PRIVATE OWNERSHIP

[innsaneink]

I don't know what it is either but when a school mate of mine was studying marketing at uni this same topic came up for most recognisable sporting teams in Australia and the tiger brand(rugby league variant) was in the top 3 or 4 i think from memory.

I believe when the merger happened Balmain got a big offer from the Eels because they really wanted the Tiger branding. I guess it's got something to do with young kids picking a team.

As for Leagues Clubs are they really THAT good a source of income?
There's only so much money you can make from beer, steak and schnitzels. I know there are pokies too but clubs surely need to become self-sufficient .

Obviously if you support another NRL team then the Tiger brand means nothing. <big>But … If you are young and impressionable and looking to support a team - do you choose an eel or a tiger?</big>

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

Exactly.
For that reason the Dragons and Bulldogs probably also have good, marketable mascots/brands.
I'm sure that's what determines what team a fair amount of kids choose to support.

Id say a gun player (a Benji etc)…who youre family go for or who your friends go for would be up their mostly.
Mascots...meh...maybe at a fan day or easter show, thats about it

 

[mike]

Not a fan of private ownership unless it is by the members. Unfortunately Wests Tigers does not have a true membership structure with voting rights. Your membership is just a fan membership. So no I would not be in favour of private ownership at this stage.

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

 

[gallagher]

You'd think with the tiger as a mascot and supporters like a blue wiggle and cricket test captain we'd be popular with kids.