Talk:Sharks (rugby union)

Sharks strip

The Sharks strip has been changed back to the traditional colours of black and white. There was a gradual shift away from the black and white when the Stormers came up with an aggressive marketing strategy in 1999 (men in black). However the reaction of the Sharks was not planned but a gradual change by the jersey suppliers Canterbury at the time.

Sharks - Kukle Branding Debate Part 1

Moved the following unsigned comment by User:66.146.143.3 off the main article:

The above information about Ian Robinson approaching Terry Kukle and the way in which the brand was developed in the above mentioned paragragh is not only False it is but clearly an attempt at discrediting the true facts. It is strongly advised that Mr Robinson edits his changes to be accurate.

"Stop dreaming Mr Robinson!!! Please rectify.

This is the paragragh Mr Robinson has deleted which is indeed accurate.

After being called the Banana Boys for a century, it was time for a change. The Sharks branding was the brain child of Terry Kukle, the owner of Tag International. After assessing international marketing trends, Kukle presented this strategy to the council of the Natal Rugby Union. After many meetings a decision was finally made to go ahead with the new branding. The local press at first were very hesitant to accept the new name and branding, but after a very successful season and great products and promotions the Sharks were embraced by all.

--Stormie 03:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Stormie, How does one get in touch with you. The information Mr Robinson has posted and that you keep reverting back too, is nothing short of LIBEL and DECEPTIVE and totally INACCURATE. It is stongly advised that either you or Mr Robinson, correct this information.

Has the above debate been resolved? The trouble here is many-fold

• The statements are not supported by references so who is to say what is correct? Both Stormie and anon are going on about who is correct but neither has posted any proof. If the brand has been written up in marketing studies surely there is a reference authenticating the claim?
• The above debater gives Stormie a hard time and asks how to get hold of him but fails to disclose who he is himself. Please sign your posts)

Sharks - Kukle Branding Debate Part 2

If this debate has not been solved then I suggest we change the article to remove how the Sharks name came about. We know they used to be the Banana Boys - that is undisputed. They are now the Sharks. Also undisputed. Any points that are disputable need references --Tiucsib 06:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I don't know if I'd characterise it as a "debate", the anon above vanished after that spray (reappearing briefly to add a spam link to Tag International's website to Affiliate marketing), but seriously, yes, we don't not need unsourced and unverified claims by warring factions about which marketing company came up with the stunningly original idea of naming Natal's rugby team after an animal. --Stormie 07:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was an original idea. Yeah right (-;. The Natal Coast is famous for its Shark attacks and dolphins. In fact Amanzimtoti had at 1 point more reports of Shark attacks than any beach in the world (9 Shark attacks at 1 beach - None since they added Shark nets). The Natal Cricket side is called the Dolphins. Also very original. Miami must have stolen the idea.

I will trawl for a reference as to who to credit for the idea. If I can't find anyone I will remove the accreditation and stick to undisputed facts. Cheers --Tiucsib 10:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OK I have trawled. There are many blogs where the claim is made (with identical wording which means that it is just spam) but blogs are not a credible source. The Sharks rugby website has a a story on their brand and it does not mention TAG or Kukle. http://www.sharksrugby.co.za/default.asp?Id=12178&des=content Therefore I am going to remove the accreditation given Tag and Kukle and summarise the origins of the brand based on the above web link. That is a credible source as they own the brand. If someone can find a credible source that credits someone with the Sharks idea I will be glad to add it in with a reference. --Tiucsib 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section on the Sharks Brand

Old Version After being informally called the Banana Boys for a century, some felt it was time for a change. The Sharks branding was the brain child of Terry Kukle, the owner of Tag International. After assessing international marketing trends, Kukle presented this strategy to the council of the Natal Rugby Union. After many meetings a decision was finally made to go ahead with the new branding.

The local press at first were very hesitant to accept the new name and branding and fans were polarised by the radical proposed change that flew in the face of rugby tradition and convention. After much controversy in the media (which very rapidly brought the proposed brand to everyone's attention) and a very successful season supported by great products and promotions the Sharks were embraced by all. The Sharks' marketing has been widely acknowledged in marketing and rugby circles as best practice and included as a successful case study in many marketing text books.

I like it. --Stormie 00:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sharks - Kukle Branding Debate Part 3

The paragraph about a Mr Kukle being the brainchild of the Sharks Brand has been added again by an anonymous user (64.201.172.1). I have removed this passage "This was a long-term strategy and the target was to build the Sharks into a global franchise recognisable in rugby playing nations.This was the intial brain child of Terry Kukle the owner of Tag International, who had been designing and retailing all the merchandise for the Natal Rugby Union as it was then called."

As I mention above the above statement has been contested by certain people. I have tried hard to verify this point one way or the other. The Sharks website (www.sharksrugby.co.za) talks about the brand and its origins but does not mention Mr Kukle or Tag. Whoever the anonymous user is please

• discuss the change 1st
• Provide a 3rd party citation from a reputable source - Not a blog that is clearly just a cut and paste of the same paragraph

If there is a reputable citation then no-one will have a problem accrediting Mr Kukle for the brand. --Tiucsib 23:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's simple - if it can not be verified then lets not include it. If an acceptable reference (so not a blog for example) can be found to verify that Mr Kukle was involved then it can be included. Until then it's not going to reduce the article's quality if it's excluded. - Shudda ^talk 10:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sharks - Kukle Branding Debate Part 4

For about the 3rd time I have removed the below passage for the following reasons a) The credit for coming up with the Sharks branding is not attributed anywhere except on blogs where the exact wording is used b) The Sharks own web-site does not give Mr Kulke or Tag the credit c) The Tag International website does not even claim the credit d) Putting a link to the company website just comes across as advertising e) Again the change is made by an anonymous person making it impossible to engage in debate.

Whoever it is please discuss 1st or come up with a verifiable source The individual has gotten quite snippy a few times and even threatened legal action yet since its Mr Anonymous I dont feel too threatened The removed part follows. The Shark mascot was the brain child of Terry Kukle, the owner of Tag International. Ian Robinson, an advertising and branding specialist presented, with Kukle's permission, a strategy to the council of the Natal Rugby Union. After many meetings a decision was finally made to go ahead with the new branding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biscuit1018 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sharks - Kukle Branding Debate Part 5

For about the 4th time I have removed the below passage for the following reasons a) The credit for coming up with the Sharks branding is not attributed anywhere except on blogs that Imsuspect were written by Mr Anonymous b) The Sharks own web-site does not give Mr Kulke or Tag the credit c) The Tag International website does not even claim the credit d) Putting a link to the company website just comes across as advertising e) Again the change is made by an anonymous person making it impossible to engage in debate.

Whoever it is please discuss 1st or come up with a verifiable source The individual has gotten quite snippy a few times and even threatened legal action yet since its Mr Anonymous I dont feel too threatened The removed part follows. The Shark mascot was the brain child of Terry Kukle, the owner of Tag International]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biscuit1018 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Sharks - Kukle Branding Debate Part 6

For about the 5th time I have removed the below passage for the following reasons

Same as above Part 5

Whoever it is please discuss 1st or come up with a verifiable source If its true you will have a source

The removed part follows. The Shark mascot was the brain child of Terry Kukle, the owner of Tag International]. Biscuit1018 (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Article title

The Sharks and other South African Super 14 teams are franchises, not club. The article's title should be changed. Should it be changed to Sharks (Super rugby franchise) like the New Zealand Super 14 teams or Sharks (rugby union) like Welsh side Ospreys?

Eastpaw 9.38, 10 July 2006 (UTC+8)

Thank you

The current name is silly, it should be Sharks (rugby) like the Crusaders, which is FA class. say, for any reason anyone is looking for the Sale Sharks, then a link can be provided at the top that disambiguates Shark. No problems. This page must be moved, all the Super 14 pages are really a confusing, and these article titles dont help. Goldman07 08:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Added a map of Kwa Zulu Natal

Since we are using the Crusaders article as our benchmark I have added a map of Kwa-Zulu Natal. It still needs the following improvements

• The map needs some cities and towns (at a min Durban and Pietermaritzburg
• We need some text next to the Franchise area better explaining the region and also mentioning the draft system in place

--Tiucsib 06:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed repetition

The sentence about the press and public acceptance of the Sharks brand was repeated. I have just removed the repetition.

The citation backing up the claim about how the Sharks brand came about still needs to be added. --Tiucsib 06:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Flags

The player flags are very deceiving. They currently indicate the place of the players birth - this isn't stated. However many of those players not born in South Africa are really South African, they would be naturalised South African's and some have played for the Springboks. Should the flags be removed? - Shudda ^talk 23:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a good point. And in SA, Aus and NZ the flags have very little relevance. In the Heineken Cup they carry a lot more relevance because the sides are composed of players from all over. If you have a look at London Wasps they show two flags, one for country of birth and one for international side. Personally I think its overkill. Reckon we should show country of birth if it is any other country other than the country the rugby side resides in. Sorry apologies for a lack of a signature but I disappeared to get a link and planned to return--Tiucsib 18:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO the flags are just as important in S14 franchises as they are in HCup team articles. It is just as notable to have a team full of South Africans as it is to have a team with English, French, Irish, Georgian, Welsh, Italian, Scottish and so on players. It is interesting and notable (perhaps more in S14) in each case. The flags should be there I say, as it shows the reader that this is how the team operates. Goldman07 07:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sharks Change Strip Colours

• This article has the main strip as grey with black sleeves. This is correct.
• The change strip is depicted as black with gold sleeves. I am pretty sure that is incorrect. I believe it is black with grey sleeves. How do I know. I have a jersey donated by the Sharks to the Cape Sharks Supporters Club.

The trouble is I don't think I know how to fix it.

--41.240.0.167 06:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Super 14 Table 2007

why does it appear in this entry, this is not consistent with other articles for other Super 14 teams. 210.56.68.242 11:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SharksRugbyClubLogo.jpg

Image:SharksRugbyClubLogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

•  Done. I have added a fair use rationale. --Stormie (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Crusaders (rugby) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 06:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Logo

The logo used should be the version without sponsorship. As seen here:

https://www.thesouthafrican.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/The-Sharks-414x276.png Die Revenant (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Rugbyfan22 do you agree the non-sponsored logo would be better? As was the version used previously. Would appreciate the help changing it if so. Die Revenant (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

At the time I couldn't find a logo without the specific sponsorship, but yes this one is better and can be uploaded replacing this one Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorted, thanks. Die Revenant (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Should this page not be merged with the Currie Cup Team page?

I dont think it makes sense any more to have 2 pages for 1 team anymore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharks_(Currie_Cup) Honestly this distinction only made sense around the turn of the century when the Sharks super rugby include the Eastern Cape and Border.

The team itself has also know effectively made this point moot by branding the Sharks Currie Cup team the "Sharks XV" ie derivative from the same team playing URC.

The players are the same. They are contracted by the sharks to play in both tournaments. The core coaching team is the same. The owners are of course the same.

The pages should be merged, the history of the team integrated, while noting the few years where there arguably were two different types of teams. Whybeetoo (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)