CLOANZ! PREPARE FOR SCIENCE!

Moderators: Dr. X, ikensall, fredde

solvess wrote:I think your right aoffan my IQ does drop when ever he posts.
It should be a rule that solvess and masterfmdskalfj can't post until they learn basic sentence structure. I think my IQ drops 10 points every time I read their posts.
Tzan wrote:I agree with Warhead.Quantumsurfer wrote:I generally agree with TzanWarhead wrote:I agree with QuantumSmurfer.


It's not my posts that are boneriffic, it's that I enjoy arguing even if I come out worse.Silent-sigfig wrote:6. Dilanski--You're on the line here.
There's a nice table at the start of the document showing various net profits and expenses from 2005 onwards, it shows a nice increase and a big jump in 2009, 2005 looked horrible with a Net profit off 214, against 2006's profit of 1,290.Annual Report 2009 wrote:The LEGO Group’s profit for the year amounted to DKK 2,204
million in 2009 against DKK 1,352 million in 2008.
Actually it turns out that's just about precisely how much they needed to become profitable; according to the profile on strategy-business.com, the profit margin was at -30%:dilanski wrote:Edit: I'd like to know more about Lego's financial status, because adding a third to the price of each set doesn't sound like it'd make up for the nuclear bomb that's going off in Lego's budget.
Fortunately they got better.But the Lego Group's financial performance told another story. Despite its extraordinary hold on the imagination of children around the world, the Billund, Denmark, company was in trouble. The Lego Group had lost money four out of the seven years from 1998 through 2004. Sales dropped 30 percent in 2003 and 10 percent more in 2004, when profit margins stood at -30 percent. Lego Group executives estimated that the company was destroying ?250,000 ($337,000) in value every day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af1OxkFOK18RunsWithLegos wrote:why am I a n00b exactly?

