Reds 2017
- Thread starter Scrubber2050
- Start date
- Status
TheBigDog
Nev Cottrell (35)
My understanding is that BLK is in receivership, not dissolved. Without getting into all the technicalities they seem to still be operating but most likely under different ownership. I have seen quite a few posts from the Reds where they are all wearing new BLK gear for season 2017.
T
TOCC
Guest
Not new owners, BLK is in receivership, they have receivers appointed who have taken control of the company and would be in the process of going through the organisation and assessing its value and fianncial feasibility, in the short term it's the receivers role to keep the company running to preserve value. From there the company will either be sold as a whole(preferably), or if no buyer present then it will be broken up and sold off to recoup as much value as possible to pay the creditors.
T
TOCC
Guest
Does it really have too much value, it's a niche apparel company which focuses on exclusive sporting merchandise deals,its general apparel range is quite poor.
Other companies like Adidas/Nike/Asics use exclusive deals to support their wider range of apparel which sits at the premium end of the spectrum.
Problem is there's little value in another clothing group buying BLK, they would be purchased for the factories and logistical network, not for the brand name.
Yet in this case it's the factories and logistics which brought BLK down, their production pipeline was too narrow and limited to one major factory which was subsequently damaged.
Worse case is no one buys BLK, and the company gets broken apart and sold piece by piece with everyone from suppliers to employees losing money.
Other companies like Adidas/Nike/Asics use exclusive deals to support their wider range of apparel which sits at the premium end of the spectrum.
Problem is there's little value in another clothing group buying BLK, they would be purchased for the factories and logistical network, not for the brand name.
Yet in this case it's the factories and logistics which brought BLK down, their production pipeline was too narrow and limited to one major factory which was subsequently damaged.
Worse case is no one buys BLK, and the company gets broken apart and sold piece by piece with everyone from suppliers to employees losing money.
T
TOCC
Guest
This jersey looks like they have reverted to the 2014/2015 design and done away with that 'black strip' thing down the front of the 2016 jersey.
amirite
Chilla Wilson (44)
You think a clothing/textiles group that already has the factories and infastructure, and thus cost benefits of scale, wouldn't make some dosh off arguably the biggest Australasian based sporting apparel company?
At the end of the day they'd be purchasing a logo and the networks that go along with it.
At the end of the day they'd be purchasing a logo and the networks that go along with it.
T
TOCC
Guest
2017 combination?
Ive looked back through, and Houston and Higgers played together at the Reds in the 6/8 combo 15 times between 2008-2010.
Ive looked back through, and Houston and Higgers played together at the Reds in the 6/8 combo 15 times between 2008-2010.
Unless BLK owns the ongoing rights to produce and sell various teams' merchandise, I don't see the great value there. If they can pay cents in the dollar to acquire the rights to those teams then sure there is value there, but I don't think that is likely to be the case. To my knowledge some teams have already moved on to new suppliers such as the Brisbane Lions.
It's not like people go out and buy a BLK made team jersey because they like the BLK brand.
The main value (as a guess) would be in the volume of small customers who go through the BLK website to get gear made. I have no idea how much of BLK's business that encompasses.
It's not like people go out and buy a BLK made team jersey because they like the BLK brand.
The main value (as a guess) would be in the volume of small customers who go through the BLK website to get gear made. I have no idea how much of BLK's business that encompasses.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
Their competitors would have bid on the contracts that BLK won.
So one would assume they weren't comfortable with the terms that BLK secured.
So why would they be keen on these rates now?
T
TOCC
Guest
Its a niche business model, the value in the rights is only worth the premium of the remainder of the contract. If the Reds merchandise contract is worth $1million, but the return on that is only 10% then the value of purchasing those rights is $100k.. It doesn't possess an enduring value, the value is only for the remainder of the contract. This is where other apparel companies(nike/adidas/asics) will leverage their casual apparel range to supplement.
AFL teams Richmond, Adelaide, GWS Giants, Brisbane Lions and Gold Coast Suns have already moved on to new suppliers. Likewise with the Gold Coast Titans. Super Rugby season starts a little earlier so Rebels, Reds and Force may have already received much of their 2017 range, but i'd be surprised if they haven't made contingency plans in case BLK does close down during the year.
BLK isn't exactly a well known brand outside of rugby union in Australia, Canterbury went into insolvency a few years ago and was purchased by a UK retail group, but Canterbury is an internationally renowned label with a premium value.
amirite
Chilla Wilson (44)
Sure, you make good points, but I do think it's a price is right proposition.
The fact is, it's a known brand in certain circles. If you owned Canterbury, would there not be value in purchasing it for the right price and simple rolling stuff out of the same factories, rebadged, until the brand loses value/existing relationships? I know plenty of industries where companies do this to generate the false feeling and competition.
I'd presume seeing as all the businesses involved are well informed (within reason) and that the people liquidating the company are keen to get the most value that they can, surely there's a middle ground?
Anyway, like I said, you seem to know your business cases in the space so you're probably right because I'm just going off gut-feel.
The fact is, it's a known brand in certain circles. If you owned Canterbury, would there not be value in purchasing it for the right price and simple rolling stuff out of the same factories, rebadged, until the brand loses value/existing relationships? I know plenty of industries where companies do this to generate the false feeling and competition.
I'd presume seeing as all the businesses involved are well informed (within reason) and that the people liquidating the company are keen to get the most value that they can, surely there's a middle ground?
Anyway, like I said, you seem to know your business cases in the space so you're probably right because I'm just going off gut-feel.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
T
TOCC
Guest
Coffs Harbour Bulldogs?
T
TOCC
Guest
Yea potentially someone like Pacific Brands may acquire them as they don't really have a sporting apparel arm, or an investment firm who see value in turning the brand around..
Given that a few teams have stuck with them and the administrators haven't torn up all contracts, there's fair indicator that there may be a chance in salvaging the business.
Anyway, Reds will be wearing BLK in the first few rounds at least.
dru
David Wilson (68)
Happy to Chat
Nev Cottrell (35)
Is that the Grand Slam tennis champion?Too late...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Status