86 replies to this topic

[borker]

Gosh, I actually see TW stuff showing up at TJ Maxx once in while here by me. Also saw some TW on clearance rack at Golf Galaxy. And to tell the truth, that is where it should be at this point for him. A womanizing, adulterous LIAR to all of us. Why would anyone want to associate themselves with him again even if he starts winning again. He HAD is limelight and hundreds of millions of dollars based on his complete joke of an image and his BS PR department. Fool us once...

[Bingo1976]

HAWKEYE77, on 17 January 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

Bingo1976, on 17 January 2013 - 12:35 AM, said:

nochct1, on 16 January 2013 - 10:01 PM, said:

Do we know exactly what the structure is of Nike Golf? When Tiger first signed in 1996 it was with Nike, not Nike Golf because Nike Golf didn't exist as a company. Do we know if Tiger was actually given a structure that has him in an ownership position at Nike Golf?

AFAIK, Nike Golf is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nike Inc. If Tiger has ownership of Nike, I can only assume it would be Nike Inc stock.

No, it isn't, see previous page, but you are correct about stock being Tiger's ownership interest, if any.

Well, business week is either wrong or out of date in that case.

http://investing.bus...ivcapId=1056927

'Nike Golf, Inc. engages in the design and marketing of golf equipments, apparel, balls, footwear, bags, and accessories. It offers its products to golfers. The company is based in Beaverton, Oregon. Nike Golf, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Nike, Inc.'

[Frankie Lob Wedge]

nochct1, on 16 January 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

Nike would be stupid not to do this. They can have rory be the face of the young more athletic clothing line while the TIger line would be the premium high end line.

Nike has had success with this model using JOrdan and it can work with Tiger.

Tiger is still the most recognizable golfer in the world. I know some of you don't want that to be true, but it is.

Lance Armstrong is the most recognizable cyclist in the world and he was a Nike guy too.

[HAWKEYE77]

Bingo1976, on 17 January 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

HAWKEYE77, on 17 January 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

Bingo1976, on 17 January 2013 - 12:35 AM, said:

nochct1, on 16 January 2013 - 10:01 PM, said:

Do we know exactly what the structure is of Nike Golf? When Tiger first signed in 1996 it was with Nike, not Nike Golf because Nike Golf didn't exist as a company. Do we know if Tiger was actually given a structure that has him in an ownership position at Nike Golf?

AFAIK, Nike Golf is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nike Inc. If Tiger has ownership of Nike, I can only assume it would be Nike Inc stock.

No, it isn't, see previous page, but you are correct about stock being Tiger's ownership interest, if any.

Well, business week is either wrong or out of date in that case.

http://investing.bus...ivcapId=1056927

'Nike Golf, Inc. engages in the design and marketing of golf equipments, apparel, balls, footwear, bags, and accessories. It offers its products to golfers. The company is based in Beaverton, Oregon. Nike Golf, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Nike, Inc.'

According to NIKE, that is wrong. Again, its website, SEC filings, annual reports, identify the subsidiaries.

[HAWKEYE77]

borker, on 17 January 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

Gosh, I actually see TW stuff showing up at TJ Maxx once in while here by me. Also saw some TW on clearance rack at Golf Galaxy. And to tell the truth, that is where it should be at this point for him. A womanizing, adulterous LIAR to all of us. Why would anyone want to associate themselves with him again even if he starts winning again. He HAD is limelight and hundreds of millions of dollars based on his complete joke of an image and his BS PR department. Fool us once...

And once again, worthless crap is injected into what has been fairly reasonable discussion for a Tiger thread.

Edited by HAWKEYE77, 17 January 2013 - 01:17 AM.

[Frankie Lob Wedge]

borker, on 17 January 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

Gosh, I actually see TW stuff showing up at TJ Maxx once in while here by me. Also saw some TW on clearance rack at Golf Galaxy. And to tell the truth, that is where it should be at this point for him. A womanizing, adulterous LIAR to all of us. Why would anyone want to associate themselves with him again even if he starts winning again. He HAD is limelight and hundreds of millions of dollars based on his complete joke of an image and his BS PR department. Fool us once...

+1
In addition, he totally sucks in Ryder Cup and is another reason why we lost.  The only person he gets along with is Stricker and they were horrible.

[HAWKEYE77]

Surprise.

[mallrat]

borker, on 17 January 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

Gosh, I actually see TW stuff showing up at TJ Maxx once in while here by me. Also saw some TW on clearance rack at Golf Galaxy. And to tell the truth, that is where it should be at this point for him. A womanizing, adulterous LIAR to all of us. Why would anyone want to associate themselves with him again even if he starts winning again. He HAD is limelight and hundreds of millions of dollars based on his complete joke of an image and his BS PR department. Fool us once...

The reason you see TW stuff at TJ Maxx is they are a clearance retailer and buy old back stock. So the stuff you see is 2-3 years old.

Clothing that is returned from major Tier 1 retailers is returned. Instead of NIke throwing it away they take 40 cents on the dollar and unload it.

Now how did Tiger lie to you? Must have been cool to sit down and have a conversation with him. Did you ask him if he was cheating on his wife in that conversation?

As for Tiger not getting along with others, how do you know? Once again did you sit down and ask every member of his Ryder Cup teams? As for Stricker part of the reason they get paired together is he has said that the size of the gallery that follows Tiger doesn't bother him

[Bingo1976]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1358403314' post='6244531']
[quote name='Bingo1976' timestamp='1358402301' post='6244429']
[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1358401260' post='6244319']
[quote name='Bingo1976' timestamp='1358400913' post='6244301']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1358391670' post='6243309']
Do we know exactly what the structure is of Nike Golf? When Tiger first signed in 1996 it was with Nike, not Nike Golf because Nike Golf didn't exist as a company. Do we know if Tiger was actually given a structure that has him in an ownership position at Nike Golf?
[/quote]

AFAIK, Nike Golf is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nike Inc. If Tiger has ownership of Nike, I can only assume it would be Nike Inc stock.
[/quote]

No, it isn't, see previous page, but you are correct about stock being Tiger's ownership interest, if any.
[/quote]

Well, business week is either wrong or out of date in that case.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=1056927

'Nike Golf, Inc. engages in the design and marketing of golf equipments, apparel, balls, footwear, bags, and accessories. It offers its products to golfers. The company is based in Beaverton, Oregon. Nike Golf, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Nike, Inc.'
[/quote]

According to NIKE, that is wrong. Again, its website, SEC filings, annual reports, identify the subsidiaries.
[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification. Was being a mong before!

[golfcarte]

i'm glad i put down the litter boxes...

[nochct1]

[quote name='Bingo1976' timestamp='1358407274' post='6244797']
[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1358403314' post='6244531']
[quote name='Bingo1976' timestamp='1358402301' post='6244429']
[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1358401260' post='6244319']
[quote name='Bingo1976' timestamp='1358400913' post='6244301']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1358391670' post='6243309']
Do we know exactly what the structure is of Nike Golf? When Tiger first signed in 1996 it was with Nike, not Nike Golf because Nike Golf didn't exist as a company. Do we know if Tiger was actually given a structure that has him in an ownership position at Nike Golf?
[/quote]

AFAIK, Nike Golf is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nike Inc. If Tiger has ownership of Nike, I can only assume it would be Nike Inc stock.
[/quote]

No, it isn't, see previous page, but you are correct about stock being Tiger's ownership interest, if any.
[/quote]

Well, business week is either wrong or out of date in that case.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=1056927

'Nike Golf, Inc. engages in the design and marketing of golf equipments, apparel, balls, footwear, bags, and accessories. It offers its products to golfers. The company is based in Beaverton, Oregon. Nike Golf, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Nike, Inc.'
[/quote]

According to NIKE, that is wrong. Again, its website, SEC filings, annual reports, identify the subsidiaries.
[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification. Was being a mong before!
[/quote]

I guess I read the annual report wrong:

Fiscal 2012 Compared to Fiscal 2011
Our Other Businesses are comprised of our affiliate brands; Cole Haan, Converse, Hurley and Umbro; and NIKE Golf.
For fiscal 2012, revenues for our Other Businesses increased 11%, reflecting growth across most businesses, led by Converse. The revenue growth at Converse was primarily driven by increased sales in North America and China, as well as increased revenues in the U.K. as we transitioned that market to direct distribution in the second half of fiscal 2011. Excluding changes in currency exchange rates, revenues for NIKE Golf increased 9% for fiscal 2012, driven by double-digit percentage growth in our apparel business, partially offset by a single-digit percentage decline in our club business. On a currency neutral basis, revenues for Umbro grew 14% primarily driven by sales growth in France due to our acquisition of the exclusive licensee and distributor in March 2011. For fiscal 2012, revenues for Cole Haan grew 3%, mostly driven by growth in our Direct to Consumer operations.

If you go to the Nike Inc website, they have a section for affiliate brands and they have nike golf listed with Jordan Hurley etc.

Sorry for the confusion. Not sure why they would list all of these companies together if nike golf wasn't the same as them.

[spitfisher]

[quote name='mallrat' timestamp='1358385161' post='6242579']
[quote name='candess' timestamp='1358384185' post='6242481']
[quote name='mallrat' timestamp='1358380677' post='6242135']
[quote name='candess' timestamp='1358380481' post='6242117']
[quote name='BAlberstadt' timestamp='1358372909' post='6241447']
Source? Speculation is that Tiger's "power" is dwindling, according to most, I think. However, it would be interesting to see Nike take the TW brand in the direction of the Jordan brand.
[/quote]

Tiger has ownership in Nike golf.
[/quote]

That's not possible. Tiger can have ownership in Nike or shares but you can't have ownership in Nike Golf. Same with Jordan, he does not have ownership in Jordan. If anything its the other way around, Nike has ownership in TW and they lease the name from him.

Jordan gets paid by Nike to use his name but he has no "ownership". You can't own a selective portion of a publicly traded company. It's like if you own shares of YUM brands you have to own everything they own. You can't own Pizza Hut and Taco Bell but not KFC.
[/quote]

Actually it is possible and it is true. You can believe whatever you like but, I know for a fact he does.
[/quote]

Really, you do know that for a fact? How?

No offense but you are wrong. It is legally not possible. Do you have any clue how a publicly traded company works?

Nike is a publicly traded company. Nike Golf is a division/subsidiary of a publicly traded company. Now if he has shares in Nike then he technically owns some portion of Nike, not Nike Golf.
[/quote]

Allow me to clarify for those that just don't get it with Nike vs Nike golf,vs jordan,vs hurley etc etc

a few short years ago there wasn an automobile company called GM, GM owned buick, pontiac, cadillac, oldsmobile, Chrevolet,saturn etc etc.  Each of these companies had separate reporting on revenue, cost of doing business etc. However only one stock was issued under the GM name. Read: there was no buick, pontiac, cadillac, oldsmobile, Chrevolet,saturn  stock........NONE!  same with Nikegolf or Jordan.its all Nike stock end of story.

As far as the speculation- because thats all it is- of Tiger ownership a portion of or a large amount of Nikegolf. stock.  First thats horse hockey and 2nd he would be listed as an officer on their earnings statement- an d I have never seen his name even mentioned except in marketing press releases. He may very well own stock, just like me, but he is not stock holder to the levels that some people day dream about.

Edited by spitfisher, 17 January 2013 - 07:55 AM.

[spitfisher]

mallrat, on 16 January 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

spitfisher, on 16 January 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

tiger is told what to wear, not the other way around. Hes a golfer not a product line manager or director of marketing. He may have some input on how much grind he prefers on his PW or loft and lie on his method putter but thats about as far as it goes. and only for his own clubs.  the clubs you buy are decided on by stites and company. The decision of what  shirt style and color he wears on given saturday of the tourney he is scheduled to play, is made available to dealers 6-8 months ahead of time.

The concept of how businesses operate with some people on this board just blows me away. they have either have no clue or have no experience working at a decision making position with a company of any size.  This isn't peewees play house this is about brand awareness, selling product to make money-preferably lots of it, in the most efficient way possible. The fewer the customers -such as golf ( when compared to basketball)  the more critical the decision, cost of goods, ROI, market share and "go to market" strategy.  The latter of which we just witnessed with Rory.The products that are marketed for Rory will come full bloom in 12-15 months to the dealers and 15-18 for the consumer.

You have no idea how wrong you are. Why are you spouting crap like it's fact.

Just because he doesn't design all his clothes doesn't mean he doesn't have any say so in the TW. And I GUARANTEE I know 100x more than you on this.

Sorry, not to come off like a a55 but I have a very good idea if not an exact idea from within my household of what goes on in this situation.

I didn't write that for my health, I stand by statements pertaining to Nikegolf.  Thank you

Edited by spitfisher, 17 January 2013 - 08:07 AM.

[Frankensteins Monster]

borker, on 17 January 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

Gosh, I actually see TW stuff showing up at TJ Maxx once in while here by me. Also saw some TW on clearance rack at Golf Galaxy. And to tell the truth, that is where it should be at this point for him. A womanizing, adulterous LIAR to all of us. Why would anyone want to associate themselves with him again even if he starts winning again. He HAD is limelight and hundreds of millions of dollars based on his complete joke of an image and his BS PR department. Fool us once...

Weird. I was there the other day and I couldn't find any Nike or TW golf clothing. What I did fine was a rather nice selection of Polo and RLX golf clothing that I picked up at a steep discount. I choose the Polo and RLX clothing because shirts looked better than the Callaway, Adidas and Under Armour golf clothing that I tried on also.

[HAWKEYE77]

[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1358423795' post='6245143']
[quote name='Bingo1976' timestamp='1358407274' post='6244797']
[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1358403314' post='6244531']
[quote name='Bingo1976' timestamp='1358402301' post='6244429']
[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1358401260' post='6244319']
[quote name='Bingo1976' timestamp='1358400913' post='6244301']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1358391670' post='6243309']
Do we know exactly what the structure is of Nike Golf? When Tiger first signed in 1996 it was with Nike, not Nike Golf because Nike Golf didn't exist as a company. Do we know if Tiger was actually given a structure that has him in an ownership position at Nike Golf?
[/quote]

AFAPoIK, Nike Golf is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nike Inc. If Tiger has ownership of Nike, I can only assume it would be Nike Inc stock.
[/quote]

No, it isn't, see previous page, but you are correct about stock being Tiger's ownership interest, if any.
[/quote]

Well, business week is either wrong or out of date in that case.

[url="http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=1056927"]http://investing.bus...ivcapId=1056927[/url]

'Nike Golf, Inc. engages in the design and marketing of golf equipments, apparel, balls, footwear, bags, and accessories. It offers its products to golfers. The company is based in Beaverton, Oregon. Nike Golf, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Nike, Inc.'
[/quote]

According to NIKE, that is wrong. Again, its website, SEC filings, annual reports, identify the subsidiaries.
[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification. Was being a mong before!
[/quote]

I guess I read the annual report wrong:

Fiscal 2012 Compared to Fiscal 2011
Our Other Businesses are comprised of our affiliate brands; Cole Haan, Converse, Hurley and Umbro; and NIKE Golf.
For fiscal 2012, revenues for our Other Businesses increased 11%, reflecting growth across most businesses, led by Converse. The revenue growth at Converse was primarily driven by increased sales in North America and China, as well as increased revenues in the U.K. as we transitioned that market to direct distribution in the second half of fiscal 2011. Excluding changes in currency exchange rates, revenues for NIKE Golf increased 9% for fiscal 2012, driven by double-digit percentage growth in our apparel business, partially offset by a single-digit percentage decline in our club business. On a currency neutral basis, revenues for Umbro grew 14% primarily driven by sales growth in France due to our acquisition of the exclusive licensee and distributor in March 2011. For fiscal 2012, revenues for Cole Haan grew 3%, mostly driven by growth in our Direct to Consumer operations.

If you go to the Nike Inc website, they have a section for affiliate brands and they have nike golf listed with Jordan Hurley etc.

Sorry for the confusion. Not sure why they would list all of these companies together if nike golf wasn't the same as them.
[/quote]

Affiliate brand not the same as wholly owned subsidiary.  If you look at page 77 of NIKE, Inc.'s 10-k filed with the SEC for 2012, you will see the complete listing of its dozens of subsidiaries, no NIKE Golf.

Edited by HAWKEYE77, 17 January 2013 - 03:31 PM.

[nochct1]

[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1358430458' post='6245451']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1358423795' post='6245143']
[quote name='Bingo1976' timestamp='1358407274' post='6244797']
[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1358403314' post='6244531']
[quote name='Bingo1976' timestamp='1358402301' post='6244429']
[quote name='HAWKEYE77' timestamp='1358401260' post='6244319']
[quote name='Bingo1976' timestamp='1358400913' post='6244301']
[quote name='nochct1' timestamp='1358391670' post='6243309']
Do we know exactly what the structure is of Nike Golf? When Tiger first signed in 1996 it was with Nike, not Nike Golf because Nike Golf didn't exist as a company. Do we know if Tiger was actually given a structure that has him in an ownership position at Nike Golf?
[/quote]

AFAPoIK, Nike Golf is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nike Inc. If Tiger has ownership of Nike, I can only assume it would be Nike Inc stock.
[/quote]

No, it isn't, see previous page, but you are correct about stock being Tiger's ownership interest, if any.
[/quote]

Well, business week is either wrong or out of date in that case.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=1056927

'Nike Golf, Inc. engages in the design and marketing of golf equipments, apparel, balls, footwear, bags, and accessories. It offers its products to golfers. The company is based in Beaverton, Oregon. Nike Golf, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Nike, Inc.'
[/quote]

According to NIKE, that is wrong. Again, its website, SEC filings, annual reports, identify the subsidiaries.
[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification. Was being a mong before!
[/quote]

I guess I read the annual report wrong:

Fiscal 2012 Compared to Fiscal 2011
Our Other Businesses are comprised of our affiliate brands; Cole Haan, Converse, Hurley and Umbro; and NIKE Golf.
For fiscal 2012, revenues for our Other Businesses increased 11%, reflecting growth across most businesses, led by Converse. The revenue growth at Converse was primarily driven by increased sales in North America and China, as well as increased revenues in the U.K. as we transitioned that market to direct distribution in the second half of fiscal 2011. Excluding changes in currency exchange rates, revenues for NIKE Golf increased 9% for fiscal 2012, driven by double-digit percentage growth in our apparel business, partially offset by a single-digit percentage decline in our club business. On a currency neutral basis, revenues for Umbro grew 14% primarily driven by sales growth in France due to our acquisition of the exclusive licensee and distributor in March 2011. For fiscal 2012, revenues for Cole Haan grew 3%, mostly driven by growth in our Direct to Consumer operations.

If you go to the Nike Inc website, they have a section for affiliate brands and they have nike golf listed with Jordan Hurley etc.

Sorry for the confusion. Not sure why they would list all of these companies together if nike golf wasn't the same as them.
[/quote]

Affiliate brand not the same as wholly owned subsidiary.
[/quote]

I know. The point being is that nike might operate golf the same way the other companies are run. Or maybe they don't. Hard to tell.

I'm not questioning the stock either. I know that each of those companies doesn't have their own stock.

My question is about how nike golf is run as a company.

But this has gone on too long as is.  Good chat.

[geesecougar2]

Frankensteins Monster, on 17 January 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

borker, on 17 January 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

Gosh, I actually see TW stuff showing up at TJ Maxx once in while here by me. Also saw some TW on clearance rack at Golf Galaxy. And to tell the truth, that is where it should be at this point for him. A womanizing, adulterous LIAR to all of us. Why would anyone want to associate themselves with him again even if he starts winning again. He HAD is limelight and hundreds of millions of dollars based on his complete joke of an image and his BS PR department. Fool us once...

Weird. I was there the other day and I couldn't find any Nike or TW golf clothing. What I did fine was a rather nice selection of Polo and RLX golf clothing that I picked up at a steep discount. I choose the Polo and RLX clothing because shirts looked better than the Callaway, Adidas and Under Armour golf clothing that I tried on also.

TJ Maxx is seriously awesome.

[HAWKEYE77]

I don't suppose anyone knows how the golf division is "really" run.  NIKE says that it wanted to have it run as if it were a separate business, i.e., stand alone for business decisions, marketing, product development, etc.  There would be a lot of reasons for approaching it that way.  Maybe it was for accountability for decisions when it was a fledgling enterprise, maybe it was to keep track of performance in a way that its figures were more readily separable from the general revenues and expenses (related to the first point), maybe just for clear definition of roles --- those are just some thoughts, some business experts could probably come up with more.

What it comes down to, without getting bogged down in establishing and re-establishing the fact that it isn't a subsidiary, is that, however characterized, NIKE owns the golf division and Tiger doesn't have some secret ownership interest in the division, per se, which was just being tossed out there in typical unfounded rumor fashion.

[bscinstnct]

HAWKEYE77, on 17 January 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

I don't suppose anyone knows how the golf division is "really" run.  NIKE says that it wanted to have it run as if it were a separate business, i.e., stand alone for business decisions, marketing, product development, etc.  There would be a lot of reasons for approaching it that way.  Maybe it was for accountability for decisions when it was a fledgling enterprise, maybe it was to keep track of performance in a way that its figures were more readily separable from the general revenues and expenses (related to the first point), maybe just for clear definition of roles --- those are just some thoughts, some business experts could probably come up with more.

What it comes down to, without getting bogged down in establishing and re-establishing the fact that it isn't a subsidiary, is that, however characterized, NIKE owns the golf division and Tiger doesn't have some secret ownership interest in the division, per se, which was just being tossed out there in typical unfounded rumor fashion.

Given the capabilities of the legal and professional finance community.

How hard could it be to provide the equivalent of ownership in a specific division/group of even a publicly traded company?

Edited by bscinstnct, 17 January 2013 - 12:30 PM.

[geesecougar2]

Even if it were actually possible to own just stock in Nike Golf, if I was Tiger, there is no way i would accept stock in just that division as a substantial portion of my compensation package.

I would imagine that Nike Golf is one of the least profitable pieces of Nike.

[nochct1]

geesecougar2, on 17 January 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

Even if it were actually possible to own just stock in Nike Golf, if I was Tiger, there is no way i would accept stock in just that division as a substantial portion of my compensation package.

I would imagine that Nike Golf is one of the least profitable pieces of Nike.

It's a public company. You can look up the profitability numbers. It's really not that bad. Like any business, they had some issues when the economy was REALLY bad, but consumer spending was down overall at that time. Of just scroll up a few posts and you can see last years numbers.

Edited by nochct1, 17 January 2013 - 01:05 PM.

[HAWKEYE77]

I think some may be confused because on the internet you can find reference to "NIKE Golf, Inc." (not from NIKE).

There is no "NIKE Golf, Inc."

"NIKE GOLF" is registered with the Oregon Secretary of State as an "assumed business name" filed by NIKE, INC., it's not a corporation.

Hope that's helpful.

[H.A. Kerr]

This is the best tax law forum I've ever been on.

[mallrat]

HAWKEYE77, on 17 January 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

I don't suppose anyone knows how the golf division is "really" run.  NIKE says that it wanted to have it run as if it were a separate business, i.e., stand alone for business decisions, marketing, product development, etc.  There would be a lot of reasons for approaching it that way.  Maybe it was for accountability for decisions when it was a fledgling enterprise, maybe it was to keep track of performance in a way that its figures were more readily separable from the general revenues and expenses (related to the first point), maybe just for clear definition of roles --- those are just some thoughts, some business experts could probably come up with more.

What it comes down to, without getting bogged down in establishing and re-establishing the fact that it isn't a subsidiary, is that, however characterized, NIKE owns the golf division and Tiger doesn't have some secret ownership interest in the division, per se, which was just being tossed out there in typical unfounded rumor fashion.

Cindy Davis reports to Mark Parker, not sure if she also reports to Charlie Denson.

I believe it does operate as a separate entity in terms of operations for tracking profitability and performance. That said it does all fall under Nike, Inc. at the end of the day.

[spitfisher]

geesecougar2, on 17 January 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

Even if it were actually possible to own just stock in Nike Golf, if I was Tiger, there is no way i would accept stock in just that division as a substantial portion of my compensation package.

I would imagine that Nike Golf is one of the least profitable pieces of Nike.

I agree, if it was a standalone club and ball company- which I believe someone is trying to determine id it is or not on this thread- its likely it would have been bought or gone out of business by now. Thier cost of doing business over 12 years is way out of sync ( ratio ) to sales.

the above is speculation of course but there is proven examples in the recreational sporting good industry that have came names a float or died.

Edited by spitfisher, 17 January 2013 - 05:16 PM.

[mallrat]

spitfisher, on 17 January 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

mallrat, on 16 January 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

spitfisher, on 16 January 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

tiger is told what to wear, not the other way around. Hes a golfer not a product line manager or director of marketing. He may have some input on how much grind he prefers on his PW or loft and lie on his method putter but thats about as far as it goes. and only for his own clubs.  the clubs you buy are decided on by stites and company. The decision of what  shirt style and color he wears on given saturday of the tourney he is scheduled to play, is made available to dealers 6-8 months ahead of time.

The concept of how businesses operate with some people on this board just blows me away. they have either have no clue or have no experience working at a decision making position with a company of any size.  This isn't peewees play house this is about brand awareness, selling product to make money-preferably lots of it, in the most efficient way possible. The fewer the customers -such as golf ( when compared to basketball)  the more critical the decision, cost of goods, ROI, market share and "go to market" strategy.  The latter of which we just witnessed with Rory.The products that are marketed for Rory will come full bloom in 12-15 months to the dealers and 15-18 for the consumer.

You have no idea how wrong you are. Why are you spouting crap like it's fact.

Just because he doesn't design all his clothes doesn't mean he doesn't have any say so in the TW. And I GUARANTEE I know 100x more than you on this.

Sorry, not to come off like a a55 but I have a very good idea if not an exact idea from within my household of what goes on in this situation.

I didn't write that for my health, I stand by statements pertaining to Nikegolf.  Thank you

I know it's the internet and all but trust me. The TW line operates the same way basketball signature shoes are created. The player is consulted on the product line. Now they don't make all the decisions but they have input on color ways, styles, etc.

For example if they have 5 color ways and only want to produce 3 and Tiger wants 1 that isn't of Nike's chosen 3, they will add that to the production line. He also has input on the fit of his pants and style. That's part of the reason his TW pants had pleats (?) up until last year, while the rest of their product line did not.

[bscinstnct]

spitfisher, on 17 January 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

geesecougar2, on 17 January 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

Even if it were actually possible to own just stock in Nike Golf, if I was Tiger, there is no way i would accept stock in just that division as a substantial portion of my compensation package.

I would imagine that Nike Golf is one of the least profitable pieces of Nike.

I agree, if it was a standalone club and ball company- which I believe someone is trying to determine id it is or not on this thread- its likely it would have been bought or gone out of business by now. Thier cost of doing business over 12 years is way out of sync ( ratio ) to sales.

the above is speculation of course but there is proven examples in the recreational sporting good industry that have came names a float or died.

Haha!

They JUST spent (reportedly)

$200 MM or more

On a 10 year deal for ONE guy

And signed a bunch more for more 10s of $MM

I don't think they are pulling the plug on

Nike golf

Aka the brand that Tiger built

Anytime soon!

Cmon now! To me, it looks like they are just moving in to kill and its the competition that is figuring out what the *%&$ to do.