CGL Speculation #9, Please review ToS before posting |
CGL Speculation #9, Please review ToS before posting |
Jun 26 2010, 08:41 PM
Post
#726
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 297 Joined: 11-April 10 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 18,443 |
For those interested in Topps' revenues which were public before they went private in 2007: After enjoying strong revenue growth related to the Pokemon craze in 2000 and 2001, Topps' revenue and profit have declined steadily. For its fiscal 2006,which ended Feb. 25, the company reported net income of $1.2 million on revenues of $293.8 million, compared with net income of $10.9 million on sales of $294.2million for the prior fiscal year. In fiscal 2000 its revenues were $439million. I don't know what their revenue is now, but since they went private, they have sold over 100 million Attax baseball cards. They start at $1.39 which means they've made at least $139 million off Attax cards alone. They are now run by former Disney CEO Michael Eisner whose investment firm purchased Topps for $385 million and brought them private. Although their revenues have fluctuated in the past decade, they are a large corporation. IMR/CGL if I am quoting correctly from their statements here regarding the legal case has had a yearly revenue between $1 million and $1.2 million by comparison. I found this an interesting perspective on the business. Mesh I thought this would have made a bigger impact on the "speculation". Ask yourselves, "What does a corporation led by billionaire Disney x-CEO Michael Eisner with a yearly revenue somewhere around $300 million care about who has the Shadowrun license?" They can't be making much more than $100K/year off the BT and SR licenses combined. Whose balance sheet does that even register a tick on at Topps? They don't care who's dicking around with these games. They just sold $40 million in Attax baseball cards this year alone. If I had bothered to do the research on them six months ago, this would have been an easy prediction. Topps: "Scandal about what? Huh? Did they pay us the $100k each year? Yes? Ok, let it ride. Can we get back to business now? My tee time's in an hour." Topps actually appears much scarier to me now that I realize how big they are. It would be nothing for them to shelf Shadowrun and let it die. Thank goodness it's still going! Mesh |
|
|
Jun 26 2010, 08:57 PM
Post
#727
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 695 Joined: 2-January 07 From: He has here a minute ago... Member No.: 10,514 |
I thought this would have made a bigger impact on the "speculation". Ask yourselves, "What does a corporation led by billionaire Disney x-CEO Michael Eisner with a yearly revenue somewhere around $300 million care about who has the Shadowrun license?" They can't be making much more than $100K/year off the BT and SR licenses combined. Whose balance sheet does that even register a tick on at Topps? They don't care who's dicking around with these games. They just sold $40 million in Attax baseball cards this year alone. If I had bothered to do the research on them six months ago, this would have been an easy prediction. Topps: "Scandal about what? Huh? Did they pay us the $100k each year? Yes? Ok, let it ride. Can we get back to business now? My tee time's in an hour." Topps actually appears much scarier to me now that I realize how big they are. It would be nothing for them to shelf Shadowrun and let it die. Thank goodness it's still going! Mesh Big companies like Topps generally don't get where they are by ignoring property. Especially property that they can license to someone else who does all the work and sends the money back home. BT and SR make enough for Topps to pay someone to make sure Topps gets the most value out of their property. Shadowrun and Battletech being owned by a company like Topps is really a great thing. They will survive even if the current publisher dies by it's own misdeeds. And as a company Topps seems willing to let the publisher handle the lines in house without trying to make everything all clicky or sell trading cards. |
|
|
Jun 27 2010, 12:40 AM
Post
#728
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,705 Joined: 5-October 09 From: You are in a clearing Member No.: 17,722 |
Their net income was only $1.2million in 2006. I don't see that as having improved in a shitty global economy, so they're not really growing here. If they're not operating at a normal profit, then it's more likely a loss.
Sure they may do 100s of millions in business, but they obviously have 100s of millions in fees and overhead to contend with. The overhead for something like selling publishing rights on an already existing, already developed IP is next to nothing, so any and all profits from such are directly added to that net income. |
|
|
Jun 27 2010, 05:19 AM
Post
#729
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 233 Joined: 26-October 02 Member No.: 3,502 |
Quick legal question...is the license itself considered an asset to the company? The reason this is important...say IMR/CGL is forced into Chapter 7 and that the license was extended beyond the date of the hearing...if CGL/IMR is forced into Chapter 7, they must immediately pay off all debts and if they are unable to, any assets may be liquidated to pay those debts. If the license itself is considered an asset, could it be forced to be auctioned off to the highest bidder for the remainder of the term of the license, or would it immediately revert back to Topps? It depends on how the license is structured. IANAL, but Wizkids is a great example here. When Wizkids closed up, the license to produce Star Wars material dissolved, however the Marvel/DC licenses remained as a transferrable property. So the answer is in how the current license is structured. I suspect it's non-transferrable, but we'd have to see the contract to know. |
|
|
Jun 27 2010, 07:10 AM
Post
#730
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 298 Joined: 15-March 09 Member No.: 16,974 |
The license is in extension, meaning it is non-transferable.
|
|
|
Jun 27 2010, 09:02 AM
Post
#731
|
|
Grand Master of Run-Fu Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,840 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tir Tairngire Member No.: 178 |
But it can be cancelled. And if it's non-transferable, then it doesn't count as a sellable asset.
|
|
|
Jun 27 2010, 10:40 AM
Post
#732
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 57 Joined: 24-March 10 Member No.: 18,356 |
I thought this would have made a bigger impact on the "speculation". Ask yourselves, "What does a corporation led by billionaire Disney x-CEO Michael Eisner with a yearly revenue somewhere around $300 million care about who has the Shadowrun license?" Because it's worth money. Making money is what corporations are about. And yes, even if it's only a ridiculously small percentage of their revenue, they will care about that money. No, they will not care too much, they will not assign it a high priority, but in the end, I can't imagine anyone at Topps saying "Oh, they payed us a couple 100k less than we were owed, who cares?" |
|
|
Jun 27 2010, 11:52 AM
Post
#733
|
|
The King In Yellow Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,922 Joined: 26-February 05 From: JWD Member No.: 7,121 |
QUOTE I don't get the constant insulting of the remaining freelancers, direct or indirect as they may be. Especially when people go around calling them "scrubs" which is just mind boggling. Like there was some kind of union and they were hired behind people's backs, instead of simply replacing people who quit of their own free will. Maybe there should be one, but I guess RPG/fantasy freelancing is too small a business for a union to be viable, I guess. Also, the Tir na nOg writeup really doesn't show much research on the place done. Given how it hasn't exactly been covered in many books ... well, checking up on the relevant parts of three books is not very much to ask from a writer, I think. It contains wacko numbers and events that make no sense. No good writing at all. |
|
|
Jun 27 2010, 08:57 PM
Post
#734
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 734 Joined: 30-August 05 Member No.: 7,646 |
1. I am of the opinion that unions are a bad thing. I do not have personal experience with unions but a friend had to join a union as part of her job. Taxes and union dues reduced her 50k+ job down to less than 35k take home.
|
|
|
Jun 27 2010, 09:27 PM
Post
#735
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 20-June 10 From: Sweden Member No.: 18,736 |
1. I am of the opinion that unions are a bad thing. I do not have personal experience with unions but a friend had to join a union as part of her job. Taxes and union dues reduced her 50k+ job down to less than 35k take home. I don't think the union membership fee could be that high. Here in Sweden (which is considered a fairly socialist state by many outsiders, although we have had a right-wing government the last 4 years) a union membership fee costs about $35 a month for a average payed worker. And being forced to join a union is not required, it's optional. Although this is fairly off-topic, sorry for that. ----- Even if Topps mainly cares about the money, they do care about brand too. If their logo is on a line that gets bad reputation, even how small it is, they will care about that. |
|
|
Jun 27 2010, 09:28 PM
Post
#736
|
|
Grumpy Old Ork Decker Group: Admin Posts: 3,794 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Orwell, Ohio Member No.: 50 |
Random note from an exhausted, sleep depped GM just getting home from Gen Con... It was stated by Tara and Brent at the "What's Up With..." seminar at the convention that the extension was for 6 months, which was what CGL requested, not Topps. This was several hours before the license was finalized (And it was stated taht it was still pending finalization at the seminar) on Friday.
By the same token, Iron Wind Metal, who's been running on 6 month extensions for quite some time and has been wanting a longer extension, announced that they had gotten a 1 1/2 year extension that night as well. Which is very cool for Mike and the IWM guys. The entire convention was very positive. Tara briefed the GMs a bit about the situation and asked that we not discuss the situation with players if they ask about it, but should refer them to Tara, Brent, or Amy at the booth. Nobody really asked anything though, and those that did comment on it, it seemed to be, as I said, very positive. The players just want to continue to get Shadowrun product. Now... I have a Shadowrun game to sleep through. I'll have more stuff to post later tonight or tomorrow. Or Tuesday. Or something. Depends on when I wake up. Bull |
|
|
Jun 27 2010, 10:20 PM
Post
#737
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 695 Joined: 2-January 07 From: He has here a minute ago... Member No.: 10,514 |
Random note from an exhausted, sleep depped GM just getting home from Gen Con... It was stated by Tara and Brent at the "What's Up With..." seminar at the convention that the extension was for 6 months, which was what CGL requested, not Topps. This was several hours before the license was finalized (And it was stated taht it was still pending finalization at the seminar) on Friday. By the same token, Iron Wind Metal, who's been running on 6 month extensions for quite some time and has been wanting a longer extension, announced that they had gotten a 1 1/2 year extension that night as well. Which is very cool for Mike and the IWM guys. The entire convention was very positive. Tara briefed the GMs a bit about the situation and asked that we not discuss the situation with players if they ask about it, but should refer them to Tara, Brent, or Amy at the booth. Nobody really asked anything though, and those that did comment on it, it seemed to be, as I said, very positive. The players just want to continue to get Shadowrun product. Now... I have a Shadowrun game to sleep through. I'll have more stuff to post later tonight or tomorrow. Or Tuesday. Or something. Depends on when I wake up. Bull Six months. Good to know. Any reason why that wasn't included in the original release? |
|
|
Jun 27 2010, 10:25 PM
Post
#738
|
|
The King In Yellow Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,922 Joined: 26-February 05 From: JWD Member No.: 7,121 |
QUOTE I don't think the union membership fee could be that high. Here in Sweden (which is considered a fairly socialist state by many outsiders, although we have had a right-wing government the last 4 years) a union membership fee costs about $35 a month for a average payed worker. And being forced to join a union is not required, it's optional. Although this is fairly off-topic, sorry for that. Well, Americans paymuch less taxes than Scandinavians do. They have a whole different attitude towards this than Europeans do, too, usually feeling they don't get a return on their tax, whereas we feel the taxes are a community thing and go into sensible things like infrastructure and chasing the latest trend in eco alarmism. Of course, American infrastructure in wide parts is not what we might expect it to be. You get what you pay for, occasionally. A union would be able to pressure a company like CGL to actually pay for work easily, though. Given how this seems no isolated incident, it makes me wonder wheter 90% of something isn't more than nothing still. |
|
|
Jun 27 2010, 10:47 PM
Post
#739
|
|
Street Doc Group: Admin Posts: 3,508 Joined: 2-March 04 From: Neverwhere Member No.: 6,114 |
In the US we send $1 to Washington D.C. with a request for street lights and the government sends us back $0.50 to add to our "Federally Subsidized Street Light Fund". I can't imagine why we'd feel that we don't get a return on our taxes.
|
|
|
Jun 27 2010, 10:56 PM
Post
#740
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 695 Joined: 2-January 07 From: He has here a minute ago... Member No.: 10,514 |
In the US we send $1 to Washington D.C. with a request for street lights and the government sends us back $0.50 to add to our "Federally Subsidized Street Light Fund". I can't imagine why we'd feel that we don't get a return on our taxes. Somewhere in Washington, someone read the RAW and has his own budget optimized. |
|
|
Jun 28 2010, 12:23 AM
Post
#741
|
|
Neophyte Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,086 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 364 |
It was stated by Tara and Brent at the "What's Up With..." seminar at the convention that the extension was for 6 months, which was what CGL requested, not Topps. Which opens up a new line of speculation. Why request 6 months, when the company's stated goal is to remain publishing for the license for as long as they're in business? Possibility one: IMR requests the longest extension they can get, to have time to put their house in order, which means that Topps initially offered an extension of a shorter time frame and IMR had to negotiate them up to their requested 6 months. Possibility two: IMR would much rather be working under a long term multi-year contract than a short term extension, and are so confident that their bid for the next contract will be the winning one, they requested just six months to limit the amount of time for Topps to consider other possible bids. |
|
|
Jun 28 2010, 12:57 AM
Post
#742
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: 16-October 07 From: Upper Midwest, USA Member No.: 13,723 |
Well, Americans paymuch less taxes than Scandinavians do. They have a whole different attitude towards this than Europeans do, too, usually feeling they don't get a return on their tax, whereas we feel the taxes are a community thing and go into sensible things like infrastructure and chasing the latest trend in eco alarmism. Of course, American infrastructure in wide parts is not what we might expect it to be. You get what you pay for, occasionally. A union would be able to pressure a company like CGL to actually pay for work easily, though. Given how this seems no isolated incident, it makes me wonder wheter 90% of something isn't more than nothing still. I was in a union, in the auto industry, for 9 years. My dues were 2 hours of pay every month. That works out to approx. 1.15% of my pay. Not accounting for over time or work furlough neither of which had any impact on my dues. Not that that stopped some people from complaining about them, even though we made more than anyone working in a comparable job in the area. I'm not going to go into my opinions of unions here, atm. Just wanted to weigh in with an actual fact regarding my personal experience with union dues. Graywulfe |
|
|
Jun 28 2010, 01:12 AM
Post
#743
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 366 Joined: 10-November 08 Member No.: 16,576 |
Random note from an exhausted, sleep depped GM just getting home from Gen Con... Bull Wow a post from the future! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Good thing that this is still an issue then. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) |
|
|
Jun 28 2010, 02:09 AM
Post
#744
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,705 Joined: 5-October 09 From: You are in a clearing Member No.: 17,722 |
1. I am of the opinion that unions are a bad thing. I do not have personal experience with unions but a friend had to join a union as part of her job. Taxes and union dues reduced her 50k+ job down to less than 35k take home. You ever had a week where you only had to work 5 days? You can go ahead and thank the unions for that. Before union activities of the 1920s there was no two day weekend. |
|
|
Jun 28 2010, 03:11 AM
Post
#745
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Retired Admins Posts: 3,929 Joined: 26-February 02 From: .ca Member No.: 51 |
You ever had a week where you only had to work 5 days? You can go ahead and thank the unions for that. Before union activities of the 1920s there was no two day weekend. *ponders the delays if hobby game companies forced staff to take two days off a week ...* (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) |
|
|
Jun 28 2010, 03:33 AM
Post
#746
|
|
Slacker Extraordinaire Group: Retired Admins Posts: 337 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Ashburn, VA Member No.: 997 |
1. I am of the opinion that unions are a bad thing. I do not have personal experience with unions but a friend had to join a union as part of her job. Taxes and union dues reduced her 50k+ job down to less than 35k take home. So 30% after taxes? I'm paying 28% without a union. That's not a huge difference. I've always thought of a union as insurance. It's a cost you'd rather not pay but if you need them (and if you have a union that doesn't suck) you're glad you have them. Just my opinion though. That said. Some industries just don't make sense unionized. I don't know much about the RPG industry, but a lot of people quote slim profite margins. A union could kill an industry like that. |
|
|
Jun 28 2010, 03:45 AM
Post
#747
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 312 Joined: 3-March 10 Member No.: 18,237 |
One of the electrical contractors we use at work said their union is pushing for 4 day work weeks (Monday to Thursday, or Tuesday to Friday). This is ontop of their already 1 RDO every fortnight, any public holiday means half the week off on minimum (sometimes the whole week).
All of this on an extremely nice pay packet of minimum 100k . Lifes tough for some? |
|
|
Jun 28 2010, 04:37 AM
Post
#748
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 308 Joined: 17-March 10 Member No.: 18,303 |
I don't think the union membership fee could be that high. Here in Sweden (which is considered a fairly socialist state by many outsiders, although we have had a right-wing government the last 4 years) a union membership fee costs about $35 a month for a average payed worker. And being forced to join a union is not required, it's optional. Although this is fairly off-topic, sorry for that. All of these points are very different for unions here in the US. If enough folks vote in a given office, it's not optional. You're now union, whether you desire to be or not. (Speaking only from my experience with grocery store related unions and telecommunications unions in Pennsylvania.) Union dues can also be much higher than that a month, with little return, although this varies greatly industry to industry, and union to union (in terms of cost of dues and return on said dues). Also, thanks for the news Bull. The six month extension request makes a bit of sense, if it's being used as a "look at the changes and improvements we've made" period. |
|
|
Jun 28 2010, 04:40 AM
Post
#749
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 298 Joined: 15-March 09 Member No.: 16,974 |
I was in a union, in the auto industry, for 9 years. My dues were 2 hours of pay every month. That works out to approx. 1.15% of my pay. Not accounting for over time or work furlough neither of which had any impact on my dues. Not that that stopped some people from complaining about them, even though we made more than anyone working in a comparable job in the area. Some unions are good; My mom worked for the US Post Office for a while. Their dues came out to approximately 0.25% of their pay with the average member making $43k per year. The dues cover the expenses of the union in dealing with complaints which involved members, ensuring that the employees were payed and treated fairly (both by management and by co-workers), and lobbies Congress to keep the private shipping companies from convincing them to set postal rates astronomically high or too low for the USPS to operate (the USPS is government regulated, so Congress has a say in how much they can charge). Some unions are bad; The UAW (auto workers union) has nearly ten times as many members as the USPS, charges nearly five times the percentage dues per member, who each make nearly 20% more per year on average. The UAW has an income of over a billion US dollars every year (though it might be a bit lower now with all the recent layoffs), and yet the estimated expenses amount to less than 50 million a year, fight for all members to keep their jobs, no matter how well or poorly they do at their job, or how poorly they treat their co-workers. |
|
|
Jun 28 2010, 05:09 AM
Post
#750
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
Some unions do interesting things. For example I'm told that the IBEW union members pension plan is much more poorly funded than the IBEW union leaders pension plan. But I'll admit I haven't ever run into an incompetent commercial electrician. Ones who didn't give a damn about doing their job, yes, I've seen them, but they did know what they were doing when they decided to actually do work.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th November 2024 - 02:18 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.