Blank and with a price tag of $150. Bit hefty if you ask me, its not like a heritage jersey or anything.

$150
Seriously?

Adelaide 36ers only charge $75 for their version.

And the jersey's only cost $25 wholesale.

$140 for a limited edition numbered and named jersey I can understand. yes it's still very expensive, but fair enough.

$140 for a blank jerseys. GTFO.

Stupid.

These are limited as well - only 100 being made, so I doubt they'd be paying the same wholesale price as they would be for regular jerseys.

They look pretty good I reckon ... well, compared to the standard red ones anyway. No horrible bumper sticker appearance for the ata logo on the front, so they're cleaner.

Not that I'll be buying one. But I wouldn't be surprised if they sell out.

W/sale is not $25 for those jerseys, but it is below $40.

It's the height of arrogance from NM once again.

I was told that Kickz wanted to do both the Heritage and Away jerseys in all players and the Wildcats blocked ISC from selling to them. It sucks since they sell at the proper retail, not this bullshit mark-up.

Oh and 100 jerseys is more than enough to get the regular wholesale price.

I guess you have to weigh up the value of making some quick bucks in jersey sales versus the brand recognition that the Cats currently have in Perth.

If they sell out these limited edition jerseys, and have a history of doing so, then the price is spot on.

Traditionally the Cats don't like selling anything that isn't red, so I guess they figured they'd go the "exclusive" angle on these black ones for the collectors.
I don't begrudge them that. As SC said, if people are buying then the price is right, even if it seems wrong to many.

My issue is more with the way they price the regular jerseys combined with freezing out places like Kickz101, who are great supporters of basketball. The last 4 Cats jerseys I purchased were from Kickz. I'm not paying $100 for one. But again, if enough people are then I guess the price is "right". (Though if I'm being honest, this season's red jersey is fug IMO, so even at $60 I probably still wouldn't get one. Price isn't the only factor for me)

An issue is the Wildcats don't value Kickz101 as "Basketball" fans aren't their target demo. Their target demo is families.

So I can see why they aren't fussed about not allowing kickz101 to sell their merchandise.

These jerseys will sell, so the price point is "justified".

My issue is that they are only offering them as blank jerseys.

All, Kickz is hidden in an arcade up two flights of stairs. Thats almost three flights of stairs!! I'm not going up approximately four flights of stairs to buy a jersey.

Sounds like you literally need the exercise. It's not only good for you but you would support local business at the same time.

Win/win.

They will sell out, even at that price I think. So don't think NM really agrees with anyone being upset with the pricing.

Between the bobble heads tooth brushes, jerseys, hats and Xmas decorations, I think I've had my fill of Cats merch for the season :P

It's the height of arrogance from NM once again.

I was told that Kickz wanted to do both the Heritage and Away jerseys in all players and the Wildcats blocked ISC from selling to them. It sucks since they sell at the proper retail, not this bullshit mark-up.

You really don't get how it all works do you Dazz?

ISC pay the NBL $xxx to have the rights for NBL merchandise. They are supposed to be allowed to sell that Merch to retailers so they can make a profit on their investment. They then pay the NBL royalties based on what they have sold. By not being able to sell Merchandise to retail stores they are limited to the revenue they can get for the License. The flow on effect is that the NBL gets less royalty revenue too.

If that is true RMQ and they don't see value in dealing with Kickz then that is fairly absurd.

SC, so is it 2, 3 or 4 flights of stairs? Maybe it's now 239 flights. Don't be so damn lazy and go support a local business.

How is a retailer selling official merchandise "a random making money ripping off their brand"?

By your logic no retailer should be allowed to sell any merchandise for ANY team ever, it should be only at the venue.

Yeah, that's great logic there.

Anonymoose, it was a joke. Calm down.

The "Absurdity" of the Cats not dealing with other retailers comes down to this. Do they want to have other retailers selling all sort of non-red merchandise, or do they want to continue to promote the "red army" brand recognition, getting free publicity by people in the city noticing thousands of people flocking to the arena in uniform? They've obvious decided on the latter and while that may put a few noses out of joint, unless you've done your own evaluation on what is better for the club, you're not really in a place to comment.

I'll put my 2 cents worth in now. Hopefully it sorts out a couple misconceptions.

ISC deal with retailers, the Wildcats are expressly forbidden to do so.

We tried to stock Home, Away and Heritage jerseys this season for all regular players. These orders weren't anywhere the size of the Cats but were in the hundreds of jerseys.

ISC told us that the Wildcats "vetoed" the Away and Heritage jerseys being made. They did not want them to be made even though they were offered to us and we placed orders with ISC. Our orders for the Home jerseys, placed 2 months before the season, weren't scheduled to be delivered until late Dec/early Jan, so we cancelled them.

Retail on these jerseys is $80.

We want to stock Wildcats gear as well as all the other gear we carry.
It's very difficult to do so when we are hamstrung the way we are.

Basketball popularity is at it's highest level in retail in years, wouldn't it be wise for the NBL to capitalise on this and have product in Stores that want to support Basketball?

Great contribution #820

"The "Absurdity" of the Cats not dealing with other retailers comes down to this. Do they want to have other retailers selling all sort of non-red merchandise, or do they want to continue to promote the "red army" brand recognition, getting free publicity by people in the city noticing thousands of people flocking to the arena in uniform? They've obvious decided on the latter and while that may put a few noses out of joint, unless you've done your own evaluation on what is better for the club, you're not really in a place to comment."

Getting voluntary buy-in from fans seems like a better way. I have several non-red Wildcats jerseys, but I only wear red ones to the games. They seem to have stopped promoting "wear red" and decided it'd be easier to just not make anything else available. The percentage of people wearing red seems to have gone down over the course of their tenure at the arena.

Meanwhile, Adelaide got everyone in the venue into a blue shirt for the grand final in 2014 just by promoting it as something they wanted to do.

Sure, you're always going to get some guys who show up in whatever they want, but they can do that already (as you well know). I can't imagine that making away/alternate/heritage jerseys is going to significantly impact fans wearing red unless they completely stop pushing the concept.

Roy & Moose, I completely understand where you guys are coming from. You're trying to do the right thing, sell the public what they want and make some money too. I've got no issue with any of that, and I imagine having your attempts vetoed is a shit thing to deal with too.

All I'm saying is that the Cats have their reasons. You may not agree with them but it's safe to say they've done their homework on what is best for them. It's not them being pricks for the sake of it or being arrogant. No doubt they've weighed up the pros and cons of these scenarios and gone with what promoting the red.

So if promoting red is what they want to do, why even sell the Heritage and Away jerseys?

Why jack the price up to an extreme level?

Roy, I can only guess they sell limited quantities of alternate jerseys to make it appear like they are giving the public what it wants.

Pretty good guess I think.

I like how #827 comes in for a second shot but doesn't have the mental capacity to actually add any value to the discussion so he just summarises the title and OP of the thread.

Just from reading this it sounds like the league needs to sort out a club(s) vetoing sales to retail outlets? Doesn't sound like something that should be happening with a pro league.

We've encountered issues with them for the past 2 years with regards to merchandise Paul. It's not a one-off.

They did the same thing to And1 when they were offering custom heritage jerseys back in 2012.

A threat of legal action was thrown at us when we did those Heritage jerseys.

Hopefully if they do sell 100 @ $150 each they can afford to buy a t-shirt cannon that works.

Anon, you're being an idiot in what is otherwise a decent discussion between adults. If you can't contribute much, just leave it alone.

Looks like Larry and Jeremy need to take a look in the near future at how AFL's merchandise juggernaut works and learn a thing or two.

Still early days so I'm sure it'll come up sooner or later, those guys have good business minds.

I think at the end of the day, like it or not, if the Wildcats make the decision based on whatever reasons they come up with not to let other companies profit of their brand that should be up to them.

Arrogance, greed, stupidity, whatever, at the end of the day they own the brand.

P.S. yes I would have loved it if Kickz got the away and heritage jerseys and would have certainly bought them from them for $80.
BUT
Yes last year I did line up and pay $150 for the heritage jersey from the Wildcats.

Being realistic, I would suggest the following:

1. Basketball tops must be of the highest quality
2. If they are of the highest quality, they will last
3. Now, if they last then I would buy one, but only probably one.
4. If they turned out to be poor quality and I had to replace it at $150.00 I wouldn't
5. More to the point, I could afford to replace a $150.00 top every season
6. So, NBL clubs need to cater for everyone, and their market
7. Therefore if they are going to sell singlets, they need the affordable ones and then there may be a nice market for the special ones, fine but don't expect to sell many if they are made in Bangladesh...

...couldn't afford...

Typo

...niche market...

Blood hell

The Wildcats have spent 30+ years, a lot of money, and a lot of manpower building their brand in the community. Why the heck should some random be allowed to profit from that?
When I buy shirts (they're normally good for a couple of seasons, I'm not a collector) I want every cent of profit going back to the franchise. (Obviously the manufacturer gets their cut.)

Yes, I know its tough when your kid wants a singlet of their favourite player, and it costs $80, but if they don't maximise profit on merchandise then the price of tickets goes up, which is far worse.

And just to repeat, for the umpteenth time, the Cats want you wearing Red, so Black (and White, and Gold) singlets will only ever be marketed as limited edition collectables. Hence the $150 price tag.
(That said, you buy it, you can wear it if you want, just don't bitch about the price.)

The argument about the Wildcats building their brand and nobody else deserving a cut would actually make sense if they only ever played intra-club scrimmages.

Why aren't people allowed to buy it, wear it, AND bitch about the price?

Does this denial of opportunity to complain extend to all other products? "This laptop is quite good, but it was really expensive." BZZZT. DAZZ POLICE! Gaol for you!

If a heap of extra people magically started wearing Wildcats gear while they were out & about, would that be of any benefit to the Wildcats?
I think it would. It's great for brand awareness. Even if the Wildcats don't directly profit from that gear magically appearing on those people.

Sorry Dazz but your logic is faulty and skewed.

The Wildcats spent 15-20 years playing in White/Black and Gold.

They changed colours for a Sponsor, chasing money.

The only reason they are Red now is due to a sponsor a few years ago throwing money at them. That's NOT building a Brand, that's chasing money, pure and simple.

I take offence when you continually say my or any retail Store is a random. You really have no idea how retail works if you see it that way.

Please show me another Professional League in the western world where a Club only allows itself to sell gear. You want the NBL to thrive? Then it needs to get Clubs like Perth into the 21st Century and allow gear to be sold 7 days a week in venues willing to do so.

Oh and I was told a couple years ago that the NBL actually holds the rights to all Clubs Names and logos. Thats why the threats of Perth leaving were always hollow ones, they couldn't take the name with them.

IIRC clubs signing over IP was one of the requirements of the BA takeover back in 2010, which the Wildcats were not happy with. No idea if it was removed or not.

Which sponsor threw money at the Wildcats to go red? I don't recall any sponsorship tie-in.

That BA requirement never got up AFAIK.

Ahh ok, I stand corrected on the IP thing.

Coca-cola.

Yeah I'll ignore the Dazz-troll from now on.

"The argument about the Wildcats building their brand and nobody else deserving a cut would actually make sense if they only ever played intra-club scrimmages."

We need a like button for posts like this!

I don't recall Coke being involved? Marvin's also been pretty against alcohol/fast food/soft drink sponsorships, and the change happened when he was in charge IIRC.

The 1995 Coke sponsorship resulted in red coming into the colour scheme, but that was 12 years before red became a primary colour.

Depends which colour system you're using.

http://david.carybros.com/html/primary_colors.html

Wildcats went white/gold/black for Swan Gold and Emu Export in the early 90s.

Then they went red for Coke in 95.

Once the coke sponsorship ended the Wildcats went to
a predominantly black jersey with the new cat logo.

Around this time BankWest came on board and the jersey's became black/silver and were manufactured by Champion.

A few seasons with random naming rights sponsors like Oriant saw the cats jerseys re-introduce Red as a trim.

The predominantly Red look came about in the Scott Fisher/Post Rashad Tucker, Pre-Redhage era I believe.


As for Marvin not likeing fastfood...

The reason the Wildcats do not want to associate with fastfood is because the only sponsor throwing money at the Cats during the "dark times" was Health way. This set a new precedence.

Fast Food companies and the big brands throw their money at AFL/Cricket/Rugby. That's the only reason why the Wildcats are sponsored by Alcohol Think Againnow.

As brand identity changes, we may see more AFL/Cricket/Rubgy clubs chase more "healthy' sponsors. And inveitably see sponsors move from the NBL to other codes with more money and brand recognition.

And so then will continue the great circle of life and The Carls Jnr Wildcats will be giving away free burgers at games! YUM!

The previous white strips were nice.. A black version of these would be awesome.

http://i.imgur.com/XMjiZ7P.jpg

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2014/01/01/1226792/867995-taipans-v-wildcats.jpg

The Ennis jerseys were the nicest the Cats have had in a long time.

Wildcats went white/gold/black for Swan Gold and Emu Export in the early 90s.

Then they went red for Coke in 95.

Once the coke sponsorship ended the Wildcats went to
a predominantly black jersey with the new cat logo.

Around this time BankWest came on board and the jersey's became black/silver and were manufactured by Champion.

A few seasons with random naming rights sponsors like Oriant saw the cats jerseys re-introduce Red as a trim.

The predominantly Red look came about in the Scott Fisher/Post Rashad Tucker, Pre-Redhage era I believe.

The Ennis jerseys were the nicest the Cats have had in a long time.

Should be called wildcatsrulez

So for all that, is it now settled that red was introduced at around the same time as the coke sponsorship?

No.

I'm not seeing red as part of the uniform in that photo. A sponsors logo seems to be orange/red, but that's it.

So it seems the claim that red was introduced for coke might actually be correct, unless you've got some other photos for us Kobes?

Forget the last question, you answered it for me above:

"The 1995 Coke sponsorship resulted in red coming into the colour scheme"

That's red and yellow stripes either side of the number.

It was a really tiny part, though, and only around from 1989-91, so it's hardly inaccurate to say Coke resulted in red coming in. Certainly that's true in terms of it being any sort of major part of the scheme.

That was also the first year yellow/gold was not part of the colour scheme.

But that has nothing to do with the jerseys themselves being red, which came over a decade after the Coke sponsorship.

(Irrelevant and picky as this particular argument is, it's definitely worth it to have found that Paul Kuiper GIF.)

It certainly was! And don't worry, I'm just having a bit of fun with you!

"That's red and yellow stripes either side of the number."

Red/Yellow was nothing to do with Coke though. That was Emu Export colours.

Yes, that was the point I was making. I was providing those images to back up the 'no' in response to paul's question (although there doesn't appear to be an Emu logo or anything anywhere on the 89 ones?).

But given it's so minor and disappeared for a few years, it's pretty fair to say Coke introduced red into the colour scheme.

Its very amusing watching this thread evolve :P

So which sponsor was responsible for yellow coming in and going out?

No sponsor was responsible for it coming in, the Wildcats started in WA's state colours of black and gold.

1994 was the last year it was part of the colour scheme, and it was replaced with red when Coke came on board in 95.

And black is because Perth are the dark overlords of the NBL?

So TL;DR - Red was introduced because of Coke sponsorship.

Later when the Coke sponsorship ended, Red was still used as a trim, before black/silver became the predominant colours, which is before red was re-introduced as the main colour.

Also, Emu export was orange. Not red.

KobeRulz is a sucker for details.

I just read an article from The West Business magazine from last year. Its about Jack Bendat and the Wildcats. In the first few paragraphs, it talks about how the club has been turned around and specifically mentions their $650,000 merchandise revenue.

So I guess thats why they do things like they do and not because of what random people on the internet say.

Justifiably.

My point was more towards the people saying that the merchandise is priced "arrogantly" (whatever that means).

Pointing out that they're making $650,000 on merch doesn't justify the pricing unless the alternative number is lower.

I would've bought a decently-priced, name-and-number black jersey this year. Instead, I bought nothing. I'm probably not the only one.

Not to mention the particularly obsessive collector types, who might pick up home and away every year if they were available.

Likewise, people determining the pricing is wrong doesn't have any justification either.

For the history Buffs, it was Swan Gold that was the sponsor during the early 90's. That was synergistic with the existing Gold & Black theme.

In the mid 90's they became the "Coke Wildcats" and shifted to the Black & Red theme. There was also a Silver "Diet Coke" alternative strip.
Black & Red have remained for the last 20 years, with a change to dominate Red.

It's amusing to read the constant bitching & moaning, and proclamations of economic superiority, all to cover up somebody throwing a tanty because they didn't get what what THEY wanted. FFS get a grip and get over it.
Claiming "oh other people would have bought it too" only makes you appear even more infantile.
I am extremely confident that the Cats have a better idea what people will and won't buy, and at what prices, and in what quantities, than your claims based on your personal brattish demands.

There are a few things that I would personally like to improve my Wildcats experience, but I'm not so Narcissistic as to demand that they structure their merchandising so as to cater for my personal whims, and then go howling at the moon when they don't.

The reasons behind their decision(s) have been explained, multiple times, in this and previous threads. Just because those reasons run contrary to your personal desires doesn't make them wrong.

The Cats, and Nick in particular, are actually quite incredible at responding to members comments and requests, but obviously they cannot bow to every demand, especially when it runs contrary to their established marketing & merchandising strategies.

Personally, I look like a giant tomato in my red-shirt. I would much rather a nice dark Navy Blue, and you won't find me wearing red anywhere but the game. But I am proud to be part of the "Red Army," and besides "please wear black to the game" doesn't really have the same impact.

And besides, Black (and at other times other limited edition singlets) are available. If you want one, pay the price. Nobody is obligated to drop their prices just because you don't want to pay.

Likewise, people determining the pricing is wrong doesn't have any justification either.

I am extremely confident that the Cats have a better idea what people will and won't buy, and at what prices, and in what quantities, than your claims based on your personal brattish demands.

The reasons behind their decision(s) have been explained, multiple times, in this and previous threads. Just because those reasons run contrary to your personal desires doesn't make them wrong.

Personally, I look like a giant tomato in my red-shirt. I would much rather a nice dark Navy Blue, and you won't find me wearing red anywhere but the game. But I am proud to be part of the "Red Army," and besides "please wear black to the game" doesn't really have the same impact.

There was also a Silver "Diet Coke" alternative strip.