I just read the New York Times article "Hockey Fan, and Investor, Buys Bauer From Nike" published on Feb. 22nd where it's reported that investor W. Graeme Roustan has acquired the Bauer operation from Nike for $200 million.
The article cites: As for inline hockey, Mr. Roustan suggested that Bauer would never again chase that elusive market. “I really didn’t understand the inline skating business, being a blade guy,” he said.
Read for yourself... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/business/22nike.html
Let's see... based on some of what I've read, Nike acquired Canstar Sports Inc., which included the Bauer brand, in 1995 for $395 million. At the time interest in hockey and in-line skating was surging.
The market later softened. (oops!)
"But inline hockey did not develop as anticipated. More important, Nike learned that performance was more important than styling flair in hockey gear." (Genious runs amuck, eh?)
In November '07, following Nike's announcement that the Nike Bauer unit was for sale, would-be buyers, including hockey legends Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky, major competitors, private equity firms and investor groups, formally expressed interest in buying Nike Bauer Hockey. Nike Bauer set a steep price tag for the subsidiary expected to be in the $250-million range. (so what's a mere $145 million loss to Nike so far anyway?) The price drove off most parties including hockey manufacturers Easton-Bell Sports and Mission-Itech, who left the room when the price climbed north of $200-million. According to one insider, "The market would have said $140-million on the low side, and on the high side maybe $175-million tops."
"It was too rich for them," he said, noting that growth prospects remain weak, particularly in the tough U.S. market, and competition is fierce.
Enter new suitor, W. Graeme Roustan, who lays down $200 million for the ailing unit.
I'm thinking that Nike is saying Hooray! (sucker...)
Roustan, who grew up with hand-me-down Bauer hockey skates in Canada, then skates off to the press with a hole shot of a business strategy statement suggesting that as a "blade guy" he'll pull out of the inline hockey business.
Hmmm... soft market, declining shares, and then cut out the inline segment. This is a business growth or profit strategy?
This seems to me that something in the logic chain got cut here faster than Zednick went to the ice and with even more blood to follow. (sorry for the pun to Panther Richard Zednick and glad he's recovering!).
Dollars and sense?
Would you continue to buy from a company (Nike Bauer) who doesn't believe in your sport?
And when will they (the hockey industry at large) learn to expand outside of the circle and stop marketing only to the same group of core consumers over and over fighting for declining market share when they could be expanding markets and the future of the sport by helping to attract new skating consumers through Learn To Skate programs, low point of entry cost hockey gear and even rental gear programs that rink operators or communities could afford?
Let's get some new, young blood onto those rinks and see the sport regain interest and revenues. (too bad for Bauer alone on the ice)
I've only get cents, but if I had the dollars, I would!
Posted by jack napier (25/02/2008)
Thanks
Firstly I was taken back to think anyone connected with hockey inline or ice was intelligent enough to read the New York Times, I thought most were still at the looking at pictures stage.
But what a darn good article, darn? Must be the influence of the New York Times. No really, what a good article. It is good to see the site being used in the way I am sure it was intended and not as a medium for faceless non entities to slag off and abuse.
I feel you have summed it up well, many saw inline as being a irritant to ice and those who ran it, when they should of been encouraging inline, for what it is, a great sport played by far too few, many of the kids who play inline, would be household names if they could ply their talent in the same way to a football.
Inline and ice can and should work together, as both needs each other to grow,
And manufactures and retailers come to that should also realise the need to put something back into the game, players are customers and when the players go so do the customers.
To be fair Bauer did put something back in the sport in the way of the Bauer Knockout comps in the mid to late ninety’s. The others Franklin, Itech, Louisville to name a few just saw the influx of kids as a tool for inflating prices, and to be frank ripping off. And organizations alike pushed and pushed up the cost of playing. Charging kids or their parents £5 per match when many teams were at the time benching three lines plus a netkeeper, so that’s upwards of £130 per game when halls were charging around £30 per hour hire change. If they want to play they’ll pay it. Clearly some did want to play that badly.
However this guy W. Graeme Roustan those surprise me, firstly if your sums are correct he has paid over the odds, but surly he knows the helmets, body protectors, shorts, gloves, sticks etc the same worn for both ice and inline, so in having a pop at inline, he may be alienating his market. Does he dislike inline that much? Why not go all the way and tell inline players to sod off.
In this county many inline players are moving in to ice and in the USA, USA inline hockey run and article Roller Hockey Players in the NHL are becoming all too common. Some of it reads” it’s now come to a point where I can’t flip on an NHL game without seeing someone that has played in NARCh. Some just dabbled in roller, but others played for years in every tournament they could, as well as leagues.” Daryn Goodwin USA hockey inline.
And Anaheim Ducks themselves seem to realise this “The Anaheim Ducks and Anaheim Hockey Club (In-line) announced today that a new in-line rink will open in Corona, Calif., this January (2008). The rink, named the Anaheim Hockey Club of Corona, will serve as the Ducks’ official in-line facility and complement Anaheim ICE” Anaheim Ducks official website 20.12.07
It sport sadly is unrecognised, I am sick of the times I have gone “my children play inline hockey” for someone to reply “inline hockey, what’s that”? And whilst it remains divided it will remain unrecognised, it is time all work together Inline and Ice, Puck and ball. As ice seems to be suffering at attracting youngster’s and whilst puck susses where Ball fails in fielding under 10’s they are fast diminishing and many of the older leagues are made up with the same player doing both and at more than one age group, take the Salford league with 14 year olds playing in the under 24’s
Perhaps W. Graeme Roustan knows something’s the rest don’t?
Once again, a good article. Cheers