: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:33 am  

Looks like Homer sat in front of the electric heater too long.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:22 am  

Shaggoth wrote:

The sarcasm isn't lost on me but I think you're wrong to suggest it wasn't visionary to copy a winning formula whether that be Keighley, Chicago or anyone else.

Purely as Devil's Advocate here, isn't 'Sox' a winning formula too in America?

If you believe the problem with 'Blue Sox' was that there was nothing to automatically associate with it (i.e. no bull, rhino, hawk, cougar or whatever), how do they manage in Chicago or Boston? Are they not successful marketeers?

This was one of the very reasons THE BOARD at that time VOTED for that name instead of going for the Bombers or Hunters (the other two options on the table IIRC). Many of the game's most respected journalists and commentators at that time applauded the Club for not going for the obvious, including Dave Woods, Martyn Sadler, Bill Arthur and RFL Marketing Director at that time, Mark Newton.

Sponsors liked it - including Burger King, who were sponsors of Halifax Blue Sox before being introduced to yourselves (it was the appeal to children of Billy and Bluey that hooked them), and the kids themselves loved it. They'd no idea it was 'crap' until the grown-ups told them.

The problem with ground breakers and innovators is they are often slated by those who prefer the comfort zone of banality.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:02 pm  

Homer Simpson wrote:

This is the NEW LOGO

A good marketing ploy. Should bring in plenty of DOH!

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:55 pm  

I'd agree that Blue Sox only became crap after the event. Yeah, we all took the p.ss but 'Bullsh.t' comments have been pretty much ever-present since 1995 and the name was till a success because it was pushed aggressively with no half measures. Northern had served its purpose and was eradicated, much to my chagrin at the time. Now I realise how necessary it was.

I wonder if Fax are gearing up for a 'Black Cats' suffix. Could work. I suspect pretty much anything could if you really go for it.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:39 pm  

Block5Bull wrote:

Which would be a fair standpoint from a person who didn't seem to criticise every outbreak of it without ever offering constructiv reasoning.

Progress requires change, experimentation, running the risk of ridicule, etc. Fax cocked it up pretty soundly in the marketing department back in 95 at the same time as the Leeds and Bradfords got it right, but this looks ok to me - a new look grounded in history, tradition, etc. Good luck to them as, like many on here, I would like them to succeed so we can play them again regularly.

The logo looks classless and tacky, but I guess that befits the modern game and its current "made for tv" outlook, as we blindly move towards a WWF style "product".

However, some of us used to prefer Rugby League when it was a sport.

Forgive me for not expecting a mass flow of people down to the Shay to watch Fax as a result of this change.

Unlike yours I doubt this post will meet with the approval of this forums self-appointed judge and jury, but what the heck.

[Pumpetypump]

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 3:35 pm  

Officeboy wrote:

Many of the game's most respected journalists and commentators at that time applauded the Club for not going for the obvious, including Dave Woods, Martyn Sadler, Bill Arthur and RFL Marketing Director at that time, Mark Newton.

That being the case, the level of respect they engender should be forever tarnished. These journalists and others have never had to graft to keep a club afloat, to get punters through the door, get the media and local businesses on-board, so in this instance who gives a stuff what they think? Going for the obvious, the most transparent merchandising and marketing ploy is exactly what Halifax should have done.

The board smugly sitting back and thinking they've been really 'out there' by adopting an unmarketable nickname was a huge diservice to the fans. Judging from the Fax fans posting on here, they seem to recognise this sad fact. I might be a Bulls fan but I think its a shame too.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:08 pm  

Shaggoth wrote:

The board smugly sitting back and thinking they've been really 'out there' by adopting an unmarketable nickname was a huge diservice to the fans.

That's a stupid comment as it's obvious the Board at that time didn't at all consider the name unmarketable, or adopt the name simply to seem 'really out there'.

And, as stated before, neither (presumably) do the people marketing the Chicago White Sox and Boston Red Sox.

[Pumpetypump]

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:21 pm  

Officeboy wrote:

That's a stupid comment as it's obvious the Board at that time didn't at all consider the name unmarketable, or adopt the name simply to seem 'really out there'.

It was you that made reference to any number of apparently sensible people applauding the foolish move of the board to avoid the safe potential names and take a very bad punt at one that...ooh might just work at a pinch.

Officeboy wrote:

And, as stated before, neither (presumably) do the people marketing the Chicago White Sox and Boston Red Sox.

Lots of things work well in America and singularly fail to transfer into the UK psyche thank god. I can't see the relevence in how popular the 'Sox' monicker is in America. It doesn't translate elsewhere unlike, for example, a Bull which clearly does.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:04 pm  

I guess those teams in Chicago and Boston have always been called the Sox, it might be a perfectly good name for a team, but maybe not a team who'd had 100 years of history before. Also, Halifax Blue Sox had a really crap logo as well.

Didn't a Fax fan change his name by deed poll to Mr Halifax Bluesox?

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:57 am  

Leaf wrote:

Didn't a Fax fan change his name by deed poll to Mr Halifax Bluesox?

Yup, then Halifax Rugby League, then Harry Gration.

I think he last changed his name to Leeds Rhinos