Nike sponsorship.

[Rosy]

Has anyone heard who our clothing sponsor will be next year?
I was told our contract with Nike has ended, but don't know if that includes onfield apparel.
The Tiger den has a sale on next week.

Up to 40% off marked price of all apparel
Other selected items heavily reduced
(On sale from Monday, September 15 to Friday, October 17)

 

[jackstar]

The Tigers will go with there OWN brand apparell next year

 

[Koalalill]

The Tigers will go with there OWN brand apparell next year

This (much to my dismay) appears to be 100% correct - and from what a friend told me (and they work for Nike) it wasn't NIKE choice.

I think it is one of the dumbest decision I have seen in a long time. I am not sure what happened because I was originally told that the Nike deal had been extended but within 5-6 weeks it all changed


I beleive the Nike contract officially ends on 31/10/03.

 

[shawry]

Probably has something to do wiht Ian Campbell when he first rocked up wanting buile the Richmond brand on its own. Probably not a bad idea as long as they get it right. People dont buy Richmond gear because the stuff is Nike stuff, they buy it because it is Richmond stuff. People most likely wont buy absolute crap, but if it looks half decent probably doing ourselves a favour adn saving expenses with Nike. Dont think ti is such a bad thing.

 

[PuntRoadRoar]

yeah rumour has it the brand name will be called "spud wear" and everyone at the club will be wearing potato sacks with the bottom end cut so you can stick ya legs through. this apparently is to go with the loss of memberships and the club making expected financial losses in the future. ;D



well done "spud your job is now complete".. will be our club 2004 motto

 

[Rosy]

Haha PRR, I think you've managed to sneak a bag the spud message onto almost every single thread for the last few months. Why don't you let us know what you really think? ;D

 

[tiggytam]

Good, I might get my Tiger Flanny PJ's that I asked the Merchandise department about.

 

[shawry]

Good, I might get my Tiger Flanny PJ's that I asked the Merchandise department about.

Not a bad idea Tam.

 

[PuntRoadRoar]

lol rosy


ooooooopppps i didnt even notice.

its not intentional its like a "auto response" i see a thread and my fingers get a bit carried away


i really do lov..... lothe danny failure

 

[Koalalill]

Probably has something to do wiht Ian Campbell when he first rocked up wanting buile the Richmond brand on its own. Probably not a bad idea as long as they get it right. People dont buy Richmond gear because the stuff is Nike stuff, they buy it because it is Richmond stuff. People most likely wont buy absolute crap, but if it looks half decent probably doing ourselves a favour adn saving expenses with Nike. Dont think ti is such a bad thing.

One other team in the AFL has its own brand of clothing (which was born out of nessecity - they couldn't get a sponsor) and that is the Bulldogs. In the most polite way - I will say their range is average at best and at worst woeful, awful etc.

My argument is this: if you have company willing to pay you XXX amount of dollars to wear there product then why not utilise it. In times when we are being told that $ are hard to come by the key is to hang onto the sponsors who want to remain.

From a purely financial prespective we have lost a guaranteed yearly amount of money. And I would seriously doubt that we can generate the equivalent $$$ from having our apparel range.

As I said I think it is a dumb decision

 

[shawry]

Sorry Lill, i didnt realise that they were paying us to wear their gear, I was under the mistaken impression we were paying them for using their brand.

After hearing that do agree wiht your assessment. IF they offer we might as well do it. Stupid.

 

[Koalalill]

Sorry Lill, i didnt realise that they were paying us to wear their gear, I was under the mistaken impression we were paying them for using their brand.

Shawry,

All clubs (with the exception the Doggies in 2003) are paid by their apparell sponsors. The amounts vary from sponsor to sponsor and club to club but in some cases it has been reported that the amounts are between $200,000 - $450,000 per season.

I was reading the Bombers annual report for 2002 the other day. And it said that they had received settlement from their Apparel Sponsor of last year (Fila) for ending the the contract 2 years early. This settlement figure was $275,000 - as you can see we are talking big bucks here.

Also, I feel for supporters (Mums & Dads in particular) who fork their hard earned $$ so their kids can wear what their heroes wear. If they have bought their kid a new Nike jumper this year "like the one Cogs wears" then that jumper is out of date next year and little junior is going to want a new one.

Hmm... this is all starting sound like an email I have already sent

 

[Dean3]

There's got to be more to than that, surely. Nobody just throws away sponsorship money like that — even Richmond! And isn't Ian Campbell a former Nike exec? The plot thickens...maybe he has some insight into how to maximise our merchandising dollars without the Nike brand.
As far as the changing jumpers go, well, that happens just about every year anyway KL. Sponsors change, there are slight design modifications, new AFL rules etc etc. The clubs see that as a plus, not a minus!

 

[MC24]

There's got to be more to than that, surely. Nobody just throws away sponsorship money like that - even Richmond! And isn't Ian Campbell a former Nike exec? The plot thickens...maybe he has some insight into how to maximise our merchandising dollars without the Nike brand.

I'm with you Dean. There has to be more to it than we know.

 

[MC24]

Also, I feel for supporters (Mums & Dads in particular) who fork their hard earned $$ so their kids can wear what their heroes wear. If they have bought their kid a new Nike jumper this year "like the one Cogs wears" then that jumper is out of date next year and little junior is going to want a new one.

That doesn't seem to bother them in the English FA. They change their jumpers every season, it seems. And if we think the AFL jumpers cost enough, those cost even more, from what I've heard.

And that seems to be the argument from some people that it would bring in more money for AFL Clubs if we had separate 'home' and 'away' strips, which I am 100% against.

However, imo, our population couldn't justify such a thing, which is the advantage that other countries have over us.

My view is that we should stick to our own traditions and culture and not go with what the rest of the world does.

 

[sean pean]

actually i think it is an ideal opportunity to have some apparel that DOSENT look as though it comes off a production line somewhere in asia... no offence to my many asian friends

our gear is soooo average and and overpriced.

they may be getting sponsorship money from nike but make no mistake, the people who buy the gear, ie. us, are paying it ALL back.

if we do away with nike it will mean 2 things

cheaper gear, and/or a much greater return of profits to the club.

this, i would think, will more than compensate for the reduction in sponsorship income

does that sound like such a dumb/stupid idea now?

 

[jackstar]

Thats a good idea Sean Pean, by the way, the MELODY LORDS ARE BACK.

 

[Tigerblood]

Well, at least we won't have to put up with that awful American swoosh on everything. I bought a Tigers rugby style top last year, and when I wore it around people always said 'That's not a bad top - shame it's got that Nike thing on it'. The other day I actually sat down and picked the swoosh out with the end of a knife.

I guess some people think the US brand thing is cool, but for me it's as cool as advertising Macdonalds. Still, if it does mean we are hundreds of thousands of dollars worse off, I may be prepared to sell out...

 

[sean pean]

i hadn't thought of that angle tigerblood, how funny!

Campbell, having come from nike, knows how these sposorship rackets work.

There is no way we will be financially worse off by loosing it unless everyone stops buying gear, which i guess is a possibility, in which case we're screwed anyway!

Dean3 and MC24, the only thing more to it is that we're better off without it, re. my earlier post ;D

 

[sean pean]

jackstar, your kidding!

there is hope for us old muso's yet!