Re: Story in Guardian today : Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:10 pm  

So disappointed in this. I hate the notion of obtaining some American-ised name that has nothing to do with the culture of London. As I said before, I don't understand why everyone is saying it's our own identity. No it isn't, it was a result of the Brisbane takeover.

I'd like to see what excuses will be made, when we're in the same predicament next year. It obviously won't be the result of being called 'Harlequins.'

Re: Story in Guardian today : Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:30 pm  

Tre Cool wrote:

No he's not immune from criticism. But he deserves a basic level of respect from our fans if you ask me. You and Lister seem very pro 'quins'. Why? I really don't get it. its a naff old rugby union name with a daft kit. What do you like so much about it?

What do you like so much about London Broncos? It's a stupid name that makes us sound like an American Football team, or worse, Ice Hockey.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:25 am  

THE GOOD OLD DAYS

THE GOOD OLD DAYS

Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:44 am  

Dave Lister wrote:

Hughes is losing the plot and grasping at straws. Pathetic.

Well Dave, it has been very expensive for him to get us so far! I can't think of Any club chairmen throughout super league that have invested so much personal money, if he is so pathetic have you the financial clout to take over and invest your personal monies?? allowing him to stand down, I rather doubt it.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:48 am  

Re the question about why Quins RU fans have not taken to watching us. I suspect a lot of it has to do with practicalities. I come from a football background but when the ridiculously cheap RU season ticket was offered to us in season one I nearly took it up to see whether I enjoyed it. (I watch RU occasionally but have never been a regular attender.) The reason that stopped me was the thought of hauling in to Twickenham every other weekend of my life. It could be the same reason that stopped many of them trying us, plus the fact that the games we did get them down to weren't exactly good adverts for us.

As for why is this happening. Could it be anything to do with the board changes at Quins RU? The people known to be RL friendly have all moved on and there are pretty big changes occurring behind the scenes at the RU club. This may all be tied into that.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:00 am  

The reason Harlequins Rugby Union supporters are Not interested in us is still the class bias which anyone who reads their board regularly will clearly see, no way are they going to change! so we are only touch rugby, why do they keep coming taking out talented players then? why does Sky keep pushing money into Super League, amazes me how they read our forum!! they never wanted us in the first place and I think it was more us taking their name rather than using The Stoop! as many say they have no objections to us playing there and more so if we cough up rent!

I think we will find in the end that this is being driven as much by the Rugby Football League and even perhaps Sky as the real last throw of the dice for Super League in London. I have no problems what name we choose long as with are completely divorced from the Harlequins brand. People do not like the American name of Broncos, what are the Bulls, Warriors, Vikings and Crusaders etc, it was just a branding to try and make it more attractive to younger supporters and the new modern strips! I have more problems with some of the stupid ground names they have in the North, Coliseum?? is that because it is falling down!!

Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:11 am  

Since no-one appears to have taken any notice of it, I'm going to re-quote PTB's post from last weekend. Which is the best argument I've read for staying as Quins.

PTB wrote:

Given we've been at the Twickenham Stoop for nine years and nearly one third of our existence as a club (1997-1999, 2006-2011) I see nothing wrong with Harlequins. It's as close to home as we have got and as good a name as any. I think it is telling the fact that there is no consensus on what we should renamed to anyway…

A few things I thought were important, but I'm sure people will disagree:

1. The enormous amount of good community work the club has done since 2006 has all been done under the banner of Quins (and more recently the foundation). Like it or not, by disassociating ourselves from Quins we indirectly disassociate ourselves from that as well.

2. As far as I can see the Quins club have been very good to us and seen very little in return. We can use the ground for the whole season and not just when the pitch isn't being reseeded, they have our merchandise in the club shops, old shirts, photos is on display in the bar etc. It seems like a bit of a snub to them to change the name on a whim. Maybe some people don't care (and yes I know we pay rent now) but I think it would be foolish to take the other things things for granted.

3. The club struggles with resources (money, staff) to do the things it wants to do today. To do any rebranding well is very resource intensive. And I'd suggest a poor use of them. I'd rather the money and staffs time were spent on other initiatives.

4. Minor point: all the best wins (yes there have been some) as Harlequins have been achieved with mainly British squads featuring a number of local players.

When we went 4th in the league half way through the 2009 season I don't recall too many people complaining about associating with the Harlequins brand back then. Nor for that matter do I remember many people complaining about associating with Harlequins when Chad Randall dived over to bring up the forty yesterday either.

Being called Harlequins is the least of our problems as far as I can see.

To borrow a terrible Labour party slogan from the 2005 (?) election - forward, not back!

Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:15 am  

gutterfax wrote: THE GOOD OLD DAYS a bit naughty Gutters. That as you know was the worst London SL season on record against the worst side ever in SL. Charlton was not ideal, too big, with no community work done. You could also quote the gate against PSG at Charlton, 9,638. Not a bad London side though, I think they would wipe the floor with our current squad.

gutterfax wrote: THE GOOD OLD DAYS a bit naughty Gutters. That as you know was the worst London SL season on record against the worst side ever in SL. Charlton was not ideal, too big, with no community work done. You could also quote the gate against PSG at Charlton, 9,638. Not a bad London side though, I think they would wipe the floor with our current squad.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:36 am  

poplar panther wrote:

a bit naughty Gutters. That as you know was the worst London SL season on record against the worst side ever in SL. Charlton was not ideal, too big, with no community work done. You could also quote the gate against PSG at Charlton, 9,638. Not a bad London side though, I think they would wipe the floor with our current squad.

Or you could quote this season's 1,766 home gate against Crusaders!

Would be nice to have a few of the calibre of that 2001 line up in the squad now!

Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:39 am  

The Penguin wrote:

Since no-one appears to have taken any notice of it, I'm going to re-quote PTB's post from last weekend. Which is the best argument I've read for staying as Quins.

To borrow a terrible Labour party slogan from the 2005 (?) election - forward, not back!

Sorry can't resist - so apart from all of that , what have Harlequins ever done for us ?? David Hughes - he's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!!