
a real store where they can talk to customers and explain how our games work and teach modelling and painting; a more
sustainable store opening model - smaller, cheaper stores that open when we want them to be (not mall operators) and
can be run by just one member of staff if need be; higher prices - enabling us to respond when costs increase
dramatically as the price of tin did last summer; and, very importantly, a better balance between the price of our plastic
miniatures and our metal ones - *for similar models prices ought to be similar and not less 'because they are plastic*


well that no big surprise there.....


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

whew from 125.7m in revenue to 9.0m in profit? that must be one hell of a restructuring they've been doing. Though compaired to last year its still pretty good.


----------



## dtq (Feb 19, 2009)

Wusword77 said:


> whew from 125.7m in revenue to 9.0m in profit? that must be one hell of a restructuring they've been doing. Though compaired to last year its still pretty good.



As much as we might "think" that the models are over priced - which they are compared to their materials \ manufacturing cost. Its not quite as simple as big model markup = big profits

The models dont only have to cover the manufacturing cost, they have to support the companies whole existence its HQ its shops its staff etc etc. Whilst sure the models could be turned out at 1/10th of the price if they were knock offs made in the east with no R+D or support mechanism. I've studied the figures for years, and I dont think Ive ever seen them make as much as 10% profit.

Its actually not unusual for companies of any decent size to not turn over huge % profits, they big figures they make normally coming as a smaller % of a very lage turnover.


----------



## OddJob (Nov 1, 2007)

Wusword77 said:


> whew from 125.7m in revenue to 9.0m in profit? that must be one hell of a restructuring they've been doing. Though compaired to last year its still pretty good.


7-8% profit is fairly standard, and generally the standard accepted level for project investment.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Llamafish said:


> Other things we have found are: better trade terms - designed to help those who make the serious commitment of having
> a real store where they can talk to customers and explain how our games work and teach modelling and painting; a more
> sustainable store opening model - smaller, cheaper stores that open when we want them to be (not mall operators) and
> can be run by just one member of staff if need be; higher prices - enabling us to respond when costs increase
> ...


that last sentence made me laugh, i may demand a refund on my great sword and steam tank purchases, not to mention it works both ways surely?,if things shouldnt be cheaper 2because they are plastic" then things shouldnt cost more because they are metal:laugh:


----------



## NecronCowboy (Jan 8, 2009)

Everyone I know that is out of work and plays GW games, still make GW purchases. It's like you'd cancel your cell phone before not buying GW stuff! My point being glad to see they are still making money.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

dtq said:


> As much as we might "think" that the models are over priced - which they are compared to their materials manufacturing cost. Its not quite as simple as big model markup = big profits
> 
> The models dont only have to cover the manufacturing cost, they have to support the companies whole existence its HQ its shops its staff etc etc. Whilst sure the models could be turned out at 1/10th of the price if they were knock offs made in the east with no R+D or support mechanism. I've studied the figures for years, and I dont think Ive ever seen them make as much as 10% profit.
> 
> Its actually not unusual for companies of any decent size to not turn over huge % profits, they big figures they make normally coming as a smaller % of a very lage turnover.





OddJob said:


> 7-8% profit is fairly standard, and generally the standard accepted level for project investment.


Oh I'm well aware of that. I am simply stating that their restructuring is costing them plenty of cash, as they make mention of it in their annual report.

Considering their comp from last year, not just in revenue but also in profit I think, should everything be finished by the end of Q1 they should expect a rather high profit margin by this time next year.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

OddJob said:


> 7-8% profit is fairly standard, and generally the standard accepted level for project investment.


If you look at who the key investors are then I think they will not be pleased with only 7-8%. There are only a handful of companies that own GW Group and they will already have an exit plan. Usually investments are made over a 5 year period and are based on 500% growth in value of the Group. I think they may be disappointed.


----------



## the.alleycat.uk (Jun 11, 2009)

darklove said:


> If you look at who the key investors are then I think they will not be pleased with only 7-8%. There are only a handful of companies that own GW Group and they will already have an exit plan. Usually investments are made over a 5 year period and are based on 500% growth in value of the Group. I think they may be disappointed.


Actually, a large number of 'investors' who hold GW shares are long term investors for fund management. So long as the yeild is above that of comercially available interest, they're happy. Share price fluctuations aren't really an issue in those types of investments and GW is an asset heavy company with an inherent value.

Simply put, you're a way off the mark there.


----------



## NecronCowboy (Jan 8, 2009)

the.alleycat.uk said:


> Actually, a large number of 'investors' who hold GW shares are long term investors for fund management. So long as the yeild is above that of comercially available interest, they're happy. Share price fluctuations aren't really an issue in those types of investments and GW is an asset heavy company with an inherent value.
> 
> Simply put, you're a way off the mark there.


Their balance sheet claims they have 70.1M GBP in assets, and 70.1M GBP in liabilities. Assets don't matter when you have equal liabilties. Also GW is only listed on the LSE, and therefore isn't under oversight of the SEC, so can you tell me where you got the major shareholder list from, and how you infer the trading stragetgy those shareholders are implrmenting?


----------



## Hywel (Nov 10, 2008)

? Not sure where you got those numbers from. The balance sheet shows shareholder equity, which is the difference between assets and liabilities, at 37.9 million, which seems pretty healthy. There are 70.1 million pounds of assets and 17.9+14.2 = 32.1 million pounds of liabilities. (70.1 - 32.1 = 37.9 allowing for rounding errors).

The comparison between this year and recent years is illuminating- something obvious went drastically wrong in 2004, just take a look at the dive the sales figures took that year (and the share price plunged accordingly). Sales were falling year-on-year, and the good news is that they have pulled this back. 

And this year they have moved from making a loss to making a healthy profit, which has to be good news. 

We might bitch and moan, but unless GW makes a profit, we won't have any more of anything: no models, no codices, no nothing. 

I wasn't playing GW games back in 2004- anyone know what caused the bottom to fall out of GW's market back then?

Cheers, Hywel.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Hywel said:


> ? Not sure where you got those numbers from. The balance sheet shows shareholder equity, which is the difference between assets and liabilities, at 37.9 million, which seems pretty healthy. There are 70.1 million pounds of assets and 17.9+14.2 = 32.1 million pounds of liabilities. (70.1 - 32.1 = 37.9 allowing for rounding errors).
> 
> The comparison between this year and recent years is illuminating- something obvious went drastically wrong in 2004, just take a look at the dive the sales figures took that year (and the share price plunged accordingly). Sales were falling year-on-year, and the good news is that they have pulled this back.
> 
> ...


they stopped making lord of the rings movies


----------



## Hywel (Nov 10, 2008)

Ah, yes, of course. I see they mention that in their older annual reports.

Interesting!

Cheers, Hywel.


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

the.alleycat.uk said:


> Actually, a large number of 'investors' who hold GW shares are long term investors for fund management. So long as the yeild is above that of comercially available interest, they're happy. Share price fluctuations aren't really an issue in those types of investments and GW is an asset heavy company with an inherent value.
> 
> Simply put, you're a way off the mark there.


What you mean by 'large number' is insignificant really as it is the 'small number' that are in control. More than 50% is owned by 3 or 4 funds, I wouldn't call that a large number of investors. GW doesn't either, which is why they cancelled their annual shareholder events - just not enough people to make it worthwhile.


----------



## MyI)arkness (Jun 8, 2008)

Lol, it seems as if GW are doing much better now that crysis started, than they were doing before that. Maybe more people get depressed and spend some $ on their miniatures, as a long term investment


----------



## slaaneshy (Feb 20, 2008)

bitsandkits said:


> that last sentence made me laugh, i may demand a refund on my great sword and steam tank purchases, not to mention it works both ways surely?,if things shouldnt be cheaper 2because they are plastic" then things shouldnt cost more because they are metal:laugh:


My missus' boobs did not cost any less for being plastic!!!


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

Llamafish said:


> very importantly, a better balance between the price of our plastic
> miniatures and our metal ones - *for similar models prices ought to be similar and not less 'because they are plastic*
> 
> 
> well that no big surprise there.....




:laugh: What a load of BS. Half of my friends wont get into this game is becuase the Ridiculase Price and all these 3rd party games coming out gain popularity cause of the unemployment crisis. GW would have more people buying if they cut the cost of their Plastic by 25% at least. Oh well, I guess Wal-Mart getting big thru cheap prices and easily abuse return policy by fluke:laugh:


----------



## darklove (May 7, 2008)

GW don't have any real direct competition, but they should probably evaluate indirect threats to their business more closely. 
I was having this discussion with someone in a GW store yesterday, and the consensus was: 'you can only rape the customer so many times before the lube runs out and they start to complain and go somewhere else that has mood lighting and a string quartet and doesn't expect you to bend over until the second date'... I'm still trying to workout if that metaphor actually goes anywhere, might be that some people feel taken for granted and a little exploited, but those are the sorts of discussions going around GW stores at the moment.


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

They should I see people playing this one game thats ALOT like 40k, only the models are assembled and painted and very cool looking. Cant remember the name of it. Then you have Flames of War on the rise. Pluse other small stuff.


----------

