Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:48 am  

poplar panther wrote:

Not a bad London side though, I think they would wipe the floor with our current squad.

At least eight of them would walk into the current team: Barnett, Roy, Martin, Dymock, Moran, Hetherington, Toshack, Retchless. Most of the rest either left after the first part-season I was a regular (2002) or I didn't see them at all so I can't really judge them.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:54 am  

jaybs wrote:

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,

Thats as much as sweeping generalistion as is some of our northern friends saying nobody in the south likes Rugby League + it's usually only the fervent few who populate message boards of any shade [irony alert]

We have QRU supporters on this board and vice versa, and speaking as somebody who came to like RL having been a QRU supporter in the first instance, I can happily assure you that myself and the group of people I used to go with are as low down the class ladder as anybody else.

I think the reasons as outlined elsewhere on this thread are purely logistical, financial and practical.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:07 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.

PTB's post is very thoughtful and well-reasoned. Personally I feel there are more pros than cons in remaining as Harlequins, certainly if we're going to continue playing at The Stoop, which is as good a stadium as we can hope to have.

I really don't want to revert to being London Broncos, which I always felt was an awful name for any London sports club. I've just grabbed the nearest available dictionary and it's definition is a "wild or half-tamed horse of California or New Mexico" What the f*** is the connection with London there? "London Colts" or "London Stallions" would be similar but more suitable names IMO.

I accept that some of our regular supporters are equally against the Harlequins name, which is fair enough. What I can't understand is why anyone would walk away from the club altogether simply because of the name, as a few appear to have done. If you want to watch Superleague rugby and you live in London or the South East you either watch this club regardless of what it's called, or you travel to Lancashire or Yorkshire. It shouldn't really matter what the name is unless it's going to have a bearing on attracting new support, and I'm not sure it really does. I don't like "Broncos" but I wouldn't walk away because of it, although the thought of yet another change of identity, and starting from scratch yet again, just makes me lose the will to live.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:14 am  

Prince of Denmark wrote:

At least eight of them would walk into the current team: Barnett, Roy, Martin, Dymock, Moran, Hetherington, Toshack, Retchless. Most of the rest either left after the first part-season I was a regular (2002) or I didn't see them at all so I can't really judge them.

Toshack & Roy

The rest I agree on

Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:15 am  

Homer wrote:

Thats as much as sweeping generalistion as is some of our northern friends saying nobody in the south likes Rugby League + it's usually only the fervent few who populate message boards of any shade [irony alert]

We have QRU supporters on this board and vice versa, and speaking as somebody who came to like RL having been a QRU supporter in the first instance, I can happily assure you that myself and the group of people I used to go with are as low down the class ladder as anybody else.

I think the reasons as outlined elsewhere on this thread are purely logistical, financial and practical.

I remember the days when there were plenty who posted on our Forum! but now it is the few, I was a member of Orrell RU Club in their hey days but it was a working class area and 90% of the supporters/members were even though they were a top club at the time.

Since we adopted the name Harlequins I joined the RU board but I always got the feeling they were full of themselves, perhaps some felt it raised their status being an Harelquins fan, there will be no tears at us not using their name or wearing their colours, they may miss our income when we achieve our dream!

PTB is a fervent in his opinions as we are and I respect them, I'm not sure new fans will follow a club in London whatever the name! sorry, some may have the opinion I have of Harlequins Rugby Union being real Rah Rah! We are not just walking away, who said that? but does PTB feel we should be a tenant forever and see thus no way of generating income away from match days and on match days directly to our club, if that was the clubs attitude then we don't deserve to succeed! But in the current climate it is only an aspiration to own our own ground but at least be part owner, but we can't sit and wait for it to happen we have to show a business plan and see it happening for the next licence application.

[brian2]

Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:16 am  

Not that anyone pays any attention to me with regards to the club, but my initial thoughts are that this gives the club 1 last opportunity to sell themselves, the game and the experience to the local public.

I think this is right. I actually see little point in ditching the Harlequins name whilst we play at the Stoop, but if it is linked to re-branding, marketing, new money and support from the RFL/Sky - then you have to go with it? But as Gutterfax says, if you are going to do it do it properly - really spend some money on marketing get some crowds in? the Castleford game was an excellent example and despite only getting a draw actually showed the team in a good light.

But all the marketing in the world will fail if the team is rubbish? Wakefield was a decent performance, however we need a clear out. And i was encouraged that David H in the match programme was saying the same. We have too many small second rows, we need some real muscle up front. If Briggs comes off as a player i think the backs are almost good enough, its the pack thats the problem.

As for David H, as someone else commented, without him no club! of course he isnt always right and i have been deeply depressed by some of our performances over the past 2/3years - but he wants the club to suceed, maybe now with Mackay, hopefully some new money we can seize a last opportunity?

Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:48 am  

At least brian2 it is creating about the most debate as fans we have had for a long time.

No man makes all the right decisions! but that is not an excuse for not making them! IF more than David is going to be investing serious money to really attempt to make London work, it has to be done right and we have to leave it to them and the back them.

If we decide to keep the name until we leave The Stoop then I am not going to throw my ball away and sulk! I just really Hope the other side of the argument will feel and act the same, we believe in rugby league and the only way we are going to make it succeed long term is being United!

Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:51 am  

No to London Broncos, no to Harlequins RL. Both should be banished to the dustbin of time and the 'London' Rugby League club needs to rebrand itself and relaunch itself big time, whatever its guise. The club needs to bring along with it all the existing community work, all the existing corporates and sponsors and all the existing fans and make its self sufficiently attractive to expand these areas. No simple task I know but with good planning and innovative thought we will succeed.

Mentioned in another thread (maybe this one), but I love the idea of London Pride, nickname The Lions, it covers all angles and could stand on its own without looking too Americanized.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:57 am  

PC Plum wrote:

but I love the idea of London Pride, nickname The Lions, it covers all angles and could stand on its own without looking too Americanized.

Just one problem - Fuller's Brewery thought of it first.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:15 pm  

Pinkerton wrote:

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.

I like ice hockey! Its not a union clubs name. It has the word 'London' in it and it's not a union club's name. Oh, and it's not a union club's name.

I agree to an extent with a sustained period of stability but since we have at best gone sideways, and probably gone backwards under our current name I don't see the harm in starting again and sticking to it for good.

I'd be equally happy for it not to be Broncos though. London Thirteen RLFC or London Eels for me!