Re: 2013 replicas : Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:05 am  

SIMMSFAXTEDDY wrote:

yeah not bad.

Who's this "name" guy though?

New Scrum Half for Donny. Decent player.

I like the Hull kit, but it does really look like a home kit and Widnes kit from last year.

Re: 2013 replicas : Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:52 am  

The Hull away shirt to me just looks like a Widnes kit to me. Maybe that's why I dont mind it so much.

Re: 2013 replicas : Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:12 pm  

http://www.superleaguefans.com/images/content/853.jpg Dont know what you lot are on about. Nothing like ours

http://www.superleaguefans.com/images/content/853.jpg Dont know what you lot are on about. Nothing like ours

Re: 2013 replicas : Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:40 pm  

UllFC wrote:

Why do London always seem to struggle to get a kit out in time? Your replica sales are probably the lowest in SL, it can't be that hard to have a small initial batch of stock in the shops pre-xmas?

Baffles me how some RL clubs shoot themselves in the foot like this. Hull have sold over 2,000 of the home shirt before Xmas, that's £94K income before even the friendlies have started, and of course many of those buyers will have picked up other merchandise from the shops while they were there.

Having a small batch actually makes it harder, none of the big boys will be interested in the kind of numbers london will sell & the smaller boys take a lot longer to produce shirts and often at a much greater cost, so clubs have to do plenty of shopping around.

Re: 2013 replicas : Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:28 pm  

MHL wrote:

Having a small batch actually makes it harder, none of the big boys will be interested in the kind of numbers london will sell & the smaller boys take a lot longer to produce shirts and often at a much greater cost, so clubs have to do plenty of shopping around.

Would having a central contract for kit manufacture help the smaller sides? I remember it was touted when Super League first started that they were trying to get the same maker for all the clubs, like the Aussie SL did. Would it help the likes of London financially, as well as the image of the game?

Re: 2013 replicas : Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:45 pm  

What are every bodies top 3 currently?

Re: 2013 replicas : Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:47 pm  

SaintDavid wrote:

Would having a central contract for kit manufacture help the smaller sides? I remember it was touted when Super League first started that they were trying to get the same maker for all the clubs, like the Aussie SL did. Would it help the likes of London financially, as well as the image of the game?

Say they got nike to make all the kits and they paid a sponsorship fee, it could only work if the clubs got the fee split in a way that reflected shirt sales by individual clubs, because it wouldn't be fair on clubs like Leeds, Hull and Wigan that sold lots of shirts, and would have received a bigger fee when they had their individual contract, to be given the same cut as clubs that have no support like London, Salford and Huddersfield that sell a lot less replica shirts.

Re: 2013 replicas : Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:51 pm  

Viva La Vikings!! wrote:

What are every bodies top 3 currently?

Wigan away
Bulldogs black alternate
Warrington home, players version.

Re: 2013 replicas : Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:12 pm  

Viva La Vikings!! wrote:

What are every bodies top 3 currently?

1) Widnes home (White)
2) Widnes home (Black)
3) Widnes away
(4) Dewsbury home

Re: 2013 replicas : Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:29 pm  

SaintDavid wrote:

Would having a central contract for kit manufacture help the smaller sides? I remember it was touted when Super League first started that they were trying to get the same maker for all the clubs, like the Aussie SL did. Would it help the likes of London financially, as well as the image of the game?

it would be a great way forward, at a guess i'd say smaller clubs will be paying £5 more a shirt than the big boys yet are all but forced to sell them at the same price making a big difference in the profit.

The only problem would be around who ran the project, i know in the past that the rfl have run them through themselves, rather than just getting the contract and then allowing the clubs to deal with the actual supplier themselves which adds a wage into the mix and makes it less appealing; I was told the price of having a centrally controlled website (it's something they setup for the championship clubs) and it was around 2/3 times what you'd pay on the open market (and about 50 times more if you just had a html site), so what should have been a money saver was barely taken up.