Investment Decision Making Between Games Workshop And Hornby Finance Essay

For assignment help please contact

at help@hndassignmenthelp.co.uk or hndassignmenthelp@gmail.com
The basis for this analysis is to advise Mr. Curry on an investment. The client has a
huge portfolio of shares and has recently inherited a big sum of cash which he also
wishes to invest in shares. He has a broad portfolio of shares, but not that sound
enough when it comes to games retailing sector. So the author over here looks at
suggesting the client , to invest in one of the following companies namely Games
Work Shop group PLC & Hornby PLC. To make it further effective, the author has
considered the last three year's financial statements of both the companies instead of
just deciding on one financial statement. The financial analysis equipment was made
use of, in order to compare between the companies which are explained in the
statement. Eventually, the author benchmarked it with the industry in which they are
present by gathering information from various sources available on the web, books,
and journals. Ultimately, necessary recommendations have been made along with
some vital measures to be taken before making a speculation.

2.COMPANIES PROFILE:Games Workshop group PLC: It is basically a largest and successful gaming company
which was found in 1975 by John Peake and Ian Living Stone . It is a production &
retailing company which is located in London. It has introduced a Stock Exchange in
1994. It was originally a manufacture of a wooden board for ames such as back
Gammon. Mancala, Nine Mend's Morris and GO games but later became an importer
of United Stated of America role-Playing games namely Dungeons & Dragons.
Company's over all 65% sales operations is coming from USA , Canada
,France,Spain,Italy,Japan, Germany & Australia (Games workshop ;2000-2010)
Hornby PLC: It is basically a toy company which is abrand leader for UK's railway
hobby model. Founder Frank Hornby started his company in ( 1863-1938) and
company got patent rights in 1901,after that they establishment of Meccano Ltd in
1907, thus it became one of the classic toys.Meccano Ltd that was taken over by Lines
Bros (the parent company of Rovex Scale Models Ltd, manufacture of Triang
railways),later on it became Tri-ang Hornby in 1965. New diesels included the High
Speed Train (HST) which was a popular model instantly.In year1986 it was floated
on unlisted securities market ,and then it becomes a public company. British railways

have made some changes for the privatization of Railways. Hornby introduced first
commercially produced '00' gauge live steam locomotive in year 2003, company's
expands range, more than 650 current items. Company position held for more than
50 years as Britain's leading model railway manufacturer company.(Hornby;2008)

3.FINANCIAL ANALYSIS:It would be via financial tools to help us measure up to the performance and do 'TIE'
benchmarking to understand the improved performer of the two. Horizontal and
Vertical analysis is followed by ratios. where 'TIE' is benchmarking would be
compare the companies
T -Trend
I -Industry
E -Expectation

3.1.COMMON-SIZE STATEMENTS:In common size statements are generally 'Horizontal analysis compares' the
presentation of a company with its own historical data to recognize how the financial
statement things change over time (Alexander 2009:816). Now a base year is chosen
and all the financial statement items are expressed as an catalogue relative to the
base year.It gives a quick guide to specific trends of an individual item(Elliott and
Elliott 2008:706). With three years financial statements, this is carried out for
Games work Shop Plc and Hornby PLC so that the company's trend is understood.
Vertical analysis is carried out on one year's statement. The entire items in the
financial statement is expressed in comparison with a selected figure in the
statement(i.e.)in profit and loss account all the things are expressed in terms of
turnover and balance sheet its expressed in terms of capital employed or
shareholder's funds (Elliott and Elliott 2008:710).

3.2.RATIOS:Ratio analysis describes the relation between different objects in the financial
statements. They classify areas of fine and shocking performance and areas of
significant vary. The relative usefulness of every ratio depends on what aspects of the
company's affairs are mortal investigated. Ratios are powerful tool for understanding
and interpreting company accounts(Elliott and Elliott 2008: 665). Number financial

ratios can be considered as shown in the appendix but we are going to consider the
key ratios of the financial performance, current financial position and the
shareholder's return and the related ratios under each are:Financial Performance
Profitability Ratio.
Efficiency Ratio.
Current Financial Position
Liquidity Ratio.
Gearing Ratio.
Shareholder Return
ROE/ROSF
TSR

Financial ratios analysis

This section will critically demonstrate and analyze the financial health and
performance of the two companies in term of its profitability, liquidity, efficiency,
gearing, investment by comparing trends of those ratios as well as looking in deep
insight of financial figures between the two companies over three financial years.
Basically, investors are most concerned about their investment return and risk.
Based on this sense, we have chosen those mentioned ratios to analysis and explain
these two companies' investment value, and also justifications of why they are
important to evaluate also are provided with each ratio. Among those, profitability
and investment ratios, nevertheless, will be mainly focused for the investment
analysis and decision making.

1. Profitability Ratios:
Profitability ratios are the most important ratios to investors in any given industry,
because it simply shows how much profit the company has earned over years, does it
achieve satisfactory level to investors, banks, and shareholders compared to that of

its competitor or the industry. Also by drilling down into figures, profitability ratios
can also tell how efficient and effective company conducts its business resources and
operation activities such as sales, production or other cost-consumed ones.

This section will examine the reasons why the profitability of GWB is growing
upward contrary to that of HB through years, why even generating large sales in
2008 (always twice as much as HB's for 3 years), GWB only achieved very low profit
(2,552), nearly one fourth to HB's (9.386) in 2008 and how important cost
management can improve the profitability of GWB on one side but reduce HB's on
the other side in 2009 and 2010. (in 1000 pounds)
Now, this report is to analyze the profitability of the two companies by looking into
its ROCE, and its relationship between ROS and AT and Net Profit Margin ratios:

Return on Capital Employed:

Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) is the key profitability ratio that measures
company's profits and business performance. It shows the relationship between the
PBIT with the capital employed to make that profit.
Graphs to compare profitability between GWB and HB for 3 years from 2008 to
2010: ROCE, ROS and AT

Describe:
As seen in the graph:
The ROCE of GWG is upward, and that of HB however is downward for the 3
financial years.
Both AT of GWG and HB are slightly downward, however the ratio of GWG
(averagely 2.33) is at higher level than that of HB (averagely 1.56)
While ROS of GWG started at very low rate 2.31% in 2008 compared to the ratio of
HB 16.85% but GWG has improved dramatically to 7.11% in 2009 and 12.68% in
2010 since HB dropped considerably to 11.21% in 2009 and 9.27% in 2010.

Analyze:

Since ROCE is equal by AT times ROS, and AT of both companies seems to stay
unchanged, the significant changes in ROCE between them largely depends on the
fluctuations of their ROS ratios
Actually, a significant increase in ROCE of GWG is as a result of an increase in its
ROS and a significant decrease in ROCE of HB is as a result of a decrease in its ROS
Also, the average AT of GWG for 3 years is 1.5 times as much as that of HB means the
greater effectiveness of using its assets to generate revenues for GWG over HB.
Once again, because ROS is equal by PBIT/ Sales, and the Sales of both companies
slightly increase in approximately same proportion (around 1.15 times by both over 3
years), the significant changes in ROS between them largely depends on the
fluctuations of their PBIT.
PBIT of GWG has soared dramatically from very low level 2.552 in 2008 to 8.933 in
2009 and 16.045, while a downward trend has been seen in HB's from 9.386 in 2008
to 6.899 in 2009 and 6.004 in 2010. Here is the key point to analyze why they have
achieved different performances.
Even generating large sales in 2008 (always twice as much as HB's for 3 years) GWB
only achieved very low profit (2,552) nearly one fourth to HB's in 2008.
GWG
2010
2009
2008
Sales
126,511
125,706
110,345
increase
115%

114%
100%
HB
2010
2009
2008
Sales
64,736
61,569
55,692
increase
116%
111%
100%
Profit is therefore measured as the difference between Sales and Operation Expenses.
Operation Expenses and COGS are the key reasons for two companies' performance
differences:

GWG
2010
2009
2008
OE
110,466

116,773
107,793
decrease
102.48%
108.33%
100.00%

HB
2010
2009
2008
OE
58,732
54,670
46,306
Increase
126.83%
118.06%
100.00%

Comment:
There are two reverse pictures of business performance between the two companies:
GWB has improved progressively, HB has not.

GWG must do something right in its cost strategies from 2008 to 2009 and 2010 and
vice versa for HB.
To simplify, the reasons of positive changes for GWB's profitability and negative
changes for HB's are mostly illustrated by the diagram below:
COGS
falls
OE
falls
PBIT
increases
Profitability
Increases
ROCE
increases
ROS
increases
Sales slightly increases
Diagram illustrated the financial ratio factors that make the positive increase in
profitability of GWG over 3 years.
- The efficient way of cost management in GWB through 3 years has lead the
reduction of its COGs and Operation Expenses, along with the slightly increase in
sales which together results in the increase in ROS, ROCE ratios and finally the
profitability.
- By the same way, the inefficient way of cost management in HB has made it less
profitability performance than it did in previous years.

GWG
2010
2009
2008
GWG
2010
2009
2008
COGS
30,683
35,919
32,896
Sales
126,511
125,706
110,345
Decrease
93.27%
109.19%
100.00%

increase
115%
114%
100%

HB
2010
2010
2010
HB
2010
2010
2010
COGS
32,636
32,168
26,297
Sales
64,736
61,569
55,692
Increase

124.11%
122.33%
100.00%
increase
116%
111%
100%
Net profit Margin (NPM) measures the profit before interest and tax PBIT made out
of total sales of the company. It also shows the similar reserve trends between the
two companies.

Summary
By all the analysis of past performance and comparison, GWB has performed more
profitably and efficiently than HB has. GWB has successfully reduced its production
cost as well as maintained its high revenues to generate better business performance
and profitability over years.

2. Liquidity ratios:
Liquidity ratios simply measure how companies can meet its current financial
obligations in term of cash or how can assets be quickly transferred into cash when
needed.
With that view, current ratio indicates the relationship between company's total
current assets and its total current liabilities, and how it can pay short term debts
(less than 12 months) from the current assets which are mostly able to transform into
cash. The higher is the ratio, the better. Below 1:1 is highly not expected and the ideal
figure for this ratio is 2:1.
In the charts, both of these companies have achieved the ratios above 1:1, however,
the trends between them are different. GWB has consistent uptrend, starting at low
level (relative to HB) 1.4 (times) in 2008, but rising moderately to 1.74 in 2009 and

2.04 in 2010. HB has fluctuated from high level (relative to GWB) 1.87 in 2008, but
declining considerably to 1.48 in 2009, and recovering dramatically at 2.11 in 2010.
Liquid ratios have shown the similar trends to the previous ratios between two
companies because it is current ratio but deducts inventory asset which is not always
easily to turn into cash. As a matter of fact, excluding inventory makes liquid ratios of
GWB become relatively higher than those of HB, which means GWB has done better
in term of inventory strategies over HB. GWB's inventory has been kept as a
consistent level over 3 years around 10.300 accompanied with the increase in total
assets which makes the relative proportion between inventory and total asset getting
smaller hence higher liquid ratio.
While HB's inventory has been fluctuated (11.890 in 2008, 14.368 in 2009, 12.273 in
2010) and by the same way finally makes that proportion become bigger and hence
lower liquid ratio.

HB
2010
2009
2008
Inventory
12,273
14,368
11,890
Current Asset

35,487
28,038
23,681
Proportion

34.58%
51.24%
50.21%

GWB
2010
2009
2008
Inventory
10,138
10,678
10,392
Current Asset

37,571
31,234
29,320
Proportion
26.98%
34.19%
35.44%
Proportion of inventory over total current assets for Games Workshop Group
PLc(GWB) and Hornby PLC (HB) over 3 years

The different picture has been seen in Cash ratio when GWB has shown a much
higher ability to pay its short term loans in immediate cash than HB. This implies
greater risks for HB in the business when it needs cash to cover other operational
expenses

3. Efficiency ratios:
Efficiency ratios evaluate the ability of a company to utilize and manage various
resources. In the previous section, AT has been assessed to see how GWB use its
assets more efficiently to generate revenues than HB.
Specifically, Fixed Assets Turnover ratio measures how efficiently a company uses its
fixed assets to generate its sales. The higher is the ratio, the better. The high ratio
means the company has less money tied up in fixed assets for each pound generated
and the declining ratio indicates that company has over invested in fixed assets such
as plant, machinery, etc
In the chart, the increasing ratios of GWB for 3 years clearly show the efficient
utilization of its fixed assets: 2.89 (times) in 2008, 3.23 in 2009 and 3.31 in 2010. On
the contrary, HB has the declining and lower ratios over 3 years: 2.68 in 2008, 2.06
in 2009, 2.25 in 2010.
Thus, HB has performed less efficiently using fixed assets to generate sales than
GWB.
Stock turnover period measures for how long inventories are being hold or how well
a company can manage its stock level. The lower period is the ratio, the better. It can
also help company improve its sales and liquidity performance. Once again, as
analyzed in the profitability ratios, GWB has performed better than HB in term of
inventory and COGSs. GWB keeps its consistent lower inventory level while reducing
cost of goods sold to maximize its profits.
In the chart, however in 2010, the period of GWB is getting higher to 121 days,
compared to the previous years: 109 days in 2009 and 113 days in 2008, while HB
has reduced this period over 3 years: from 166 days in 2008, to 164 days in 2009 and
138 days in 2010.

Debtors period

Debtors Period is one of most important ratios reflected the ability of a company to
collect debts from its credit customers. If the period is high, a company will face
difficulty to quickly withdraw its finance to invest in its business operations. It can be
seen that GWB's period is much better (2.5 times lower) than HB's, while GWB only
needs averagely 30 days to take its debts back and this periods tend to decrease, HB
normally needs more than 70 days and this ratios seem not to positively change.

5. Creditors Period
Creditors period, on the other hand, measures for how long company have to pay for
its suppliers. The higher period is the ratio, the better because it can keep cash longer
and push the finance risk to its suppliers. GWB's period is still better and 1.6 times
longer than HB's for the 3 years, means the pressure of GWB to pay money back to
its supplier is smaller than the other.

6. Capital gearing:
Capital gearing ratio determines how well a company can pay for its long term loans.
It measures the proportion of long term loans over total capital employed. Two
reversed trends have been seen for the two companies. GWB started at very high rate
of 32.21% in 2008 but dropped to 22.98% in 2009 and dipped to the lowest 0% in
2010, conversely the other started at very low rate of 0.44% in 2008, but climbed
sharply to 18.40% in 2009 and 22.22% in 2010. High ratio also indicates the higher
risk of HB to pay high interests to banks and the bigger nervousness of its creditors
on HB's loans.

7. Investment ratios:
This is the most important ratio for the investors and it consists of many ratios which
are going to see in detail: EPS, DPS, PE
(Data taken from the 5 financial year summary of GWB and HB 2010's annual
reports)
EPS represents the earning of the company as a function of the total number of
ordinary shares in issue. (O'Regan 2006:295).The shareholders are interested in EPS
as it shows the earnings yield percentage and to estimate future growth which will
affect the future share price (Elliott, 2008). The two reverse trends in investment
picture have been matched with the previous trends described in profitability ratios.
GWB's EPS has been improved substantially as the company generates better profits

than it did in previous year. It reaches the highest point 48.4 (p/ share) in 2010,
followed by 17.6 in 2009 and -2.4 in 2008, a spectacular trend for investors to look
at. Conversely, less profitability, thus less EPS makes HB loose its attractiveness
from investors by the downtrend: 9.76 in 2010, 11.17 in 2009 and 16.15 in 2008.

P/E Ratio
The Price/earnings ratio is one of the most important and controversy ratio that
measures of the company's performance (O'Regan 2006:298). It represents the
market's view of growth potential of the company, its dividend policy and the degree
of risk involved in investment. This indicates the relationship between the earnings
of the company and its stock market price.
The low P/E means the company is undervalued and vice versa, hence investors
might put their money on those stocks rather than those (overvalued) which more
than its worth. In this chart, the P/Es of GWB and HB are relatively 8.3 and 15.43
means GWB and HB investors will pay relatively 8.3 pounds and 15.43 pounds for
every 1 pound of its earnings, which means that HB's stock is less value attractive
than the other by investors. The upward trend of HB (6.19 in 2008, 13.43 in 2009
and 15.43 in 2010) shows its less value attractiveness than GWB (120.58 in 2008,
14.54 in 2009 and 8.83 in 2010) for years.
However, the higher P/E ratio also means the greater of the confidence in future
earning power of the company, HB therefore has higher market confidence in stock
increase for future. Stock prices of HB is much more fluctuated, and lower than GWB
demonstrates its better probability to increase while GWB's stock price is very high
and has less space for share price rising.
This point will be assessed more in Investment Advice section.

DPS
Another key investment ratio is very useful for investors to consider is DPS
(Dividend per share). It indicates how much dividend a company pays for its
shareholders every year or a quarter of a year. As seen in the graph, there were no
dividend paid to GWB's shareholders in 2008 and 2009 but a very large dividend
proposed 25 (pence/share) in 2010 while there were lower dividends paid to HB's
shareholders for 3 years: 8.52 in 2008, 2.7 in 2009 and 5.04 in 2010.

7. INDUSTRY ANALYSIS:-

Initially let's evaluate the performance of the industry they are present in .The factors
that are affecting the retailing game industry are as follows:

Market background:
The UK traditional toys and games market grew consistently between 2004 and
2007, but recorded a slowdown in sales in 2008, which brought the value of the
market to 2.09bn.
The main product categories in the market are: infant/pre-school toys and games;
activity toys; outdoor and sports toys and games; games and puzzles; dolls; action
toys; vehicles; electronic toys; plush toys; and other products.
Multichannel retailing (store, catalogue and internet) a vital requirement.

Recession and growth:

It is evident that the profit margins and the turnover of any given industry existing
have went down just in 2009 due to the effect of the recession, but for the total trend,
industry has generally performed well. The UK toys and games market is facing
difficulty in 2009, as a result of negative economic growth and inflation. However,
there has been some recovery in sales from 2010 as given below:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
656
667
684
680
699

(Fame,2010)

Competitive industry environment:

Costs rising for retailers. Highly seasonal retail market.
Growth in Internet sales.
More channels of distribution opening, particularly supermarkets and the Internet.
Challenges from tougher economic conditions and competitors' for kids' time console games and Internet.
TV and film plays major role in market.
When the firm's figures seem to hit the ground due to global economic conditions,
survival seems to be tough. Now taking this into account, below figure is plotted
which reveals a fact that Games Workshop Group PLC has a maximum PBT (Profit
before Tax) of 29.57% as of the available year when compared to its close competitors
namely Vivid Imagination limited and the Hornby PLC which could only manage to
gain a PBT of 18.70% and 9.57% respectively. This clearly suggests us that the Games
Workshop Group PLC has been maintaining a decent PBT which eventually gained
them a strong market share.
This "economic hit" has lead to the following consequences where,

.
Consumers do choosy shopping.
The demand curve for the valuable goods had gone down.

Market share:
So as a result of the above changes that have occurred, any given firm in the market
needs to make necessary changes as far as their operations are concerned. The
comparisons are carried out below. However the necessary recommendations will be
made at the end by the report that might possibly remedy the current scenario.
Source:-Fame (2010)

In the chart, the Games Workshop Group PLC is known to be the largest and the
most successful tabletop fantasy war games company in the world since it managed
to maintain some respectable numbers when compared to the other toy and game
industries.
(Games, 2010).

Future prospect and forecast:

Turnover of various Toy industries in the U.K
(2003-2010).
Source: (Mintel, 2010)
The above graph shows that Toy industry had reached up to 2,050 million pounds in
2003 year, .after that industry turnover constantly improved to 2,150 million pounds
in year 2006, in2007 it reached almost to 2,200 million pounds. In year 2008-2009
industry turnover has been declined below 2,050 million pounds, because of
recession effect in market. And if we observe in the year 2010 industry turnover had
slightly increased and reached as in year 2003 which is 2,050million pounds.
In future prospector point of view Games work shop Group PLC is doing well
compare to Hornby PLC even in recession period occurred during 2007-2009, and
the ROCE ratio has increased as well compare with pervious .If we compare with
competitor like Hornby PLC doing well some ratios, but some them are lagining
behind with Games workshop PLC .The ROCE ratio of Hornby is declined compare
with pervious years.
Rising birth rate good news for market.
Smaller average family sizes, older parents

Recommendation:
The performances of the two companies are understood by analysing their ratios.
Among the ratios which has been calculated we have to consider the few key points in
order to recommend for the investment.
We can recommend the investor by taking the key ratios of the both companies
which gives a clear idea of which company is making more profit and low risk. These

are the two important aspects that has to be taken into consideration in order to
choose a better company to invest.

SWOT Analysis:
SWOT analysis of Games Workshop PLC:

STRENGHTS
Good returns on capital employed.
Increase in share price.
Gearing ratio is zero in the current year states that it has low risk.
Largest and the most successful table top fantasy war games company in the world.

WEAKNESS
No regular dividend to investors.

OPPORTUNITIES
Recovering from the inflation it has large scope to extend its business globally.
Parents are supporting learning through play so that GWP can use this as an
opportunity to increase the business.
Increasing child population in UK.

THREATS
Recession: Recession is a huge threat for GWP as it is in a market of toys.
Competitors: this is one of the threat for the company as the other companies in the
same industry are also doing well.
SWOT analysis of Hornby PLC:

STRENGHTS
Large product portfolio.

Best performance in Europe despite of supply problem.

Regular payment on dividend.

WEAKNESS
Supply Problem

OPPORTUNITIES
Product expansion in Europe markets
London Olympic Games 2012

THREATS
Recession: Should be a huge threat for the company currently.
Competitors: this is a threat that the other companies which has entered after the
Hornby are doing well in the market.

Investment advice:
Studying the ratios and performance the investment advice to Mr Stephen Curry is
given depending on the following key elements:

Business Performance, Return on Investment,

current stock price trends
After analysing the total financial ratios we can conclude that the Games Workshop
Group PLC is doing better in the business performance than the Hornby PLC. The
GWB generates more profits by selling much more products and at the same time
regulating the inventory stock well to minimise the production cost, hence they are
more efficient to utilize their business resources and better in cash liquidity.
The current share price of Games Workshop PLC is 427.5p [Date: 12-11-10] which
has an increase of 69.5p when it was 346p [Date:30-5-10] while Hornby PLC current
share price is 150.5 [Date:12-11-10] has an increase of 24.5p when it was
126[Date:31-3-10]. This shows that there is a great increase of the share price of GWP
than that of the Hornby PLC which is very important to any investor to think.

Games Workshop PLC Share Price

427.5p Updated: 10-11-2010
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?
ticker=GAW:LN

Hornby PLC Share Price:

150.5P updated:10-11-2010
http://www.hornby.com/investor-relations/

Industry prospective, financial environment and

competitions
Stephen's attitude to risk:
From the investment ratio, there are two different options for any investor to
choose . They are:
Low risk-Long term investment.
High risk-Short term investment.
From the above share price charts of the two companies it is clear that the GWB
comes under the first category and the HB comes under the second category. We can
justify this satatement by analysing the P/Es of the two companies . when the P/E is
low it means that the company is undervalued and vice versa. The P/E of GWB and
HB are 8.3 and 15.43 respectilvely. It means that they pay 8.3 pounds and 15.3
pounds respectively for every 1 pound earnings. The upward trend of HB (6.19 in
2008, 13.43 in 2009 and 15.43 in 2010) shows its less value attractiveness than GWB
(120.58 in 2008, 14.54 in 2009 and 8.83 in 2010) for years.
However, the higher P/E ratio also shows the confidence in future earning power of
the company. HB therefore has higher market confidence in stock increase for future.
Stock prices of HB is much more fluctuated, and lower than GWB demonstrates its
better probability to increase while GWB's stock price is very high and has less space
for share price rising.

As our investor Mr Stephen Curry has a broad portfolio in the of shares but he does
not have very much exposure to the games retailing sector, we would like to
recommend him to better choose the low risk-long term investment that is Games
Workshop group PLC to invest.
Thus by studying the ratios, performances and the share price of the two companies
we suggest it will be wise and profitable for Mr.Stephen to invest in Games
Workshop PLC.

References:
Elliott, B. and Elliott, J. (2008) Financial Accounting and Reporting. 12th Edition.
Harlow : Pearson
Alexander, D., Britton, A. and Jorissen, A. (2009) International Financial Reporting
And Analysis. 4TH Edition. Andover: Patrick Bond
O'Regan, P. (2006) Financial Information Analysis. 2ND Edition. Chichester,
England : John Wiley & Sons
Atrill, P. and McLaney, E. (2002) Financial Accounting For Non-Specialists. 3rd
Edition. London : Prentice Hall.
Games work group PLC (2010) Investor Relation [online] available from
<http://investor.games-workshop.com/> [29Nov 2010]
Hornby PLC(2010) Investor Relation [online] available from <
http://www.hornby.com/investor-relations//> [29 Nov 2010]
Fame (2010) Detailed Information on UK and Irish Companies [online] available
from < <https://fame.bvdep.com/version- 20091031/cgi/template.dll?
checkathens=1&kick=1&product=1&user=ganesanb
%40coventry.ac.uk&pw=05%2fQR5RKeV2ntAm%2b1D%2f3ug%3d%3d> [29 Nov
2010]