Whats up with GW's prices??

[Ollie Grimwood]

35 minutes ago, stratigo said:

 

Te japanese don't make wargaming minis. They do make the most technically impressive models on the market though. It's why, when GW was in its "We're a modeling and hobbying company, not gaming company" phase, I rolled my eyes. In terms of pure model quality, ignoring literally anything connected to gaming or game playing, japanese comapnies have the best product. People buy GW stuff because they are either into the game or dig the lore. The hobby only crowd is and was extremely tiny.

I also gave the emote. It's usually an accepted sign of not being serious.

 

And.... people who OWNED the stocks were saying they were in a bad place. GW was not doing well for quite some time. Considering how strong GW is performing now with a change in leadership and focus, yeah, no GW stocks were not performing as they should.

 

They still say they make their money by manufacturing and selling toy soldiers, and you can roll your eyes as much as you like the whole operation is about selling the models. This is no secret. 

Also given the lead times involved it highly likely that the majority of releases/changes we’ve seen were initiated under the previous CEO.  Oh and Tom Kirby only stopped being the Chairman in September (which is the job he had before being interim CEO after Mark Wells left).  Less of a leadership change more of a case of people moving seats really 

[Menkeroth]

32 minutes ago, stratigo said:

And.... people who OWNED the stocks were saying they were in a bad place. GW was not doing well for quite some time. Considering how strong GW is performing now with a change in leadership and focus, yeah, no GW stocks were not performing as they should.

 

Links, bitte. Or you are a demagogue at best then. Provide the proof of your words.

[Uveron]

46 minutes ago, stratigo said:

And.... people who OWNED the stocks were saying they were in a bad place. GW was not doing well for quite some time. Considering how strong GW is performing now with a change in leadership and focus, yeah, no GW stocks were not performing as they should.

Ok, and for clarity (and with some references) 

The Leadership changed because Kirby is retiring, not because he was kicked.  (He only became CEO when Walls left in 2013, and they looked for 2 years for a good candidate).  Stocks took a drop in 2014, after GW cut dividends by 10p but that was the point the re-organisation was being planned out.  (Note the first step in that process was moving to one-man stores).  If you look pre-Jan 2014, you have a company with a steady growth when compared to the rest of the markets. (Blip year in 07/08 for the credit crunch, but that hit all stocks).  

So yes there was a small period when people said they were in a bad place.  But that was good in the long run as it was that change in direction that has given us the company of today, with its stock boom. 

 

[Red]

1 hour ago, stratigo said:

 

And, well, suck it up sunshine. GW's pricing is all over the place, some deals are great, some are mind mindbogglingly bad. This isn't a mystery to anyone. I'm sorry you don't like me disagreeing with you, but, well, I'm not gonna go away because you don't like it. I haven't superglued you to a chair and forced you to read anything I've said. You have the power to not participate in an argument, and to not even read it.

I agree with this: GW pricing is all over the place: a Slaughterpriest is definitely NOT 10X the quality or value of a Bloodreaver, yet its 10X the price. This is the discussion we are having here: GW Pricing of bloodreavers is good, GW Pricing of Slaughterpriests is bad.

This is my statement, and while I believe I'm not hating GW/AOS "as a whole" but GW/AOS "in this context"... I'll bow out of this discussion since it looks like debate of the OP with TWO sides is against the spirit of the forum.

Edit: there was supposed to be a quote of the other post that links to Ben's post warning us off this discussion, but it didn't get included in my post. Here's the link for reference:

 

[AGPO]

The issue people are taking is not with two sides of a discussion, it's the tone in which some members are conducting it. There is no need to be rude just because you're on the internet.

[Gaz Taylor]

+++ Mod Hat On +++

13 hours ago, AGPO said:

The issue people are taking is not with two sides of a discussion, it's the tone in which some members are conducting it. There is no need to be rude just because you're on the internet.

100% this. Can you all please make sure you have read this quote (especially @stratigo  ). This has been a fairly interesting thread but  can we be less rude