: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:26 pm  

wigan pie man wrote:

it helps sell merchandise too........did we have merchandise pre superleague apart from a shirt and scarf?

Yes - you still see people walking round in Ellgren gear, presumably because of the tat that has been on offer in recent years.

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:31 pm  

Phuzzy wrote:

Any merchandise sold to younger fans for whom the Warriors tag is part of their club identity, Alex. You can't take things in isolation. The Warriors name is part of a greater whole. In fact I'll counter your argument by asking what merchandise does the 'Warrior' prevent from selling? It's a complete non-question.

Btw I'm not having a go at you...just answering your question.

Oh I know, it's just a good debate.

But what I'm trying to say is that if Warriors does attract new support and better our club then fantastic! Let's keep it. But, we do absolutely nothing to utilise our ''WARRIORS'' name. It doesn't attract people, it's not created new merchendise, it's not created an affiliation or a new identity. We certainly wouldn't lose out on anything should we remove it from our name, would we?

The Warriors name isn't a hinderance, it's just pointless.

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:32 pm  

ROBINSON wrote:

I see your point, but I was 9 when I first started watching Wigan; we weren't called Warriors then, and if we were, it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. It was enough for me that I liked the sport - I was aware of "branding", due to the coverage of American Football on Channel 4, but it never occurred to me that we should do the same, and I certainly didn't develop an affiliation to any Gridiron teams because of it.

The Mighty Max point - we can have a mascot without being called 'Warriors". Can't we?

Nor me Robinson. But then people didn't used to realise that they needed cars to get around. What's wrong with the good old horse n cart!

Things move on. There is far more vying for children's attention today, whether that be a premiership football team in the town or the latest computer game. Anything that gives an extra edge, whether that be a major one like the recent low season ticket prices at the Giants ( ), or new approaches to marketing and branding is to be applauded. It all adds up.

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:46 pm  

Phuzzy wrote:

Nor me Robinson. But then people didn't used to realise that they needed cars to get around. What's wrong with the good old horse n cart!

Things move on. There is far more vying for children's attention today, whether that be a premiership football team in the town or the latest computer game. Anything that gives an extra edge, whether that be a major one like the recent low season ticket prices at the Giants ( ), or new approaches to marketing and branding is to be applauded. It all adds up.

No problem with that.

My view is that we should get rid of the tag, but mainly for the reasons Alex points out - that it doesn't get used.

I'm not a fan, myself, but that doesn't cloud my judgement on the matter. If we had used it, promoted it, people had taken to it, and were actually GETTING new fans on the back of it, and selling loads of merchandise, then I would vote to keep it.

Maybe the question should not be 'keep it or dump it'? It should be 'USE it or dump it'

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:47 pm  

ROBINSON wrote:

Yes - you still see people walking round in Ellgren gear, presumably because of the tat that has been on offer in recent years.

Lasy years merchandise out sold anything previous.

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:49 pm  

{Hogan} wrote:

Lasy years merchandise out sold anything previous.

"Recent years" means further back than last year. No point being selective. The Kooga stuff is reasonable. The Patrick and JJB stuff WAS complete tat.

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:51 pm  

ROBINSON wrote:

"Recent years" means further back than last year. No point being selective. The Kooga stuff is reasonable. The Patrick and JJB stuff WAS complete tat.

amen to that

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:57 pm  

ROBINSON wrote:

No problem with that.

My view is that we should get rid of the tag, but mainly for the reasons Alex points out - that it doesn't get used.

I'm not a fan, myself, but that doesn't cloud my judgement on the matter. If we had used it, promoted it, people had taken to it, and were actually GETTING new fans on the back of it, and selling loads of merchandise, then I would vote to keep it.

Maybe the question should not be 'keep it or dump it'? It should be 'USE it or dump it'

Agree with that. Probably a much better point than the poll on offer.

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:02 pm  

ROBINSON wrote:

"Recent years" means further back than last year. No point being selective. The Kooga stuff is reasonable. The Patrick and JJB stuff WAS complete tat.

So last year wasnt recent?

The JJB stuff was awful yes, that can be said about anything JJB manufacture. But hey at least they got the stuff made on time

[Pemps]

: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:05 pm  

{Hogan} wrote:

So last year wasnt recent?

The JJB stuff was awful yes, that can be said about anything JJB manufacture. But hey at least they got the stuff made on time

Just had a text off a mate of mine asking about the new shirt. His wife bought one at the game on Saturday and when they got it home it had no Kooga or Wigan crest on it.