BLK Goooone

[RugbyReg]

Under administration apparently.

I believe they have a long term deal with the Reds (cash and contra) so that's a concern. May be using 2016 kit next year!

Who else is with them? Rebels?

I know they were a big supporter of Fiji rugby.

Plenty of clubs have used them too.

 

[Highlander35]

According to BLK's website:

Rebels
Reds
Sharks
Force
Kings
Connacht
Ospreys
Toulouse
Fiji
Romania
Samoa
USA
Canterbury
Tasman
Wellington

are the Pro and international sides using the brand.

Plus the Titans, NZ and England in league, Crows, Lions, Suns, Giants, Tigers, Dogs and Saints in the AFL, Newcastle in the Soccer, and all of Australia, New Zealand and England in Netball.

 

[KevinO]

Mentioned on MMM regarding AFL sides.

http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne...ter-major-sportswear-manufacturer-goes-under/

 

[KevinO]

Another article,

Parent company World Rugby Specialist has been placed under external administration.

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.a...n/news-story/68de827507e68ec776f57659d20fd096

 

[Pfitzy]

Sheet. Was contacting them about pricing for club kit just this week. Might not happen, now...

 

[Braveheart81]

With that many contracts to professional sporting teams you'd have to think there would be some interest from someone in acquiring the business and keeping it trading.

Unless BLK have just been paying over the odds for the right to produce pro team kits and haven't had the sales to back it up.

 

[Tip]

Did anyone ever consider that BLK folded because nobody in their right mind would pay $160 dollars for a Rugby Jersey...

 

[Jets]

Would have huge effect on lots of rugby clubs. Hopefully they work something out that works for everyone. Otherwise the other reps better be busy before the season.

 

[Braveheart81]

Did anyone ever consider that BLK folded because nobody in their right mind would pay $160 dollars for a Rugby Jersey.

Not really sure of the relevance. BLK jerseys are not really outliers in terms of prices.

What they potentially did differently was have dramatically reduced prices of old merchandise which probably damaged their ability to sell full priced gear.

Sporting merchandise is expensive.

 

[Tip]

Not really sure of the relevance.

Holy smokes batman, you're right.

These three points are completely irrelevant and in no way linked!

High price
Low sales
Business in Receivership.

/s

 

[TOCC]

Massive implications for a lot of rugby clubs and schools, BLK have poured $millions into Australian rugby through sponsorship both at a grassroots and professional level..

One less competitor in the market bidding for merchandise deals isn't a good thing for the finances of Australian Rugby.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Yeah - agree Tip. The fact others charge an arm and a leg also doesn't necessarily make BLK's pricing structure valid. It might mean their costs are perhaps a whole lot higher than others. Anyway, $160 has been too high a price for me to entertain for a while, no matter who the supplier was.

 

[TOCC]

Holy smokes batman, you're right.

These three points are completely irrelevant and in no way linked!

High price
Low sales
Business in Receivership.

/s

The relevance is that Adidas, Nike and Asics all charge similar prices and aren't in receivership.. there's clearly a difference between the business models which isn't directly attributable to the prices of merchandise.

 

[Braveheart81]

Holy smokes batman, you're right.

These three points are completely irrelevant and in no way linked!

High price
Low sales
Business in Receivership.

/s

Are BLK's products sold for substantially more than other manufacturers?

Or are pro sports merchandise manufacturers everywhere going out of business?

 

[Highlander35]

Certainly didn't deserve to be charging the same prices if we're talking quality.

 

[NTT]

Tip has a perfectly valid point. Sad to see him get roasted for it.
Nike, Adidas and Asics are all leading shoe sellers worldwide, leading equipment sellers worldwide and leading casual sports apparel sellers worldwide. All things BLK is not.
BLK has never had the range of products as the ones the companies you compare them too.

 

[redstragic]

Didn't they come up with the million dollar Jersey for 2016? Theyredswere going on and on about at.

Can't make a jersey for a million and sell it for $160........

Sent from my HUAWEI KII-L22 using Tapatalk

 

[mst]

Certainly didn't deserve to be charging the same prices if we're talking quality.

Exactly why the Brumbies ended their relationship with them.

The straw the broke the camels back was the CBR100 jersey which was as absolute disaster. Cheap Chinese imports were better quality. Aftet a series of poor product eh CBR100 was a special order and the majority of Jerseys ordered had an issue - sizes issue being the main one with the claimed size being multiple size different than usual as well as a low quality product in general.

I dont know if KooGa O/S will now pick up the business after BLK, in the quest to expand, marketed over the top of Kooga O/S levering off the Kooga rights they owned here in Australia then re-branding to expand in 2013.

 

[Mr Doug]

I said at the time of their change from Kooga to BLK, that it was a retrograde marketing move, (many here agreeing), and whilst that change wouldn't have brought about the "external administration", it wouldn't have helped.

 

[GPSM]

BLK have found themselves in this position due to the Fiji cyclone, their manufacturing plant was significantly damaged, stock destroyed etc. The company were then faced with significant delays and ultimately the killer blow of repaying deposits when they were unable to deliver, forcing customers to head to other suppliers.