-
This site is sponsored by Lang & Potter.
Shirts debacle.
- Thread starter OnicknowlePete
- Start date
Dearest Paul,
It means childishly silly and immature. Sorry, I know you mean well but I am sure I am not the only one who finds the constant repetitive drivel hard to stomach. I am sure you are different in real life.
It means childishly silly and immature. Sorry, I know you mean well but I am sure I am not the only one who finds the constant repetitive drivel hard to stomach. I am sure you are different in real life.
Sorry mate won't mention another word about Shirts on this thread
Thanks for the reply :thumbs:
Thanks for the reply :thumbs:
The comment wasn't purely in relation to the shirt thread Paul but a generalisation. Back on topic and I find it so difficult to understand why after the situation that arose last season that it could be allowed to happen again this season.
They did indeed X Isle but did that mean there was a restriction on what our initial order could be?
There'll be a minimum unit order so they'll have to order each size in minimum numbers (100's probably). A huge company won't switch on the machines for anything less.
It's a big gamble for a club like us to over order, say, 100 or 200 or 300 in EACH size as Puma get their cut on the full price...not the discount price Argyle have to flog them at when they're left with surplus stock.
A smaller, more flexible, dare I say UK based, company to whom the Argyle contract is a big deal not a piffling irritation wouldn't impose such restrictions. They would also be abke to turn round a re-order a darn sight quicker than two months :facepalm:
I know its boring and i've been saying it for years, but Argyle keep bleddy re-signing with Puma...
...and we're tied to 'em until the 2020/21 season now by my reckoning :facepalm:
It's a big gamble for a club like us to over order, say, 100 or 200 or 300 in EACH size as Puma get their cut on the full price...not the discount price Argyle have to flog them at when they're left with surplus stock.
A smaller, more flexible, dare I say UK based, company to whom the Argyle contract is a big deal not a piffling irritation wouldn't impose such restrictions. They would also be abke to turn round a re-order a darn sight quicker than two months :facepalm:
I know its boring and i've been saying it for years, but Argyle keep bleddy re-signing with Puma...
...and we're tied to 'em until the 2020/21 season now by my reckoning :facepalm:
X Isle":3anal4yw said:
Argyle's mark up will be significant enough to allow remaining stock to be sold in an end of season sale without making a loss providing they manage their quantities okay. They should know their ratios of sizes required in relation to their overall order rather than order the same quantity in each size. Once they have recouped their outlay by selling shirts at full price (probably by selling about 60% of the stock) they then start making a profit. Surplus stock is pure profit even if they are sold for next to nothing and they WILL sell. The clever bit is getting the numbers right.
...which is all well and good if you can pick your numbers. If the numbers are set for you (high minimums/ multiples of) the amount of surplus stock rises accordingly.
Argyle have run out in the last two seasons because they are (rightly) risk averse about high surplus stock levels. If you were with a company that was more flexible and less prescriptive that risk would be greatly reduced.
Argyle have run out in the last two seasons because they are (rightly) risk averse about high surplus stock levels. If you were with a company that was more flexible and less prescriptive that risk would be greatly reduced.
Because the three year contract signed in December 2013 for 2014/15 onwards expired at the end of the 2016/17 season, last season. That we have Puma this season means they must have re-signed.
The last contract was three seasons as was the one before that, no reason therefore to believe anything other than a three season deal was signed again. Next opportunity to ditch Puma is the 2020/21 season.
That Argyle made no announcement in December last year just goes to show they know full well how unpopular Puma has been...yet they signed up again anyway :facepalm:
The last contract was three seasons as was the one before that, no reason therefore to believe anything other than a three season deal was signed again. Next opportunity to ditch Puma is the 2020/21 season.
That Argyle made no announcement in December last year just goes to show they know full well how unpopular Puma has been...yet they signed up again anyway :facepalm:
Argyle must therefore be happy with the terms of the kit deal in
What it offers the club in terms of supplying the kit that they use themselves.
The replica kit sales side of the deal must be a side issue. Argyle have sold out of second strip shirts before the end of the first month of the season, two years running now. That is the club simply throwing away sales opportunities and nothing to do with Puma's minimum order requirements. There is still the Christmas market to come before they need to consider what excess stock they have and what sale prices they'd need to charge to sell it off and still make a profit.
What it offers the club in terms of supplying the kit that they use themselves.
The replica kit sales side of the deal must be a side issue. Argyle have sold out of second strip shirts before the end of the first month of the season, two years running now. That is the club simply throwing away sales opportunities and nothing to do with Puma's minimum order requirements. There is still the Christmas market to come before they need to consider what excess stock they have and what sale prices they'd need to charge to sell it off and still make a profit.
Just been online and home shirt available in all sizes and surely this is the problem. Supporter's are buying the away shirt in such numbers because yet again the home shirt is so poor, very few people like the red Ginster's logo on the green shirt.
Why didn't argyle ask puma if we could have had a shirt with a white front (on which the red logo would have looked better)with a green back and sleeves or something similar.
Failing that we have to hope that Ginster's bring out a vegetarian range (if they don't already have one) with a green logo which would look better on a green or white shirt. :scarf:
Why didn't argyle ask puma if we could have had a shirt with a white front (on which the red logo would have looked better)with a green back and sleeves or something similar.
Failing that we have to hope that Ginster's bring out a vegetarian range (if they don't already have one) with a green logo which would look better on a green or white shirt. :scarf:
