Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:26 pm  

Smooth Stu wrote:

I even see Union shirts at your League home games!

Thank goodness for that, attendances are bad enough without us banning people in union shirts.

As it happens the season ticket holder who sits next to me, a regular poster on this forum, is a Quins RU season ticket holder as well as being a club official at another quite high level RU team. He started watching us when we became Quins RL. Nice guy, knows his RL inside out now and can be found down Skolars and at away games as well. Quins RL would be a poorer place, in several senses, without people like him.

Some RU people have done a lot for RL down south over the years. The people at Streatham & Croydon RUFC who dared to upset their most famous ex player, Dudley Woods, turning themselves persona non grata at Twickers in the process, in order to save the leading amateur rugby league team in London when Dudley ordered Streatham & Croydon to evict them deserve our thanks.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:48 pm  

As an individual all I want is to have a name I can be proud of again. I'm an RL fan and all of the values that RL has are important to me. RU is another sport with another culture which I generally choose to have nothing to do with. In itself a name change won't radically change our fortunes. But it will give me a 100% RL club to support again.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:05 pm  

Tre Cool wrote:

As an individual all I want is to have a name I can be proud of again. I'm an RL fan and all of the values that RL are important to me. RU is another sport with another culture which I generally choose to have nothing to do with. In itself a name change won't radically change our fortunes. But it will give me a 100% RL club to support again.

Hopefully those who make the decision will look at things from a somewhat broader perspective.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:46 pm  

Smooth Stu wrote:

A name change won't make you win more games, but it will stop you being associated as the poor relation.

really?
I suggest that anyone who lives down south, supports RL and is confused between the RL shirt and the Union one neds to look in a mirror



Next up, anyone who states we have lost fans because of our Union connection is again not dealing from the top of the deck.

3,704 was the average at Griffin Park. 3,596 is the average at the Stoop and I challenge anyone to put the 108 missing bodies down to anything other than the dross being served up on the pitch. 3,762 was the average over the first 4 years......since then, they have played 45 games and won 12.

21 of these have been home games...they have won 6 games and drawn 1......that's where the fans have gone over the last 2 years.....nothing to do with Harlequins being a Union Brand, everything to do with a crap team.

Rugby League fans are generally a lazy lot. SKY and the RFL Reckon there are 1,000,000 of them in the greater London region, yet only 3,500 are prepared to come and watch it live......same number pretty much every year since 1996. Nothing to do with a Union brand......

...people need to stop blaming the Union tie in......it's just another excuse when the real reason is that SKY/The RFL should be throwing a minimum of 500k a year at marketing the game and therefore the club down here.....

Re: Story in Guardian today : Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:32 am  

jaybs wrote:

Sadly for you, I won't rise to your childish games!

No, of course you won't

jaybs wrote:

Be careful the word and grammar police may be around "think's" but I doubt he would say anything to you!

You have never managed to construct an original point in all your time posting so here's your chance, one simple question, one simple answer.

What proven advantage would changing the name of the club bring?

Re: Story in Guardian today : Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:43 am  

jbuzza wrote:

Lots of people have heard of Harlequins, they know it is rugby and recognise the distinctive colours. As such it has value as a brand.

We haven't exploited that and explained to people that Harlequins now means something different like rugby all year round or two kinds of rugby.

There would have been lots of ways of doing this. When people ask for Coke, the question is whether you want regular or diet.

But when people see us wearing the Coke (Harlequins) colours, the most common response seems to be that isn't Coke, that's Pepsi and then seem to storm out of the metaphorical restaurant, saying well the rugby union metaphorical restaurant may serve $h1t but at least they have got Coke.

Can we become Coke Zero or Diet Coke, yes, but we do need to get the message out there if we are going to to continue to have two clubs who operate at the same location and are usually refered to as Coke.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:20 am  

Londo06 wrote:

But when people see us wearing the Coke (Harlequins) colours, the most common response seems to be that isn't Coke, that's Pepsi and then seem to storm out of the metaphorical restaurant, saying well the rugby union metaphorical restaurant may serve $h1t but at least they have got Coke.

You lost me there.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:44 am  

jbuzza wrote:

Hopefully those who make the decision will look at things from a somewhat broader perspective.

It depends if we want to appeal to the kind of people who are likely to be attracted to RL or not! Let's not kid ourselves we never gave away 5000 tickets for a Broncos game at GP and ove been able to get countless friends in for free at the stoop with other free giveaways etc. Paying customers must be well down.

The noise from the home fans is nothing like what it was either. New players would often comment on the noise generated by Broncos fans, and ill never forget the look on NBQs face
when he first heard it from his wing by the main stand. As far as I'm concerned we've lost a lot more than just fans by changing our name. But if it is brought down to that level I'm certain we have lost a significant number of them.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:31 am  

gutterfax wrote:

3,704 was the average at Griffin Park. 3,596 is the average at the Stoop and I challenge anyone to put the 108 missing bodies down to anything other than the dross being served up on the pitch. 3,762 was the average over the first 4 years......since then, they have played 45 games and won 12.

21 of these have been home games...they have won 6 games and drawn 1......that's where the fans have gone over the last 2 years.....nothing to do with Harlequins being a Union Brand, everything to do with a crap team.

Scary, being in agreement with GF does nothing for my street cred but he is spot on, no amount of looking back fondly disguises the facts that we lost little when we were forced to make the move from GP [a ground I loved] to the Stoop and change our name from the London Broncos [a name I loved] to Quins RL.

While the overall vision of Nic, David, Ian and Mark Evans has not specifically worked and we are back as tenants, that is no different to when we played at GP except perhaps we lost atmosphere in return for top quality facilties and no loss of home games for a large chunk of the season.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:43 am  

Homer wrote:

No, of course you won't
What proven advantage would changing the name of the club bring?

You and Dave)the latter only at times} make yourselves look fools enough with the stupid name calling! and personal attacks, so why do I need to lower myself? or even worry any longer.

To see a single brand of a rugby league club in London with a good team and first class marketing.

Never liked Griffin Park! so looks like we may never agree lol, for me I enjoyed it at The Valley, which I presume you will come back and say you hated! lol