Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:39 am  

Dave Lister wrote:

Only morons can't identify the difference between a League and a Union club. A simple explanation tends to suffice when I am telling someone about my weekend plans.

The I can assure you then there are lot in London "morons" as you call them, which I find even more condecending and can't see them appreciating as most of them I know are intelligent! and work in big business in radio and musicm but they do not have a clue what the difference is, now quite some years back they may have said yea that Eddie Waring game.

Born in St Helens I as a youngster took my real leather rugby ball to bed with me and not a teddy, but in those days I did not have a clue about union as no one talked about it in the town, yes it was on TV with Bill Mac but that was all stuffy and boring and did not interest me. I have talked rugby league with a lot of fellow fans at West Ham games and they no longer know much about rugby league. Not sure why you always feel that you have to make someone out to be thick who may differ in opinion from you! I have followed and backed the club since the first game at Fulham so I do know a little about the club and I am not Thick! LOL!

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:16 am  

Every single person that I speak to that is not a die hard rugby league supporter without exception says "i thought the harlequins were rugby union! do they have a league team now?"
without exception!!!!
Generally when they then get educated by me they say "ooh did they not used to be called the broncos?" Its the same for me, do i know where scaracans, the wasps etc are based? not a clue
we need London in the name of the team, as for it having RLFC at the end hey ho, actually thats what we are A Rugby League Football Club

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:19 am  

Only a few people in London (well in percentage terms) know about Quins RL.

I work in a sports organisation very closely linked with rugby and believe me the majority of people here don't know about Quins RL...and thats amongst sports people! Think about all those people in London that don't really know about rugby...then expect them to know the difference between union and league. It's wrong to assume that if people don't know what Harlequins/Quins RL is then they are stupid....I'm sure there are sports teams in London I have no idea about, it's just not part of their mindset.

Additionally, of those that have a passing interest in rugby..the name Harlequins or Quins (whether or not there are a couple of letters at the end of the name or not makes no difference) see the brand as union - and assume it isn't even played in the summer.

Then you have the people that like rugby who are set on following a team already....Wasps, Saracens, London Irish etc....they will not support Quins...full stop. I know it's a different code and so do they. It's like supporting Arsenal and then following Spurs in 5 a side...won't happen!

Of the population of London I think (at a guess and NO I don't have evidence!) that the above covers about 85-90% of the people that would come to live sport.

An ideal situation would be to have London in the name and to play across 3 or 4 stadiums in London. The Stoop could be one, but if we are to make it London wide then it should be played everywhere (kind of like some NRL teams do with a couple of grounds). The problem is that that will cost us more money (of which we have none as it is!)

The only option I can really see from what has come out in the media and public would be to stay at the Stoop by ditch the Quins name and colours...but would they go for that?!! Otherwise we need a complete merge with the union side and for them to take us in completely with a joint academy, season tickets etc...the works. This would obviously irritate a high percentage of our current fans and risk losing it all. Plus the union side would actually have to "want" this.

I tell you one thing....I'm very glad I'm not making this decision! Still, I hope it all plays out for the best...we need SL in London in some form!

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:45 am  

Some people want to be totally "Blinkered" with regards the name Harlequins RL, I don't want to see us keep changing names and I was one who supported the last name change but always I am willing to hold my hand up and admit I was Wrong! I thought it may have opened some doors for us but I can't see any perhaps its closed some! the Few who have heard of us think we are just nothing but an add on to Harlequins Rugby Union!

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:52 am  

I look forward to the sell-out crowds, multi-million pound profits and blanket media coverage the change away from Harlequins RL will bring. Its incredible really that such a relatively small change will have such a massive impact. Gutterfax, you mug, why didn't you suggest this?! You're supposed to be the marketing guru!

Are any of you even willing to consider the fact that one of the reasons London RL struggles is because we keep changing our bloody name? No wonder people who aren't fans of RL (there are some, and we won't attract them whether we're called London, Shawshank or Blitzkrieg RLFC) don't know who we are - we keep changing everything.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:37 am  

So now The Penguin your only defence is that we have changed our name far too often and that is the sole reason reason we should stick as Harlequins RL, then we may as well close up show ans forget about Super League in London.

The debate is Harlequins RL has not worked, both the RFL and David Hughes are supposedly looking into investment into the future both on and off the field, do you really expect them to do it with something that has failed. Others have stated clearly the confusion about our current name.

We have got to get the product right on the pitch, adding some marquee name players to the youth we have, then find a real unique selling point about the match day experience that makes it exciting and something people want to return to, then we have to find a brand that people and especially the young Want to be associated with.

I seriously feel our marketing team need and have to spend a few weeks even a month in the close season working at Wigan, not on a jolly working and getting a real experience of a successful marketed rugby league club so they are ready for the re-brand, we can't just put our head in the sand and just hope things will get better it needs action.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:03 pm  

jaybs wrote:

So now The Penguin your only defence is that we have changed our name far too often and that is the sole reason reason we should stick as Harlequins RL, then we may as well close up show ans forget about Super League in London.

The debate is Harlequins RL has not worked, both the RFL and David Hughes are supposedly looking into investment into the future both on and off the field, do you really expect them to do it with something that has failed. Others have stated clearly the confusion about our current name.

We have got to get the product right on the pitch, adding some marquee name players to the youth we have, then find a real unique selling point about the match day experience that makes it exciting and something people want to return to, then we have to find a brand that people and especially the young Want to be associated with.

I seriously feel our marketing team need and have to spend a few weeks even a month in the close season working at Wigan, not on a jolly working and getting a real experience of a successful marketed rugby league club so they are ready for the re-brand, we can't just put our head in the sand and just hope things will get better it needs action.

Hang on...what's that sound? Oh yes , it's a nail being hit on the head!

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:08 pm  

jaybs wrote:

We have got to get the product right on the pitch

Yes. And this has nothing to do with a name change. That's a feeble excuse for why people won't watch us or by season tickets. Changing the name solves nothing.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:11 pm  

The club could go out and sign a stack of internationals and win SL at a canter, but it would only make a minor difference to attendances and not much more for sponsorship. As soon as the newsreader announced that 'Harlequins had won SL' 99% of Londoners would assume it was union. Simple as that. Harlequins is, always has been, and always will be, a RU name.

That said, I'm not sure if London Broncos is the right way to go. On the one hand it is a recognisable name and people did associate it with RL. On the other hand would it be like trying to resurrect the dead?

It has to be recognised that a large part of the problem the game faces down here is that RL has slipped completely off the radar. A few Challenge Cup games hidden amongst the BBC schedules, and a highlights show only northerners can watch, means that no-one gets to see the game anymore. And then there's the atrocious newspaper coverage. There are rumours that the BBC will take one game of SL a week from next year, with two remaining on Sky. If that were to happen then it would help an awful lot.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:21 pm  

(Tongue in cheek)

Lets plonk the Stoop in the middle of Thorpe Park in the Summer, take a cut of all admission costs and close all the rides down from 2:30pm till 5pm...then start them up again.....we might just then get more than 8k to the game!!!