Re: Story in Guardian today : Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:49 pm  

For fu$ks sake...

Re: Story in Guardian today : Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:16 pm  

for me its a no-brainer we have to change back to the name of london,its clearly not worked the tie in with quins for me it was never going to for a start the name harlequins are one of least liked amonst union fans what chance did we have! before im labled as a union hater i met my current partner 14years ago at the stoop when we were broncos and shes was a quins fan watching a league game for the first time and we have enjoyed both codes since! this is more personal i guess but we need to move back to sundays so i can make a game lol, as for missing 5000 as one poster put it ive made a couple of games this year and i have noticed hundreds of missing faces from years before but then again im sure we"ve gained new ones so 5000 hummmm!

Re: Story in Guardian today : Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:45 pm  

In the 4 years at Griffin Park the average gate was 3,704
The Average gate at The Stoop since 2006 is 3,596.

108 per game down.....not the thousands declared by the naysayer Rupe 1.

Interestingly, up until this season the difference was 17 fans.......and a team that is on a 12 game streak of not winning is entitled to shed a few fans.

If the club do change their name, I hope to god that they spend some serious money on the "M" word....

Re: Story in Guardian today : Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:21 pm  

A few years ago just after we had become Quins I was at the Cats game in Perpignan and all the posters and match programme had us listed as London Harlequins. Also during that weekend my partner was interviewed on local french radio asking the question why not many people travel from london to away games! So if a change of name is required why not recognise our current history and our location? I can then keep both my london and quins shirts for ever.

[brian2]

Re: Story in Guardian today : Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:30 am  

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.

Hear Hear

I understand the desirability of getting our own/having a stake in a ground. When and if we achieve this, then is the time to look at a name change. I think "London Harlequins" is perfect, i can see no point in going back to Broncos, hardly a rip roaring success except first couple of years.

I found David Hugnes' article in the programme very interesting - so who stays, and who are the experienced pros we need to recruit?

Re: Story in Guardian today : Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:42 am  

I just can't understand all these sudden cries of loyalty to the Harlequin brand, what has it done for us? and more important what have they done for us, people get confused with the Union brand, not many of their fans took to us in fact they never wanted us really. Even on our own website when you go to Rugby League merchandise sooner or later the Union brand is pushed in your face, NO! we don't want to be part of that any longer.

Yes stay at The Stoop until we are able to have a stake in a ground but that has to be pushed as hard as possible, if we do get our licence renewed this time the very latest by the next licence application but the name Quins has to go now!

Re: Story in Guardian today : Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:47 am  

jaybs wrote:

I just can't understand all these sudden cries of loyalty to the Harlequin brand, what has it done for us? and more important what have they done for us, people get confused with the Union brand, not many of their fans took to us in fact they never wanted us really. Even on our own website when you go to Rugby League merchandise sooner or later the Union brand is pushed in your face, NO! we don't want to be part of that any longer.

Right so its the Union club's fault we have poor crowds and hardly win at home.

Are you for real?

Re: Story in Guardian today : Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:49 am  

jaybs wrote:

I just can't understand all these sudden cries of loyalty to the Harlequin brand, what has it done for us? and more important what have they done for us, people get confused with the Union brand, not many of their fans took to us in fact they never wanted us really.

What did the "Broncos brand" ever do for us? A silly foreign soundng name inherited from an Aussie club and most casual sports fans in the Home Counties didn't even realise which sport we played, mostly assuming it was American football. And we went bust as Broncos.

In my experience most Quins union fans take a positive passing interest in our team; they might not turn up to watch games but look out for the results and want to see us win. The numbers with negative feelings for us are probably no greater than the numbers of anti-union Luddites in our own ranks.

jaybs wrote:

Even on our own website when you go to Rugby League merchandise sooner or later the Union brand is pushed in your face

I've never felt this impression myself. If you go to the league merchandise and open enough links eventually you'll see union merchandise, or stuff than can be equally applied to both codes.

jaybs wrote:

NO! we don't want to be part of that any longer.

Presuamably that's a royal "We", because you certainly don't speak on my behalf, or that of a fair number of others judging from the range of views in earlier posts.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:04 pm  

Prince of Denmark wrote:

In my experience most Quins union fans take a positive passing interest in our team; they might not turn up to watch games but look out for the results and want to see us win. The numbers with negative feelings for us are probably no greater than the numbers of anti-union Luddites in our own ranks.

Spot on. I see almost as many Quins RU shirts as I see RL ones when I stand on the platform at Clapham Junction. And although I've not been to a QRU game myself, I certainly bear them no ill will (although I confess to having a good laugh at their expense over bloodgate - a self-inflicted wound if you'll pardon the pun)

People seem to expect a name and a 'brand' to do wonders for us, on and off the pitch, to cure all ills. I hate to break it to some of you, but it requires sticking power, a winning team, and a financial model that washes its own face. Our current precarious financial position, as I keep having to say, is nothing to do with where we play, what we're called and what kit we wear.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:11 pm  

Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't Wakefield and Castleford both apply to the local council for funding to build their new stadium(s)? When the council advised they could only afford to help fund one stadium there was talk for them having to merge in order to stay in SL??

With the RFL's help (oh no I mentioned the RFL may help us!!!) could we not propose a plan to the council (which one I don't know) or even Mr Boris Johnson and get help funding the build of a new stadium? If we sell it right and highlight the work the club do in communities blah blah...they may actually put a few quid in to get a stadium built....although it's not too likely until after the 2012 olympics...as any money for sport is going on that!

If we look at doing that in the long term it could work.

No football club with a stadium that meets the SL requirements is going to offer us a 50% share in the ground...no way - so we shouldn't even hope for that.

I think the options are stay at the Stoop or lobby for as many investors and backing as possible to build a new ground. In our present financial position....the Stoop is the only option.