Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:02 pm  

Laughable really, when we were the Broncos, periodic debates would rage based upon either London being the wrong word to use in our name for all the known reasons, or Broncos needing to be dropped, for all of the known reasons.

If people seriously think that the problem with the root growth of an alien sport into the culture of a specific area is down to a naming convention, they may need to think seriously about being let out on their own.

GF's stats prove the point about GP and the Broncos vs the Stoop and Quins RL.

Yes '97 was a great season to watch the club at the Stoop, but 98/99 were pretty dire. Rose tinted glasses indeed for some.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:09 pm  

As long as there is a Rugby League Team in London (preferably North ) then I really couldn't care what we're called!!!!!

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:12 pm  

Then you laugh Homer, just remember "He who laughs last, laughs longest" No One is saying that the days of Bronco's were out of this world, but that is no defence for accepting that the name Harlequins is just dire and is not working and does not work for us.

It's funny that those that feel the Harlequins name is the best since sliced bread only know one way to debate to attack others who may feel differently, well Homer I would rather be the Fool that gets his head of out the sand rather than staying their and doing nothing, whatever that may name wise no one really knows but Anything is better than the "status quo"

But rest assured whatever does happen most of us will not sulk or decide the only way to get back at those who may differ in opinions is to lower ourselves to attacking and mocking!

Anyone who knows anything about marketing and that is what I trained in knows it is easy to use facts and twist them to your advantage.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:20 pm  

jaybs wrote:

Then you laugh Homer, just remember "He who laughs last, laughs longest" No One is saying that the days of Bronco's were out of this world, but that is no defence for accepting that the name Harlequins is just dire and is not working and does not work for us.

It's funny that those that feel the Harlequins name is the best since sliced bread only know one way to debate to attack others who may feel differently, well Homer I would rather be the Fool that gets his head of out the sand rather than staying their and doing nothing, whatever that may name wise no one really knows but Anything is better than the "status quo"

But rest assured whatever does happen most of us will not sulk or decide the only way to get back at those who may differ in opinions is to lower ourselves to attacking and mocking!

Anyone who knows anything about marketing and that is what I trained in knows it is easy to use facts and twist them to your advantage.

I decided years ago to never bother debating anything with you, it's a pointless soul destroying task akin to nailing jelly to a ceiling, carry on with your smugness sunshine, and don't forget the liberal sprinklings of Peter Deacon, the 'appy 'ammers and all the other cliches you use, just in case there's somebody around who may not have read them before and thinks what you write may be relevant.

Ps, Marketing what? with your grammar and spelling I hope it's nothing more substantial than knock off scags down the local flea market.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:53 pm  

Homer wrote:

I decided years ago to never bother debating anything with you, it's a pointless soul destroying task akin to nailing jelly to a ceiling, carry on with your smugness sunshine, and don't forget the liberal sprinklings of Peter Deacon, the 'appy 'ammers and all the other cliches you use, just in case there's somebody around who may not have read them before and thinks what you write may be relevant.

Ps, Marketing what? with your grammar and spelling I hope it's nothing more substantial than knock off scags down the local flea market.

Children, children...calm down

If we look over this thread (all 7 pages of it) what is the overall outcome? Imagine if the club used this thread as consultation with fans - there would be no outcome. So what is the best option....it's clear that they can't win. There is no way they can please everyone here.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:08 pm  

I agree with Homer, the name is irrelevent in terms of the past and gaining crowds. However, I personally prefer London Broncos and would much prefer the club to be so named. Would it get me to the ground, nope. But a winning team would...

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:09 pm  

If anyone seriously thinks that simply ditching the name Harlequins RL will make everything wonderful, then you are horribly mistaken. Whatever we are called in 2012 we have to have more strength in depth, and possibly an experienced coach working alongside Rob Powell. If we were called London Broncos this year, would we be having a better time of it? I think not! It's a whole bigger ball game than merely changing our name yet again.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:40 pm  

Rob from Erith wrote:

Sorry Dave but how can the name of the city and the initials RLFC are unworkable? As for anonymous, that's what our problem is now - everyone assumes we are Union! Harlequins will ALWAYS be synonymous with RU and even if we stayed at the Stoop as Harlequins RL for the next decade we'll still be banging our heads against a brick wall trying to get our message across.

I have just told you why RLFC is unworkable. It means absolutely nothing. London could be associated with anything. Who assumes we are Union? Which target audience are we missing out on because of people making an incorrect assumption that we are trying to sell Rugby Union to them? Who are these people?

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:46 pm  

jaybs wrote:

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.

Lots of people have said to me that they thought Harlequins was a Rugby Union side. This is not a bad thing, this is in fact a great thing. The Harlequins brand carries a huge amount of credibility. I then explaint to them that Harlequins have a Rugby League side now too and we share their ground. And that's it. Its hardly difficult to understand. The way we sell our game reflects this.

An advertisement for Harlequins Rugby League carries a hell of a lot more clout than an advertisement for London Broncos, which genuinely means nothing to people and then I could understand at them not having a clue at what you are talking about.

Re: Story in Guardian today : Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:53 pm  

Simon M wrote:

I agree with Homer, the name is irrelevent in terms of the past and gaining crowds. However, I personally prefer London Broncos and would much prefer the club to be so named. Would it get me to the ground, nope. But a winning team would...