Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Intersting article.

heartlessheartless Member UncommonPosts: 4,993

www.onlinemassivelymultiplayer.com/mmo-news/funcom-age-of-conan-is-dying-subscribers-under-100k-23-million-4q-loss-cfo-resigns-plus-combat-tutorial-video/

In short, the article claims that AoC and Funcom are in financial trouble and are dying.

What are yout thoughts on this?

image

Comments

  • KhrymsonKhrymson Member UncommonPosts: 3,090

    No surprise there as this was very much so expected!

  • MrbloodworthMrbloodworth Member Posts: 5,615

    That that's an old article, and they reference themselves as a source.

    ----------
    "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me

    "No, your wrong.." - Random user #123

    "Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.

    How are you?" -Me

  • LongsnoutLongsnout Member Posts: 116

     40 million cash flow. Not dying. Q408 fiscal report offering some insight in wider business plan.

    ============================================================

    Nobody is useless, he/she can still be used as a bad example.

  • AxlesAxles Member Posts: 123

    They are both using Failed information. Nice try tho.

  • LongsnoutLongsnout Member Posts: 116

    Just because they lost money, it does not mean they are dying.

    ============================================================

    Nobody is useless, he/she can still be used as a bad example.

  • AceundorAceundor Member Posts: 482

    Well, I dont beleive Gaming-press are schooled in analysing a companys fincancial situation.

    Now, if they go in an look at gaming mechanincs (playability, fun factor, graphics, stability, sound, etc) and based on that make a prediciton on the lifespan of the game I can taker their input seriously. And if they were amongst the ones who predictet the downfall of Tabula Rasa based on same criterias I might even beleive them.

    I wont ask my banker to reccomend me a game, so I dont expect gamers to give me financial reccomendations. (eventhought a banker kan be a gamer and a gamer kan be a banker... lol )

    Originally posted by BishopB:

    Are a lot of the trolls just angry kids with old gaming hardware?

  • LongsnoutLongsnout Member Posts: 116
    Originally posted by Aceundor


    Well, I dont beleive Gaming-press are schooled in analysing a companys fincancial situation.
    Now, if they go in an look at gaming mechanincs (playability, fun factor, graphics, stability, sound, etc) and based on that make a prediciton on the lifespan of the game I can taker their input seriously. And if they were amongst the ones who predictet the downfall of Tabula Rasa based on same criterias I might even beleive them.
    I wont ask my banker to reccomend me a game, so I dont expect gamers to give me financial reccomendations. (eventhought a banker kan be a gamer and a gamer kan be a banker... lol )

    Thank you.

    ============================================================

    Nobody is useless, he/she can still be used as a bad example.

  • TjommisTjommis Member UncommonPosts: 225

    You are absolutely correct in not trusting them for financials. Funcom actually had a positive cash flow in that quarter, and the deficit they ran was due to taking write downs on their assets.

  • RdlabanRdlaban Member UncommonPosts: 396

    Its humoring seeing how ppl with little knowlege about coperate economics think that funcom "lost 23 mill usd" last quarter. The differense between cashflow and a company balanse might not seem big when you see it first time.  

     

    I will try to keep it short. A company does not go bankrupt as long as they have a positive cashflow. Every company with a posetiv cashflow is earning money(generating more than they spent). No company making more money than they spend will go bankrupt)

    The "loss" in 23 mill us dollar comes from downwriting the value of AoC; that means in their Assets; they say; AoC is worth 23 mill less than last year; and the accountant writes down the value(to lazy to check how much AoC is worth). This will mean that the company as a total is worth 23 mill less(no money is changing hands; just a correction on the paper. This does not affect the comany earnings; just the company total value.  And to see how good a company is doing you can often do a little earnings diveded on company value to see if they make MORE money than other investment objects(this is not completly true but trying to keep it simple)

     

    Also read financial newpapers; and see whenever a new CEO is entering the stage he will write down the value on the company assets; then he will get stock obligations* on a company "worth less" but still generating the same amount of cash; therefore exploiting the view of cashflow vs company value that often should be the stock price(you turn down the company value the stock price should go down; since you do this in a whim at the office the company looses a lot of "value) at a short time; making the stock go down; then he he gets his stock obligations and can later show that the cash he is earning is %-much higher than before(comparing it to earnings vs company value); everyone is happy; CEO gets a huge paycheck (for almost no risk)

     

    *Is this the right word? Hard to translate since english is not my first language. The point is that a CEO or other "high in the system" gets a deal where they can buy shares at a set price(usually the stock price at some point that is part of the agreement) If the stocks go up; he can cash in the agreement buy the stock at a low price(price is in the agreement; usually stock value when the agreeement is signed) and sell them the same day at marked value.

     

    Another point here is that taking a "loss" in 4q is also a good thing when it comes to taxes(this is hugely debateable, many pros and cons for doing this)

     

    Therefor to the OP: the "loss" is good news; for the ones buying stocks now. Follow the financial reports and you will se some "positive" news as soon as they have "incrases the earnings of the company by xxx% (this is vs the value of the company; and they decreseased the vaulue last quarter.

  • bryan1980bryan1980 Member Posts: 182

    basically yeah, you are right.  In the 4th quarter, Funcom basically said they are never going to make back the money they spent developing the game.  It's not them saying they lost 23M in the 4th quarter, it's them saying that 23M of the money they spent in 2007 was wasted.  It's equivalent to a company spending money to build a factory, and then deciding not to produce anything in that factory... they write down the asset.

    This is all old information though.  WIth 40M in the bank, Funcom is not going anywhere.  The only question is how much of that 40M is going to be spent on their new game or are they going to keep pumping some money into AOC.   I think they are really cutting the staff of AOC down.. the new patch is not coming for months.

  • heartlessheartless Member UncommonPosts: 4,993

    So wait, what you guys are trying to tell me is that even though their CFO resigned and Goute, who is one of the founders, resigned also, and the game has less then 100,000 subscribers, the game and the company is just fine?

    I just got an email from MMORPG.com with a promo from Funcom giving away free items just so I would try the game.

    I thought that Darkfall fanboys were bad, you guys take the cake. At least most of them realize thatt their game is a mess. You guys still seem to think that all is peachy.

    Edit: spelling and stuff, I'm drunk, sorry.

    image

  • NetspookNetspook Member UncommonPosts: 1,573
    Originally posted by Rdlaban


    Its humoring seeing how ppl with little knowlege about coperate economics think that funcom "lost 23 mill usd" last quarter. The differense between cashflow and a company balanse might not seem big when you see it first time.  
     I will try to keep it short. A company does not go bankrupt as long as they have a positive cashflow. Every company with a posetiv cashflow is earning money(generating more than they spent). No company making more money than they spend will go bankrupt)



     

    Hillarious.

    Pretending to be the allmighty expert on financial issues and have no clue what you're talking about.

    A company can have a small "positive cashflow", and still lose all the assets. Which WILL, at least in Norway, lead to bankruptsy. Especially if the "stock value" (Norwegian: aksjekapitalen) disappears.

  • RdlabanRdlaban Member UncommonPosts: 396
    Originally posted by Netspook

    Originally posted by Rdlaban


    Its humoring seeing how ppl with little knowlege about coperate economics think that funcom "lost 23 mill usd" last quarter. The differense between cashflow and a company balanse might not seem big when you see it first time.  
     I will try to keep it short. A company does not go bankrupt as long as they have a positive cashflow. Every company with a posetiv cashflow is earning money(generating more than they spent). No company making more money than they spend will go bankrupt)



     

    Hillarious.

    Pretending to be the allmighty expert on financial issues and have no clue what you're talking about.

    A company can have a small "positive cashflow", and still lose all the assets. Which WILL, at least in Norway, lead to bankruptsy. Especially if the "stock value" (Norwegian: aksjekapitalen) disappears.

     

    Well you know the rules about how a company goes bankrupt in norway (link is in norwegian)? They must be unable to pay their bills as they are due*. A company with a positive cashflow do this generally(expectations may accour bur read the whole text under §62 in the link provided).

    I think you mix up normal profit and postive cashflow. Since a company making profit can go bankrupt due to not having a good enough cashflow:)

    *Insolvency

     

    If the company does not make profit at all; the company will go bankrupt; but this is due to the nature of cashflow compared to profit over tiem. If nothing changes they will at some point be the same. (Since profit do have "non payable expenses" as its called; usually sunk cost and amortizations.

  • CrashloopCrashloop Member Posts: 885

    A company that looses money for 5 years will not be going bankrupt as long as they have enough money to run the businiess. And in some situations they can be saved by the banks so they can continue running if the banks feel that it deserves the right to live. The day a company no longer can pay their bills or have a HUGE so the banks want to cut their loss rather risk it becoming higher is the day they will go bankrupt. And as long as Funcom is making money there is no risk for them suddenly going bankrupt. Unless they end up in a situation where they cannot pay their bills.

    Playing: Battlefield - Bad company (Xbox360) Arma2, DFO (PC)
    On my radar: TSW, MO
    MMO's played: SWG (pre cu/cu), WoW, AoC, WAR, DFO, Planetside
    MMO's that I have tested: Lotro, L2, Aion, Ryzom

  • ObliviousXObliviousX Member Posts: 112
    Originally posted by heartless


    So wait, what you guys are trying to tell me is that even though their CFO resigned and Goute, who is one of the founders, resigned also, and the game has less then 100,000 subscribers, the game and the company is just fine?
    I just got an email from MMORPG.com with a promo from Funcom giving away free items just so I would try the game.
    I thought that Darkfall fanboys were bad, you guys take the cake. At least most of them realize thatt their game is a mess. You guys still seem to think that all is peachy.
    Edit: spelling and stuff, I'm drunk, sorry.

     

    The day Goute resigned is that day things started looking better for aoc, the game as only gotten better since he left.

  • NetspookNetspook Member UncommonPosts: 1,573
    Originally posted by Rdlaban

    Originally posted by Netspook

    Originally posted by Rdlaban


    Its humoring seeing how ppl with little knowlege about coperate economics think that funcom "lost 23 mill usd" last quarter. The differense between cashflow and a company balanse might not seem big when you see it first time.  
     I will try to keep it short. A company does not go bankrupt as long as they have a positive cashflow. Every company with a posetiv cashflow is earning money(generating more than they spent). No company making more money than they spend will go bankrupt)



     

    Hillarious.

    Pretending to be the allmighty expert on financial issues and have no clue what you're talking about.

    A company can have a small "positive cashflow", and still lose all the assets. Which WILL, at least in Norway, lead to bankruptsy. Especially if the "stock value" (Norwegian: aksjekapitalen) disappears.

     

    Well you know the rules about how a company goes bankrupt in norway (link is in norwegian)? They must be unable to pay their bills as they are due*. A company with a positive cashflow do this generally(expectations may accour bur read the whole text under §62 in the link provided).

    I think you mix up normal profit and postive cashflow. Since a company making profit can go bankrupt due to not having a good enough cashflow:)

    *Insolvency

     

    If the company does not make profit at all; the company will go bankrupt; but this is due to the nature of cashflow compared to profit over tiem. If nothing changes they will at some point be the same. (Since profit do have "non payable expenses" as its called; usually sunk cost and amortizations.



    My error was talking about bankruptcy as the only way of "forced dissolution". What I was referring to, is this paragraph in a Norwegian law (Aksjeloven), which is about having to close down a company when the value of the assets gets too low. If you knew anything about our financial laws, that error should have been crystal clear to you.

    Btw, this is about stock-based companies only, but that's exactly what Funcom is.

  • RdlabanRdlaban Member UncommonPosts: 396
    Originally posted by Netspook

    Originally posted by Rdlaban

    Originally posted by Netspook

    Originally posted by Rdlaban


    Its humoring seeing how ppl with little knowlege about coperate economics think that funcom "lost 23 mill usd" last quarter. The differense between cashflow and a company balanse might not seem big when you see it first time.  
     I will try to keep it short. A company does not go bankrupt as long as they have a positive cashflow. Every company with a posetiv cashflow is earning money(generating more than they spent). No company making more money than they spend will go bankrupt)



     

    Hillarious.

    Pretending to be the allmighty expert on financial issues and have no clue what you're talking about.

    A company can have a small "positive cashflow", and still lose all the assets. Which WILL, at least in Norway, lead to bankruptsy. Especially if the "stock value" (Norwegian: aksjekapitalen) disappears.

     

    Well you know the rules about how a company goes bankrupt in norway (link is in norwegian)? They must be unable to pay their bills as they are due*. A company with a positive cashflow do this generally(expectations may accour bur read the whole text under §62 in the link provided).

    I think you mix up normal profit and postive cashflow. Since a company making profit can go bankrupt due to not having a good enough cashflow:)

    *Insolvency

     

    If the company does not make profit at all; the company will go bankrupt; but this is due to the nature of cashflow compared to profit over tiem. If nothing changes they will at some point be the same. (Since profit do have "non payable expenses" as its called; usually sunk cost and amortizations.



    My error was talking about bankruptcy as the only way of "forced dissolution". What I was referring to, is this paragraph in a Norwegian law (Aksjeloven), which is about having to close down a company when the value of the assets gets too low. If you knew anything about our financial laws, that error should have been crystal clear to you.

    Btw, this is about stock-based companies only, but that's exactly what Funcom is.

     

    First you are referring to the wrong law; Funcom is a public traded company. You will find somewhat equal § in the right law. ( ye I know nitpicking but could not help myself due to the tone in your post:P) And you are using "small cashflow" to get your point out. We do talk about funcom here and teh cashflow was 4 mill USD in one quarter(small? )

     

    Second: you do not see point of my argument. A company with a positive cashflow will not go "bankrup" or getting dissolved; due to the nature of cashlfow compared to Profit. Threfore you will have a hard time finding a company that has been dissolved or gone bankrupt due to this. You aslo know what value the "aksjekapitalen" must go under before the § in mention do come into play? Yes; it is that low and tbh any company with less "aksjekapital" should not be allowed to be in businiss.

    Third: lets not think of my second point here and keep it simple. Cash is assets. You see this in the funcom balancesheet under "Balanse sheet". its arund 40 MUSD. As long as they have a postivie cashflow their Cash or cashe quivalents part of the assets will grow therefore their assets will not go under the amount that the law forced the board memeber to call in a generalmeeting(generalforsamling) within 6 months and then find a strategy to bring the company in order or start dissolving the company(then they go under "konkursloven" (sorry for taking a shortcut...) then someone will go through the company and see if the company is really broke or if it can still keep running. They will see that the company is generating cash(not insolvens) and the dissolving of the company is prob not gonna go trough. To lazy to link it to you; but you will probably find it yourself.

     

     

     So do you really think funcom is gonna loose all their assets and get dissolved?

     

    Want to know more; please PM me.

  • NetspookNetspook Member UncommonPosts: 1,573

    No, Rdlaban - I'm NOT referring to the wrong law. "Public traded" (your words) = stocks = "aksjeselskap" = correct law!!! Pretty obvious that you're completely clueless. You seem to believe that "konkursloven" is the only law that applies here, which proves you haven't even understood the basics.

    I'm talking about stock-based companies in general vs Norwegian laws. You think I'm talking about Funcom only. I said "a company" (not "Funcom") in both posts. And you can go on and on as much as you want about your cash flow examples - again: the assets in a company can disapper completely and they may still have a positive cashflow. This actually happens quite often in certain situations, but I doubt you'll ever understand how/why.

  • RdlabanRdlaban Member UncommonPosts: 396
    Originally posted by Netspook


    No, Rdlaban - I'm NOT referring to the wrong law. "Public traded" (your words) = stocks = "aksjeselskap" = correct law!!! Pretty obvious that you're completely clueless. You seem to believe that "konkursloven" is the only law that applies here, which proves you haven't even understood the basics.
    check "Aksjeloven §1(3) " the law does not apply to public traded companies(translated to "allmenaksjeselskap")
     
    I'm talking about stock-based companies in general vs Norwegian laws. You think I'm talking about Funcom only. I said "a company" (not "Funcom") in both posts. And you can go on and on as much as you want about your cash flow examples - again: the assets in a company can disapper completely and they may still have a positive cashflow. This actually happens quite often in certain situations, but I doubt you'll ever understand how/why.
     
    Since it happens all the time you can probably PM me some expamples(since we are over on a general econmic discussion and this is a MMO board)? and please explain how assets can go to 0 while they have good cashflow?

     

     

    Disclaimer: I had written a long reply to this; but the cat walked on my keyboard and closed the webbrowser. Did not want to write again. But please read my previus post as the arguments made still stands.

  • NetspookNetspook Member UncommonPosts: 1,573
    Originally posted by Rdlaban

    Originally posted by Netspook


    No, Rdlaban - I'm NOT referring to the wrong law. "Public traded" (your words) = stocks = "aksjeselskap" = correct law!!! Pretty obvious that you're completely clueless. You seem to believe that "konkursloven" is the only law that applies here, which proves you haven't even understood the basics.
    check "Aksjeloven §1(3) " the law does not apply to public traded companies(translated to "allmenaksjeselskap")
     
    I'm talking about stock-based companies in general vs Norwegian laws. You think I'm talking about Funcom only. I said "a company" (not "Funcom") in both posts. And you can go on and on as much as you want about your cash flow examples - again: the assets in a company can disapper completely and they may still have a positive cashflow. This actually happens quite often in certain situations, but I doubt you'll ever understand how/why.
     
    Since it happens all the time you can probably PM me some expamples(since we are over on a general econmic discussion and this is a MMO board)? and please explain how assets can go to 0 while they have good cashflow?

     

     

    Disclaimer: I had written a long reply to this; but the cat walked on my keyboard and closed the webbrowser. Did not want to write again. But please read my previus post as the arguments made still stands.



     

    Funcom is registered as "Funcom Oslo AS" in Norway. If they were a "allmennaksjeselskap", that's what they would be regiestered as, and that's not the case. Here's the info from Brønnøysundregisteret (all companies situated in Norway, both Norwegian or foreign, are registered here). Also, if they were a "allmennaksjeselskap", the company name would have to end with ASA, not AS (link to Norwegian government site with comments on both issues - read third paragraph).

    Even if Funcom was a "allmennasksjeselskap", my claim about the law doesn't change much. It's just another law which is basically a copy of the first, with a few changes. Compared to the first link I gave earlier, the name on this law is almost the same, and with the exception of an added time limit, you'll even find the exact same paragraphs, even same numbers is in "allmennaksjeloven" too.

    Btw, I never PM other posters on any forum. That includes you too.

    Sorry if the rest of you see this as repeated ranting or whatever. What I'm trying to prove, it that bankruptcy/dissolution may happen even with a positive cashflow.

  • MrbloodworthMrbloodworth Member Posts: 5,615
    Originally posted by Tjommis


    You are absolutely correct in not trusting them for financials. Funcom actually had a positive cash flow in that quarter, and the deficit they ran was due to taking write downs on their assets.

     

    ----------
    "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me

    "No, your wrong.." - Random user #123

    "Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.

    How are you?" -Me

  • RdlabanRdlaban Member UncommonPosts: 396
    Originally posted by Netspook

    Originally posted by Rdlaban

    Originally posted by Netspook


    No, Rdlaban - I'm NOT referring to the wrong law. "Public traded" (your words) = stocks = "aksjeselskap" = correct law!!! Pretty obvious that you're completely clueless. You seem to believe that "konkursloven" is the only law that applies here, which proves you haven't even understood the basics.
    check "Aksjeloven §1(3) " the law does not apply to public traded companies(translated to "allmenaksjeselskap")
     
    I'm talking about stock-based companies in general vs Norwegian laws. You think I'm talking about Funcom only. I said "a company" (not "Funcom") in both posts. And you can go on and on as much as you want about your cash flow examples - again: the assets in a company can disapper completely and they may still have a positive cashflow. This actually happens quite often in certain situations, but I doubt you'll ever understand how/why.
     
    Since it happens all the time you can probably PM me some expamples(since we are over on a general econmic discussion and this is a MMO board)? and please explain how assets can go to 0 while they have good cashflow?

     

     

    Disclaimer: I had written a long reply to this; but the cat walked on my keyboard and closed the webbrowser. Did not want to write again. But please read my previus post as the arguments made still stands.



     

    Funcom is registered as "Funcom Oslo AS" in Norway. If they were a "allmennaksjeselskap", that's what they would be regiestered as, and that's not the case. Here's the info from Brønnøysundregisteret (all companies situated in Norway, both Norwegian or foreign, are registered here). Also, if they were a "allmennaksjeselskap", the company name would have to end with ASA, not AS (link to Norwegian government site with comments on both issues - read third paragraph).

    Even if Funcom was a "allmennasksjeselskap", my claim about the law doesn't change much. It's just another law which is basically a copy of the first, with a few changes. Compared to the first link I gave earlier, the name on this law is almost the same, and with the exception of an added time limit, you'll even find the exact same paragraphs, even same numbers is in "allmennaksjeloven" too.

    Btw, I never PM other posters on any forum. That includes you too.

    Sorry if the rest of you see this as repeated ranting or whatever. What I'm trying to prove, it that bankruptcy/dissolution may happen even with a positive cashflow.

     

    Dude/dudette: you dont even got the right company .what you refeer to there is their Oslo office(check out the CeO. If you see the Funcom page at Oslo stock exchange then you will see that the mothercompany (asa) is registered in Switzerland but the comapny is traded on oslo stock exhange:) Now you cannot even get that straight so how am I to expain you that in the end its the "konkurslov" that is applied on a company when they go bankrupt.(the § in the almennaskjeloven just say when the board must take actions; the "konkurlov" is regulating if they do and how they end the company) (Dissolving is another law; Maybe you can find it somehwere.)



    To bad you dont use PMs.

  • NetspookNetspook Member UncommonPosts: 1,573
    Originally posted by Rdlaban

    Originally posted by Netspook

    Originally posted by Rdlaban

    Originally posted by Netspook


    No, Rdlaban - I'm NOT referring to the wrong law. "Public traded" (your words) = stocks = "aksjeselskap" = correct law!!! Pretty obvious that you're completely clueless. You seem to believe that "konkursloven" is the only law that applies here, which proves you haven't even understood the basics.
    check "Aksjeloven §1(3) " the law does not apply to public traded companies(translated to "allmenaksjeselskap")
     
    I'm talking about stock-based companies in general vs Norwegian laws. You think I'm talking about Funcom only. I said "a company" (not "Funcom") in both posts. And you can go on and on as much as you want about your cash flow examples - again: the assets in a company can disapper completely and they may still have a positive cashflow. This actually happens quite often in certain situations, but I doubt you'll ever understand how/why.
     
    Since it happens all the time you can probably PM me some expamples(since we are over on a general econmic discussion and this is a MMO board)? and please explain how assets can go to 0 while they have good cashflow?

     

     

    Disclaimer: I had written a long reply to this; but the cat walked on my keyboard and closed the webbrowser. Did not want to write again. But please read my previus post as the arguments made still stands.



     

    Funcom is registered as "Funcom Oslo AS" in Norway. If they were a "allmennaksjeselskap", that's what they would be regiestered as, and that's not the case. Here's the info from Brønnøysundregisteret (all companies situated in Norway, both Norwegian or foreign, are registered here). Also, if they were a "allmennaksjeselskap", the company name would have to end with ASA, not AS (link to Norwegian government site with comments on both issues - read third paragraph).

    Even if Funcom was a "allmennasksjeselskap", my claim about the law doesn't change much. It's just another law which is basically a copy of the first, with a few changes. Compared to the first link I gave earlier, the name on this law is almost the same, and with the exception of an added time limit, you'll even find the exact same paragraphs, even same numbers is in "allmennaksjeloven" too.

    Btw, I never PM other posters on any forum. That includes you too.

    Sorry if the rest of you see this as repeated ranting or whatever. What I'm trying to prove, it that bankruptcy/dissolution may happen even with a positive cashflow.

     

    Dude/dudette: you dont even got the right company .what you refeer to there is their Oslo office(check out the CeO. If you see the Funcom page at Oslo stock exchange then you will see that the mothercompany (asa) is registered in Switzerland but the comapny is traded on oslo stock exhange:) Now you cannot even get that straight so how am I to expain you that in the end its the "konkurslov" that is applied on a company when they go bankrupt.(the § in the almennaskjeloven just say when the board must take actions; the "konkurlov" is regulating if they do and how they end the company) (Dissolving is another law; Maybe you can find it somehwere.)



    To bad you dont use PMs.



     

    So, when you started talking about the Norwegian laws vs Funcom, you were basically saying Norwegian laws applies to Swiss companies...

    This is getting worse and worse.

  • RdlabanRdlaban Member UncommonPosts: 396
    Originally posted by Netspook




     
    So, when you started talking about the Norwegian laws vs Funcom, you were basically saying Norwegian laws applies to Swiss companies...
    This is getting worse and worse.

     

    Registered in switzerland(hq is there) but treded at oslo stock exhange. I really did think that was elementary and its not that uncommon...

    Edit: deleted my post; I give up on you. I am gonna let this one roll up to the readers.  My argumetns are up there; think most see it. S

Sign In or Register to comment.