Should Tiger drop Nike?

[RonTheSavage]

Originally Posted by Willie Malay

No. Nike should drop him. Haven't bought a Nike product since his ordeal and won't

Um................if they were gonna, they would've already.

[ApocG10]

Originally Posted by Willie Malay

No. Nike should drop him. Haven't bought a Nike product since his ordeal and won't

Nike cannot drop them, he has a controlling interest in Nike Golf, which is why he went with them in the first place.

Anyone who wont buy from Nike because Tiger had some skin on the side needs to wake the **** up. This is more common than not with professional athletes, wether they like to admit it or not. It just happened that the world loved Tiger, and the media loves to tear people down. He is human, he made mistakes. And 90% of us, being TW, and having beautifull women thrown at him day in, day out, would have done the same thing he did.

Get off the high horse, you would have done no better than him.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by ApocG10

Nike cannot drop them, he has a controlling interest in Nike Golf, which is why he went with them in the first place.

God almighty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where does this BS come from?

You are saying that Tiger owns 51% of Nike????????????????????

[newtogolf]

Need to check your facts before you throw stuff out there.  Maybe Tiger is a super secret share holder since it doesn't appear anyone owns 51%.

Nike, Inc 908 Institutional Holders
300,707,254 Total Shares Held

Click on the column header links to resort ascending (^) or descending (v).

Owner Name	Date	Shared Held	Change (Shares)	Change(%)	Value(in 1,000s)
VANGUARD GROUP INC	06/30/2012	18,111,003	750,350	4.32	1,743,365
FMR LLC	06/30/2012	17,948,596	(1,485,990)	(7.65)	1,727,732
STATE STREET CORP	06/30/2012	13,601,382	801,785	6.26	1,309,269
CAPITAL RESEARCH GLOBAL INVESTORS	06/30/2012	12,687,480	(1,600,000)	(11.2)	1,221,297
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP	06/30/2012	10,681,360	(500,783)	(4.48)	1,028,188
JENNISON ASSOCIATES LLC	06/30/2012	9,578,572	165,048	1.75	922,033
BARCLAYS GLOBAL INVESTORS UK HOLDINGS LTD	06/30/2012	9,364,821	192,592	2.10	901,458
JANUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC	06/30/2012	9,022,256	714,493	8.60	868,482
CAPITAL WORLD INVESTORS	06/30/2012	8,662,221	(100,000)	(1.14)	833,825
PRICE T ROWE ASSOCIATES INC /MD/	06/30/2012	8,262,669	(679,807)	(7.6)	795,365
SANDS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC	06/30/2012	6,962,632	395,171	6.02	670,223
NORTHERN TRUST CORP	06/30/2012	6,401,076	521,389	8.87	616,168
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC	06/30/2012	5,214,597	877,164	20.22	501,957
LANSDOWNE PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP	06/30/2012	5,094,252	651,564	14.67	490,373
FRANKLIN RESOURCES INC	06/30/2012	4,332,596	92,520	2.18	417,056

Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/nke/institutional-holdings#ixzz2487gQq1l

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApocG10

Nike cannot drop them, he has a controlling interest in Nike Golf, which is why he went with them in the first place.

[ApocG10]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Need to check your facts before you throw stuff out there.  Maybe Tiger is a super secret share holder since it doesn't appear anyone owns 51%.

Nike, Inc 908 Institutional Holders

300,707,254 Total Shares Held

Click on the column header links to resort ascending (^) or descending (v).

Owner Name

Date

Shared Held

Change (Shares)

Change(%)

Value(in 1,000s)

VANGUARD GROUP INC

06/30/2012

18,111,003

750,350

4.32

1,743,365

FMR LLC

06/30/2012

17,948,596

(1,485,990)

(7.65)

1,727,732

STATE STREET CORP

06/30/2012

13,601,382

801,785

6.26

1,309,269

CAPITAL RESEARCH GLOBAL INVESTORS

06/30/2012

12,687,480

(1,600,000)

(11.2)

1,221,297

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP

06/30/2012

10,681,360

(500,783)

(4.48)

1,028,188

JENNISON ASSOCIATES LLC

06/30/2012

9,578,572

165,048

1.75

922,033

BARCLAYS GLOBAL INVESTORS UK HOLDINGS LTD

06/30/2012

9,364,821

192,592

2.10

901,458

JANUS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC

06/30/2012

9,022,256

714,493

8.60

868,482

CAPITAL WORLD INVESTORS

06/30/2012

8,662,221

(100,000)

(1.14)

833,825

PRICE T ROWE ASSOCIATES INC /MD/

06/30/2012

8,262,669

(679,807)

(7.6)

795,365

SANDS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC

06/30/2012

6,962,632

395,171

6.02

670,223

NORTHERN TRUST CORP

06/30/2012

6,401,076

521,389

8.87

616,168

GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC

06/30/2012

5,214,597

877,164

20.22

501,957

LANSDOWNE PARTNERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

06/30/2012

5,094,252

651,564

14.67

490,373

FRANKLIN RESOURCES INC

06/30/2012

4,332,596

92,520

2.18

417,056

Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/nke/institutional-holdings#ixzz2487gQq1l

That is Nike Inc.

• Nike Golf is a subsidiary, and he owns a large part of the company. It was his condition for joining Nike, that it be HIS company, by his, i mean r and d would focus on him. I do not own the details at all, but I know he owns part of the Nike Golf subsidiary. Also, his contract states that equipment is to be build around him. Thats why Nike had their forged blades done by Titleist and Miura at different points. Now they do their own, because they are up to tigers standard.,

[ApocG10]

Originally Posted by Shorty

God almighty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where does this BS come from?

You are saying that Tiger owns 51% of Nike????????????????????

No, im saying he has a controlling interest in the Nike Gof division. Nike has never been a single company. Its a multitude of them under one umbrella, which is a great business move in itself.

There was a whole interview on it when a Nike official was on Larry King Live., and they got into the seantics of Tigers position at Nike. He said that they could stop sponsoring him, but he would still retain the rights he has to their manufacturing of equipment.

[LovinItAll]

No, im saying he has a controlling interest in the Nike Gof division. Nike has never been a single company. Its a multitude of them under one umbrella, which is a great business move in itself. There was a whole interview on it when a Nike official was on Larry King Live., and they got into the seantics of Tigers position at Nike. He said that they could stop sponsoring him, but he would still retain the rights he has to their manufacturing of equipment.

According to Wikipedia, which is always 100% right because contributors are just like the posters here: "Woods receives a percentage from the sales of Nike Golf apparel, footwear, golf equipment, golf balls." Phil Knight didn't get to be a bazillionaire giving away controlling interest in anything, and I doubt Tiger has even the smallest chance of overruling Phil if they ever disagreed on something. Do they seek/accept Tiger's input? That wouldn't surprise me - I'm almost sure that happens. I also doubt that Tiger would even try to make a business decision for Nike. He's smart enough to know that he's a golfer first and a businessman second. As far as 'rights to their manufacturing of equipment", again, Nike and other golf companies spend a ton on R&D;, so by the time they make a decision on a club, they've gone through the whole focus group thing plus other stuff. I'm about as sure as I can be that it doesn't go like this: "Hey, Tiger! How do you like this club? Our research says it will be popular with the masses?" "I don't like it. Start over from scratch." More likely his response would be, "If that's what the research shows, go with it and let's make some cash." I know that doesn't address whether he could say, "Start over.", but like everything else Tiger, he's a pretty mum guy, so I can't imagine he'd discuss the terms of his contract with Nike. Probably not allowed to, anyway. I looked for the Larry King show with a Nike rep but couldn't find it. If anyone has a link, I'd like to watch it.

[newtogolf]

I searched for a while and couldn't find anything that indicated Tiger owned any part, no less controlling interesting of Nike Golf, Inc.  Nike Golf, Inc is a subsidiary that was formed 2 years after Nike signed a deal with Tiger but the ownership is either private or rolled up under the Nike, Inc umbrella.  I'd like to see Apoc back his claim up with proof instead of referencing some old Larry King interview that no one seems to have seen but him.

Originally Posted by LovinItAll

According to Wikipedia, which is always 100% right because contributors are just like the posters here:

"Woods receives a percentage from the sales of Nike Golf apparel, footwear, golf equipment, golf balls."

Phil Knight didn't get to be a bazillionaire giving away controlling interest in anything, and I doubt Tiger has even the smallest chance of overruling Phil if they ever disagreed on something. Do they seek/accept Tiger's input? That wouldn't surprise me - I'm almost sure that happens. I also doubt that Tiger would even try to make a business decision for Nike. He's smart enough to know that he's a golfer first and a businessman second.

As far as 'rights to their manufacturing of equipment", again, Nike and other golf companies spend a ton on R&D;, so by the time they make a decision on a club, they've gone through the whole focus group thing plus other stuff. I'm about as sure as I can be that it doesn't go like this:

"Hey, Tiger! How do you like this club? Our research says it will be popular with the masses?"

"I don't like it. Start over from scratch."

More likely his response would be, "If that's what the research shows, go with it and let's make some cash."

I know that doesn't address whether he could say, "Start over.", but like everything else Tiger, he's a pretty mum guy, so I can't imagine he'd discuss the terms of his contract with Nike. Probably not allowed to, anyway.

I looked for the Larry King show with a Nike rep but couldn't find it. If anyone has a link, I'd like to watch it.

[LovinItAll]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I searched for a while and couldn't find anything that indicated Tiger owned any part, no less controlling interesting of Nike Golf, Inc.  Nike Golf, Inc is a subsidiary that was formed 2 years after Nike signed a deal with Tiger but the ownership is either private or rolled up under the Nike, Inc umbrella.  I'd like to see Apoc back his claim up with proof instead of referencing some old Larry King interview that no one seems to have seen but him.

Of course, he could get a piece of golf-related sales without owning anything. Not saying that he does - that's a wiki thing,

[newtogolf]

I found in other places that he gets a share of profits but as you state, that doesn't mean he's got an ownership stake.

Originally Posted by LovinItAll

Of course, he could get a piece of golf-related sales without owning anything. Not saying that he does - that's a wiki thing,

[slodsm]

Originally Posted by ApocG10

Anyone who wont buy from Nike because Tiger had some skin on the side needs to wake the **** up. This is more common than not with professional athletes, wether they like to admit it or not. It just happened that the world loved Tiger, and the media loves to tear people down. He is human, he made mistakes. And 90% of us, being TW, and having beautifull women thrown at him day in, day out, would have done the same thing he did.

Truth! I have all the self control in the world when it comes to drugs, alcohol, and most other temptations but I'm a man loaded with testosterone and women have always and will always be my downfall. I'm thinking if I were in Tigers position, the list would have been even longer and there would be a lot of video proof. Does that make it right, nope. But it's just the way it is. I can admit my weakness and move on and because I know I have them myself, I don't judge others for their shortcomings.

[LovinItAll]

Originally Posted by slodsm

Truth! I have all the self control in the world when it comes to drugs, alcohol, and most other temptations but I'm a man loaded with testosterone and women have always and will always be my downfall. I'm thinking if I were in Tigers position, 1. the list would have been even longer and 2. there would be a lot of video proof. 3. Does that make it right, nope. But it's just the way it is. I can admit my weakness and move on and because I know I have them myself, I don't judge others for their shortcomings.

1. I'm thinkin' the list is longer than we know

2. Probably some of that, too.

3. I know I'll get heat, but: It doesn't make it wrong, either. What Tiger did is Tiger and his family's business...no one else's. The only thing that makes it "wrong" to certain people are a set of morals and values that they've been taught within our society. People can argue that those values are what everyone should live by - and I would disagree - but Tiger didn't break the law, and in my eyes, that's all that matters. I tried to make sure my kids didn't look outside the home for role models. I'd suggest other parents who were/are 'disappointed' in Tiger do the same.

The guy has done so much good within communities across the world that I think it's reprehensible that the media went after him like they did. It's gossip reporting and should have been left to the tabloids.

[ZeroTaylor]

In all reality he's probably playing a direct copy of what ever forged blade on the market, be it Miura/Mizuno/Titelist what ever I dont see nike engineers being able to recreate the blade from all their own designs that was LEAPS andbounds better than companies that have been making them since the mid 1900's.

Drivers and woods I would be confident in saying that Tigers big bodied clubs are as much Nike as the Karman Ghia was a Volkswagen. I'm sure things along the lines of drivers and fairway woods maybe even wedges would have a big enough trickle down that his stuff would warant them spending millions upon millions of dollars to devolop them.

Also when it comes to putters I see their high end putters being a Scotty Cameron situation that they are putting their name on them.

Having worked in manufacturing for the auto industry I have seen SOOOOOOO many companies sit down with others and discuss things like wiring routing to save a few feet per harness and so on. As well as companies such as Toyota or Ford sending employees out to purchase a adversaries product to disassemble it piece by piece to see what they used that could benefit them if put into place.

ZT

[drillers80]

I have been away from the game for a few years, but I believe this still holds true; There are only a few foundries in the world that forge iron heads. Nike isn't making his stuff any more than Titleist made it. Mizuno might have their own foundry. I'm not up on all this stuff anymore. I'm sure Nike gets the billets and does their own grinding to his specs, which bear no resemblance to stock. This much is true, though, and that is that few of us could hit his clubs. The grinds are such that the weight distribution would make it hard for most golfers to get the ball much past wormburner height with anything longer than a 6 iron. He would hit balloons with stock ground irons.

[bobsuruncle]

at that level, and with modern club fitting technology, the equipment these guys play make only a small difference, especially for the very best players ...

[LovinItAll]

at that level, and with modern club fitting technology, the equipment these guys play make only a small difference, especially for the very best players ...

You're right....these guys could buy a starter set at Wally World and still shoot under par in most PGA events. Not sure who owns what foundry, but it doesn't really matter. Companies like Nike get whatever they want regardless of who the subcontractor is, and if Nike doesn't own a foundry, it's only because they consider it cost effective not to. They could afford to buy one if necessary. Very few companies control the supply side of their products the way a company like, say, Apple does. Apple bought an alluminum mine to ensure they had adequate control over supply and quality for their iPad cases. Now THAT'S supply-side control.

[JaxGolfer1]

NIKE cashed in the day Tiger chipped in the shot that tumbled in the back door in slow motion on 16 at Augusta, everything else is just a cherry on top for them.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by JaxGolfer1

NIKE cashed in the day Tiger chipped in the shot that tumbled in the back door in slow motion on 16 at Augusta, everything else is just a cherry on top for them.

You don't think they felt pretty good about things before that?