|
Let me first say that I am saddened by what I have read of this episode here and elsewhere. I agree with those who have found the complaints by the guy squeezed out of WF unedifying and, in parts, unwise. I can, however, completely understand his anger and frustration in the circumstances. First and foremost I am very sorry to see someone with a fine creative talent and such a benign vision having to go through this. I sincerely hope he finds a way back and can continue to do what he has made such a fine start at doing.
However, it never ceases to amaze me that so many people allow themselves to be screwed in this way. How can anyone sensibly handover a majority stake in a business to a stranger? Judging from Mr Reid's letter, he has not been forced out of his company; it wasn't his, he had already given it away. He is, from that point, completely at the mercy of others and, if they are either unsrupulous or merely incompetent, he can do very little about it.
There is potentially a further factor here. If I have understood the various reports correctly it seems that WF accepted outside investment and control from China. People should, by now, have realised that this sort of deal bears an inherent risk. While the US and others seek to impose western standards of commercial probity (e.g. Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act and UK Bribery Act) businesses are understandably keen to do business with and in emerging markets. The problem is that most emerging markets suffer from endemic corruption; it's often been the only way of getting anything done.
So, take a wealthy entrepreneur from an emerging market nation. I put it it forward as a general proposition that, in order to get where he's got in the sort of society in which he operates, he is almost bound to be, by western standards, in a word, DODGY.
In otherwords, what the Hell did you expect would happen?
I don't want any politically correct cr@p at this point; the US government introduced the FACPA because in certain foreign places corrupt acts are prevelant. I'm not making a judgment here or advocating the absurdly over-keen boy scout approach that the US, OECD et al take in these matters. I've just knocked around a bit and seen this many, many times. Everyone, sooner or later, gets screwed in Russia. Big corporates, like Danone, have been completely taken for a ride in China.
However, while standards in business ethics are relative, it is by no means clear that there is any cynical intent in this instance. You could quite easily interpret Mr Reid's letter as a matter of differing views as to the direction the business must take, lack of communication or understanding, differing expectations of performance. All this only goes to show how easy it is for these deals to break down and, therefore, why it is madness to give away control. Someone only needs to let you down with his incompentent best and then act to protect his commercial interests and you are screwed.
Most people in the hobby industry could no doubt have made more money doing or selling something else and I am generally happy with the idea that the passion for the thing is more important than the bottom line. I suspect this is behind a lot of the resentment that Games Workshop manages to foster; in this fan-based sector, people don't like you throwing your weight around like a big hard-nosed corporate. On the otherhand, here we might be seeing an example of trust to the point of niavety, of purity of vision unlaced with common sense.
I would feel a lot happier if I though that Mr Reid had a sensible plan and the right advice to extricate himself from this mess and set up again independently of his previous partner. For instance, can he walk with any of the intellectual property, or does that belong to a company, control of which he has apparently given away? Will he ensure he has adequate protection next time: a controlling stake, a shareholder agreement? These are basic things, for goodness sake.
|
{ PORTAL }
Print view
Top
I am distressed over my friends problems and have no better information. 
