Collingwood to make their own jumpers; ditch Adidas

[magpielicious]

Flair may well be, but our players suits are Armani

If Flair outfit our players with suits then I can 200% guarantee you they aren't Armani !!!

Flair like everyone else out there purchase their fabrics from China.

And a tip fornall you fashion heads out there, just because you see a label from OS like Ben Sherman, Ted Baker London etc etc, don't for one minute think you are buying an original. They are all licensed to Australian companies and designed by people here and nothing to do with the original companies.

Ah, Australia, the land of the great rip off !!

 

[76woodenspooners]

Honestly don't see how this will put as ahead. If it would put us ahead, Bournmouth (who are in England's League 1 soccer who did this) would be in a good financial position. Also like I've said, Real Madrid haven't done this

Perhaps that is the whole point: if Collingwood had the same deal as Real Madrid has then Collingwood would be happy and not need to make their own jumpers?

 

[magpielicious]

Hopefully it's a ploy to show Adidas what a year away from CFC will do to their sales especially in this tough retail market. Might have them knocking on Pert's door in 2 years time with a better sponsorship offer !!

 

[Optimax]

If Flair outfit our players with suits then I can 200% guarantee you they aren't Armani !!!

Flair like everyone else out there purchase their fabrics from China.

And a tip fornall you fashion heads out there, just because you see a label from OS like Ben Sherman, Ted Baker London etc etc, don't for one minute think you are buying an original. They are all licensed to Australian companies and designed by people here and nothing to do with the original companies.

Ah, Australia, the land of the great rip off !!

Flair Is a sponsor

As is Armani

Our player issue suits, are Armani.

 

[Giddy Up]

With the V8 Supercars teams are responsible for their own merchandise. Teams such as HRT make a killing from it. All teams gear is made in china and quite often the quality is pretty good.

It seems strange though that the big teams in europe are not doing it. But could it be a case of whatever leagues they are in have a rule?

 

[TheWoodsOf72]

I always noticed a quality difference between the players gear and the fan apparel. In addition some clothing for the players cannot be purchased in the fan shop.

I'd also like them to produce some quality apparel. The fan shop is full of cheap junk.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Ditching Adidas concerns me.

I've LOVED them being our apparel partner all these years. It just seemed like a match made in heaven.

I was hoping this new apparel deal would be Collingwood making the 'budget' line, while Adidas stays on as the 'premium' line and match day jumper maker.

This is purely a money decision. By making ALL of it, Collingwood stands to make a shitload of money.

 

[FXD_]

You also can't pull from that article our jumper will be poor quality, seeing as Adidas, Nike, puma, and the majority of others are also made in china. Depends entirely on which company you get making it.

Come on, whether it's Adidas or Kmart brand they're all made in the same Chinese factories. I know, I used to work in the industry. Collingwood will be able to choose/pay for what ever quality it wants. Cheaper, equal or even better than Adidas.

Just wanted to say Puma has been making their guernseys, both player issue and retail, in Australia since they first got into manufacturing AFL guernseys in 1996.

Heard around the traps Reebok also make them in Australia and Adidas too.

 

[millsy29gopies]

I wouldn't mind throwing another curveball out there on this one. Considering we are moving away from Adidas for our apparel I take it we are also moving away from them as our boot sponsor as well?

The reason I bring this up is that as it currently sits all our players must wear Adidas boots during games. One Travis Cloke has appointed Ralph Carr management to organise deals away from footy so don't be surprised if in 6 months time Travis is announced as a face of Nike boots on a 6 figure deal ala the Roo Boy Wayne Carey in the 90's.

Allowing autonomy such as this is not possible with other clubs because he'd be locked in to wearing the boots of the apparel sponsor of the club. Thoughts?

Was thinking about that one last night as well. Very interesting.

 

[Bucks Boy Jett]

I wouldn't mind throwing another curveball out there on this one. Considering we are moving away from Adidas for our apparel I take it we are also moving away from them as our boot sponsor as well?

The reason I bring this up is that as it currently sits all our players must wear Adidas boots during games. One Travis Cloke has appointed Ralph Carr management to organise deals away from footy so don't be surprised if in 6 months time Travis is announced as a face of Nike boots on a 6 figure deal ala the Roo Boy Wayne Carey in the 90's.

Allowing autonomy such as this is not possible with other clubs because he'd be locked in to wearing the boots of the apparel sponsor of the club. Thoughts?

I am pretty sure that the rules in regards to club sponsors and football boots changed a few years ago to where a player can wear whose ever boots he likes.

 

[Bucks Boy Jett]

I wouldn't mind throwing another curveball out there on this one. Considering we are moving away from Adidas for our apparel I take it we are also moving away from them as our boot sponsor as well?

The reason I bring this up is that as it currently sits all our players must wear Adidas boots during games. One Travis Cloke has appointed Ralph Carr management to organise deals away from footy so don't be surprised if in 6 months time Travis is announced as a face of Nike boots on a 6 figure deal ala the Roo Boy Wayne Carey in the 90's.

Allowing autonomy such as this is not possible with other clubs because he'd be locked in to wearing the boots of the apparel sponsor of the club. Thoughts?

And after further research and the help of google he looks like he already wears Nike boots

 

[Histrionics]

Yeah Cloke wears Nikes and Shaw wears Diadoras.

 

[MarkT2]

Collingwood is not a business in the classical sense.

It's a not-for-profit.

This is a misnomer. It is most certainly a "for profit" business. The only proviso is taht shareholders (members) don't get a financial return. The aim of the board is definately profit though. If it wasn't memberships would be a lot cheaper and sell beer for $1 at the Westpac Centre.

 

[Jelly Bean]

This is a misnomer. It is most certainly a "for profit" business. The only proviso is taht shareholders (members) don't get a financial return. The aim of the board is definately profit though. If it wasn't memberships would be a lot cheaper and sell beer for $1 at the Westpac Centre.

But the aim of this club (unlike most businesses) is not to generate as much profit as possible. If it was, we wouldn't spend as much on the football department, etc.

Profit is not the goal. The goal is to fund a football department spend (in the hope that it would lead to premierships). The club can make more profit or less profit very very easily. The reason they make a profit each year is because that is the amount they choose to make.

It is very different to a 'for-profit' business, because the organisational objectives are very different.

 

[Scodog10]

And after further research and the help of google he looks like he already wears Nike boots

Well there goes that theory lol. However I should point out that those images are from 2009 or 2010 as you can tell by the jumper sponsors and styles.

 

[MarkT2]

But the aim of this club (unlike most businesses) is not to generate as much profit as possible. If it was, we wouldn't spend as much on the football department, etc.

The aim is to make as much profit as possible while spending as much as is required on the football department. Footy department spending is both an aim and a means. If more footy dept spending means more success then that will translate into more revenue and more capacity to increase footy department spending while making more money.

We could easily reduce memberships prices and spend more on the footy department but we actually want to make LARGE profits. We even try and invest profits into profit making businesses.

 

[Old Spice]

I guess most fashion companies these days (clothes, watches, perfume, sunglasses) are simply brand management shells.

That's exactly right.

We'd be paying an absolute premium on a whole bunch of nothing. All we need to do is to consult a desinger / pattern-maker once a a year, then take vendor bids from those who want the job (including those who already produce Side-by-Side gear), get a sample, then go.

Adidas might add some value as an international distribution arm for soccer clubs, but we don't need that at all. We're already a massive brand in it's own right. No exclusive Collingwood advertising comes via Adidas that can mean anything to us.

Jumpers are ridiculously expensive in my view. With a new arrangement we might be able to sell them lower and at higher volume. If they were 20% cheaper, I'd buy them for my girls, but I'm not copping the shake down for marketing.

I reckon the club could get a very similar price going direct. Even if it cost 10% more, say $5.50 per unit rather than $5, that's 1/10th of f*ck all. All the money is in distribution and marketing.

We could in the end have cheaper jumpers and still make more per unit. If the jumper was cheaper we'd probably sell more units too. Goes hand-in-hand with our strategy to draw in the more peripheral supporters.

Finally, are people serious when they think adidas is the draw card for people buying our jumper? Get real.

 

[Old Spice]

With a new arrangement we might be able to sell gear cheaper, for more profit per unit and also at a higher volume.

An adult jumper is $100 retail. I'd hazard a guess that the cost of designing, producing the jumper and transport might be $15 per unit tops. Given retailers pop @55% on top of that means there is @$75 per jumper being made. I'd suspect Collingwood might get in the order of $15 per unit.

You could factor in marketing/advertising (as Adidas udoubtedly do) but really, when was the last time you saw Adidas promote the brand exclusively. Impossible is Nothing yet advertising our jumper for more than 10 minutes a year through a generic ad has proved impossible. They're having a laugh.

We advertise our jumper much more heavily every week through games, news, foxtel ads, Telstra ads etc and that dwarfs anything Adidas can offer us and it's free. Our web advertising is already embedded and presents no unique cost to us.

Now imagine we produce a jumper for $20 (incl design, production cost, transport). We could ask for $25 per jumper, bringing the cost up to $45 before a 60% retail mark-up. The jumper would then sell for @$70 per unit and thereby probably increase unit sell by 10%.

Let's imagine at present we sell 10,000 of these Adidas jumpers per year at a dividend of $15 per unit. That's $150,000.

Now imagine we sell through a cheaper price 11,000 jumpers per year (10% increased sale through cheaper price) at a dividend of $25 per unit. That's $275,000.

We'd be offering:

1/. much cheaper jumpers which is fair
2/. make almost double the profit per unit
3/. increase the number of units sold

Obviously this is speculative in terms of figures and unit costs, but surely Collingwood has done the maths. I don't think we'd be bothering if the potential dividend wasn't substantial.

Just think of what the supermarkets have been able to do by going direct to wholesalers and making their own product. They're cutting out the margins and making a killing.

 

[Old Spice]

But the aim of this club (unlike most businesses) is not to generate as much profit as possible. If it was, we wouldn't spend as much on the football department, etc.

Profit is not the goal. The goal is to fund a football department spend (in the hope that it would lead to premierships). The club can make more profit or less profit very very easily. The reason they make a profit each year is because that is the amount they choose to make.

It is very different to a 'for-profit' business, because the organisational objectives are very different.

I hear what you're saying and I hope as per above that we can generate more profit as well as reducing costs to members, at least as far as apparell goes.

I don't know though that this will be possible in terms of memberships. You can sell gear without end, but the grounds only hold so many.

I hope with the clubs' new membership push that when the membership swells - and I have no doubt it will with all sorts of feeder bait - that they employ an equitable system for access. It would be a travety if, for example, Rob Lowe, nudged Dave out of a premiership ticket.

I'd say you have to guarantee you are going to go to games 80% of the time if you have a season ticket, otherwise you are demoted next 3 seasons. The other obvious question around equity would be income. Can't have it dominated by yuppies or would lose the whole fabric of the club.