BILLABONG - who got axed.

Pretty sure Dylan Longbottom got culled also.

Bong did sign up Jack Robinson though. 

Yeah, you're right, it does too. Looks like DL escaped the chop. But jeez there's been a huge cull. I had reason to go and check the Bong website last year, and while I don't know the exact number of surfers on the team it was way more than the current number. Huge reduction.

According to this archive Bong page from early February (when compared to the current Bong webpage), Soli Bailey, Luke Wrice and Mitch Parkinson are no longer with Billabong. I know Soli's with O'Neill now but not sure about Luke and Mitch.

I reckon they should get rid of Taj......he's had enough of a go. Let someone else in.

That's a big call.
I know Quik have Kanoa Igarashi, but anyway, it'll be interesting to see if he can become a household name in Japan in 10 years. Now that'd be something.

Did bong also drop dean Bowen? Also I can't believe quik dropped mark healey! Surely James wood hasn't still been sponsored till recently?? Haven't heard or seen anything from him for years.. And dropping jack Robbo? Isn't he the "next big thing"?

Hard to feel sympathy for blokes who might need to get a real job though.

Yeah Dean Bowen also got chopped.

I haven't heard anything about Quiksilver dropping Mark Healey. What's your source GF?

As for Jack Robbo - not sure if Quik dropped him (or if his contract simply came up for renewal, and Quik declined, which is what I suspect) however Bong have picked him up.

No real surprises here surely, surf co's been paring guys back for the last 2-3 years, aside from the big money JJF deal last year.

Would expect the pruning to continue a while yet ... esp once the Hurley contracts come up for renewal, post Nike 6.0 roll up they're way overstocked (esp on Tour).

Personally think the surf co's barely need more than the 2 or 3 headline guys and a smattering of specialists / groms. Which they're all clearly gravitating to as a model, just slowly.

Just from his Instagram Thermal Ben. And other comments on the net i've read.

freeride76 wrote:

I reckon they should get rid of Taj......he's had enough of a go. Let someone else in.

you got rocks in your head.

Prolly ACB........but I've had a dislike for Taj.

He just seems to crumble at the times when he should be solid.....and I bear a grudge from the Pro Junior when he was clearly beaten by Robbie Johson and the judges pushed him through.
Robbie ended up a floor tiler and Taj a superstar and that just don't seem right to me.

I can't be sure, but it seems to me there's an industry wide correction happening. I've long thought that the pay of professional surfers outweighs the worth they bring in to the companies. Of course, part of that is due to the GFC and subsequent industry contraction, but there's also been changes in the industry that mean exorbitant pro payments are unsustainable.

For one, the culture has fragmented meaning the one or two 'faces' of each company no longer have widespread appeal. Also, the core has moved away from the industry (or vice versa). Surfers over a certain age don't wear their clothes so why were the companies spending huge sums to appeal to core surfers? That illusion could only last so long and it seems to have been found out.

Perhaps the days of the big pay packets are drawing to a close.

freeride76 wrote:

Prolly ACB........but I've had a dislike for Taj.

He just seems to crumble at the times when he should be solid.....and I bear a grudge from the Pro Junior when he was clearly beaten by Robbie Johson and the judges pushed him through.
Robbie ended up a floor tiler and Taj a superstar and that just don't seem right to me.

I cant say I know of that example; however A) that would be the judges fault not Taj's and B) I grew up with Taj posters on my wall and from a young age I always just wanted to buy Billabong for that reason. ( also its aussie vs quicksilver usa ). I just thought he was at the forefront of the above the lip generation, And Fair Bits is on of my fave films.

freeride76 wrote:

Prolly ACB........but I've had a dislike for Taj.

He just seems to crumble at the times when he should be solid.....and I bear a grudge from the Pro Junior when he was clearly beaten by Robbie Johson and the judges pushed him through.
Robbie ended up a floor tiler and Taj a superstar and that just don't seem right to me.

Geez Steve, want to come join us in 2014?

I think the industry had a peak in the late 90s early 2000s therefore sponsorerd salaries were affordable..now people realise a $70 shirt is no different to a $15 shirt so the companies bottom lines have taken a hit..also it is now quite 'uncool' to be seen wearing a billabong or quik item of clothing so their profits or markets arent as lucrative anymore. Another thing for me is pro surfing has gotten very stale..which I mean it hasnt really progressed in the last 5 years..everyone thought that kickflips and rodeoclowns would be the norm, instead its still air reverses so to throw money at your average pro doesnt make sense..IMO the the big salaries should go to the crew of dorian healy etc thats where the next level is currently

barley wrote:

now people realise a $70 shirt is no different to a $15 shirt so the companies bottom lines have taken a hit

I think the general public is still buying $70 shirts.. it's just that surfing (and by association, surf brands) are less fashionable than they were some time ago. Fashion phases move in cycles.. I'm sure surfing will come back in some shape or form in the future.

All of the sponsored surfers of the '90's and 00's were lucky to be have been around at a time when their skill set was deemed valuable by the surf brands. We now seem to be returning back to a more neutral setting where surf brands only need to employ a small number of surfers (preferably household names like Mick, Parko and Taj) as a part of their marketing strategy.

Geezus Ben. SN must pay alright if you're spending $70 on a tshirt!!! BTW that same tshirt costs $2 to make!!!

Wasn't referring to myself Don (I said "the general public"). Personally, I rarely shop for clothes and wouldn't spend much more than twenty bucks on a t-shirt.

As for the whole "that t-shirt cost $2 to make" - that's another argument that doesn't always stack up. Depending on where you buy it from, there are a number of factors that push the cost of a shirt way up above $2. For example, if you're purchasing from Australian shops who have to employ staff at the appropriate award rates (and who also have to pay commercial rates for shop leases, electricity, shop fittings etc), all of these things add up to well over $2 per unit.

Geez, the old how much does it cost issue (insert eye rolling emoticon here)

At the risk of sounding a nerdy geek, truth is Stu and Don you need to be specific as to what the 'cost' is ... that is, direct cost or indirect costs?

Direct costs, like the labour cost to make the shirt, material, cotton, machinery write off, etc are very different to all the Indirect costs incurred by the retailer such as rent, sales staff wages, etc.

Ugly debate, but one that will end up, just like for all manufacture and agriculture etc., that the retailer makes more $ per unit than than manufacturer, because THEY HAVE TO, to cover all their indirect costs. The NET profit after all costs per item in a retail vs manufacturer comparison will almost always result in a fairly equal outcome ... the distributor or wholesaler in the mix is a different story; that's where the biggest margin per item exists.

Anyway, sorry, off topic.