They're a joke. It'd be a great day for the sport if all clubs decided to drop these pathetic cringeworthy names such as Vikings, Bulls, Wildcats, Giants etc.

Does anyone actually refer to their teams as such?

I Think Leeds Are Getting More Commonly Known As "The Rhinos" Due To There Success On The Pitch...

They do at Wakefield and they're all young kids who have grown up with the name, personally I refer to them as Wakey and most people around the area know who I'm talking about, but the Wildcats brand has been a big positive for the club in marketing it to the youngsters around the district and that is probably what most clubs do with their nicknames.

The 'Wildcats or Trinity' argument is a perrennial debate on our board, but most agree that there is room for both, the older end refer to the club as Trinity but recognise that the Wildcats name aids the club in bringing in new younger fans.

Is that by the fans though or by the fans though or in the media? Reading posts from Leeds fans on here near enough all of them refer to them simply as Leeds.

Read on hear or the unofficial forum ages ago that when Nick Halafihi was Chief Executive he actually wanted to change our name to Hull Kingston Raiders!

When both Hull clubs were in the ascendency in the 80's FC wanted to form a lower league side called Hull White Star, so we responded with a proposal for a Hull Kingston Raiders to play in the bottom division. It was all academic, the RFL kicked the idea into touch immediately.

Very true, you could ask him, if you can find him.

Probably more chance of finding Tim Wilby*.







* Not that I'd want to!

This is common in American sport, too. The geographic identifier is used just as much.

I'm more for the traditional names, but the names do appear to work with the youngsters and marketing.

Most of them, after a few years seem to go well with each team, although the two worst in my opinion have been binned, the Blue Sox and the Sharks.

What if they are both in the same place?