New kits for next season

[Cagey Tiger]

So you think it's good for the businesses who sponsor us for the shirts worn by thousands of supporters around the UK, which other people see, not to have sponsors on?

Yes, when we're paying something like £60 - £90 for the shirt. Why should I pay that much AND give free advertising?

It's not free advertising really is it? The companies pay Tigers to have their logo on the shirt.

That's the whole idea of sponsorship.

NO. They pay the big bucks to get their advertising on the players shirts and therefore on TV. Apart from the main shirt sponsor, the exposure they get on the shirts that we buy is chicken feed compared to the TV exposure.

[RagingBull]

Yes, when we're paying something like £60 - £90 for the shirt. Why should I pay that much AND give free advertising?

It's not free advertising really is it? The companies pay Tigers to have their logo on the shirt.

That's the whole idea of sponsorship.

NO. They pay the big bucks to get their advertising on the players shirts and therefore on TV. Apart from the main shirt sponsor, the exposure they get on the shirts that we buy is chicken feed compared to the TV exposure.

NO they pay big bucks for all of it.

It's really not a hard concept to grasp.
They pay sponsorship deals for all of it, not just TV exposure but also social media :censored: and Crowd exposure it's all in the package.

[JP14]

Ragingbull is right. Ever since Caterpiller ceased their sponsorship we still seek a major company to sponsor us with a huge share therefore we have a lot of sponsorships to keep the balance. That’s why we have a lot of sponsorships on our shirt.

[johnthegriff]

Sponsorship is necessary for all clubs, we lost our main sponsor Caterpillar at very short notice a couple of years ago, it was found that there are not loads of companies out there willing to pay the amount that Caterpillar did and to accept a much lower figure would devalue our brand. To have several different sponsors was a good move by our marketing department, I think we finished up with increased revenue and we are not as vulnerable to a major sole sponsor walking away.
I am not keen on the big splash of orange on the sleeve but those that buy shirts each year I would have thought do so because they want to wear a shirt that mirrors what the players on the pitch are wearing, those that just want to show their support for Tigers probably just need to wear something in the colours or a shirt from a previous season that hopefully still fits them (that's my problem)
Wouldn't it be nice if the shop sold coats and jackets for our winter sport in our base colour of green instead of colours that are more like those of our opponents, we used to manage it!

[ellis9]

Ragingbull is right. Ever since Caterpiller ceased their sponsorship we still seek a major company to sponsor us with a huge share therefore we have a lot of sponsorships to keep the balance. That’s why we have a lot of sponsorships on our shirt.

Don't you mean Raging Bull and ellis9 are right?

[ellis9]

It's not free advertising really is it? The companies pay Tigers to have their logo on the shirt.

That's the whole idea of sponsorship.

NO. They pay the big bucks to get their advertising on the players shirts and therefore on TV. Apart from the main shirt sponsor, the exposure they get on the shirts that we buy is chicken feed compared to the TV exposure.

NO they pay big bucks for all of it.

It's really not a hard concept to grasp.
They pay sponsorship deals for all of it, not just TV exposure but also social media and Crowd exposure it's all in the package.

I'm glad you said it. If I'd have told someone it's not hard to grasp, I'd have been shot down.

[Cagey Tiger]

NO. They pay the big bucks to get their advertising on the players shirts and therefore on TV. Apart from the main shirt sponsor, the exposure they get on the shirts that we buy is chicken feed compared to the TV exposure.

NO they pay big bucks for all of it.

It's really not a hard concept to grasp.
They pay sponsorship deals for all of it, not just TV exposure but also social media and Crowd exposure it's all in the package.

I'm glad you said it. If I'd have told someone it's not hard to grasp, I'd have been shot down.

The concept that seems to be difficult to grasp is that if there is no TV, there are no big bucks from sponsors. And what comprises the vast majority of the TV coverage (apart from Austin Healey)? The players on the pitch. That's why the sponsors get their stuff on the shirts (and shorts). To get the TV exposure. The rest of the exposure that they get is of much less value (but not of no value). I would hazard a guess that without TV coverage, the sponsorship would be less than 25% of that with TV coverage, probably nearer 10%. I wonder what sort of shirt deals Nottingham have compared to Tigers, or by how much Exeter's shirt sponsorship has grown between their promotion from the Championship to becoming Premiership champions.

[jgriffin]

Exeter have always had SW Comms on the shirt as this is Chairman Rowe's company (and loss hiding vehicle?).

[RagingBull]

Pretty big teaser on the Instagram page
https://www.instagram.com/p/BlggIcqgJ_z ... stertigers

[ads]

Ooh, looks like I was wrong and it does have more than one band. getting excited again now!!

[JackFlashJonny]

I am pretty sure we all understand the concept of advertising but thanks ellis and RB for the lesson in sucking eggs anyway.

All I am stating is I want to buy a shirt that looks good instead of being a walking advert for all and sundry, many clubs around the GP have nice shirts and we have had awful ones for years now. Following Johnthegriffs comments it is clear why, due to Caterpillar leaving we have literally been at the mercy of anyone to ensure we keep that revenue hence all the branding sprayed all over our kit. Hopefully we can attract a decent sponsor once again soon and go back to having kits you could be proud of!

Furthermore not having a decent company making our kit (I understand this is changing next year) means the leisurewear is not up to standard either.

[Flash]

There's definitely worse than us for sponsors on shirts. On the our sponsors tend to be slightly more subtle on the shirt design than others, the obvious exception being sthil. Not sure why they can't get rid of the massive orange box and use the background shirt colour and have the sthil letters in the bright orange.

[JWM]

I have given up caring what the jersey looks like. I make no apology for like the traditional mid-green with red and white hoops, body and sleeve. But if there wasn't a return to this design for a playing jersey even in the special one-off year of Welford Road 125 (only the special 'classic'), then it's highly doubtful we ever will. So for me, have what you want.

[ellis9]

I am pretty sure we all understand the concept of advertising but thanks ellis and RB for the lesson in sucking eggs anyway.

All I am stating is I want to buy a shirt that looks good instead of being a walking advert for all and sundry, many clubs around the GP have nice shirts and we have had awful ones for years now. Following Johnthegriffs comments it is clear why, due to Caterpillar leaving we have literally been at the mercy of anyone to ensure we keep that revenue hence all the branding sprayed all over our kit. Hopefully we can attract a decent sponsor once again soon and go back to having kits you could be proud of!

Furthermore not having a decent company making our kit (I understand this is changing next year) means the leisurewear is not up to standard either.

It seemed like you didn't understand it which is why we both explained it.

I'd also add that even if we do attract a big sponsor who will pay us more money, we are likely to keep smaller ones, meaning just as many on the shirt in the future, as they will generate us even more money put together.

[AngusMcCoatup]

There's definitely worse than us for sponsors on shirts. On the our sponsors tend to be slightly more subtle on the shirt design than others, the obvious exception being sthil. Not sure why they can't get rid of the massive orange box and use the background shirt colour and have the sthil letters in the bright orange.

Well to me it is "quite obvious!" why the named sponsor does not want your suggested change :-
Quote :- "the obvious exception being sthil. Not sure why they can't get rid of the massive orange box and use the background shirt colour and have the sthil letters in the bright orange."
This is because the sponsor is STIHL, mind you the first four letters could be rearranged to describe the bright orange box in such a way that the Moderator may chase me or even agree with me!