Huddersfield Barracudas at Arena 84 and the rest followed!

did you have to bring that up

The club’s first colours were red, amber and black — Dewsburyesque. In the 1880s they changed to a solid red jersey, white shorts and black socks. The hue of the jersey was turkey red, hence some early nicknames being the Scarlet Turkeys, the Royal Reds or just simply the Reds.

Salford were a decent side in certain periods of the 1890s and early Edwardian era. So that particular nickname was an affectionate moniker rather than one that took the mick for being sh[ii[/ite — which is what Salford were in 1998 when the fanzine of the same name surfaced.

i agree. its about tribalism

remember in the world club championship many years .superleague down under . hunter mariners.they were based in the hunter valley newcastle area. simmo called them the hunters



there was talks of names for the merge of st.george dragons. illawarra steelers. the steel dragons

Now that would have been shocking! I think Wests Tigers was a good compromise for nicknames, though.

I think they're pretty lame to be honest. It's fine for the kiddies regarding the mascots and what-not, I think our Rufus the Robin is great in that respect, but I hate it when games are advertised as Rhinos vs Bulls, Wildcats vs Giants and all that b*llocks.

Yeah I'm not too fond if when they do that, either. Much prefer it when they say Leeds vs Bradford, etc. Think that's just a personal thing though and many have differing opinions. At a school I work in in Leeds, they always refer to them as the Rhinos.

I think Rochdale Hornets have it by some distance.

Take it to it's extreme and clubs could be know just by their nicknames and their city be secondary. That would make it a lot easier for franchises to be moved around the country like in American Football, eg. [size=75Birmingham[/size [size=150Bulls[/size, [size=75Dublin[/size [size=150Dragons[/size, etc...

I can't see that ever happening, but you never know...

niicknames are used to differentiate teams from different sports from the same city, Yankees, Mets, Knick, Rangers, Islanders.

Sport in the Uk isnt as diverse and there arent too many clashes.
Inventing nicknames for no reason is stupid especially if there are no major rival sports in your area.
In Hull you have FC KR and the Tigers, why the need to change any of them.

I think the British sporting culture will put paid to the idea franchises being able to chop and change towns or cities. British spectators tend to support either the successful teams of that era or their local side. IMO they are not one to support a side which has been thrust upon them with little heritage or with no ties to the place they are meant to represent. I dare say British support isn’t as shallow as American support meaning the chances of a relocated franchise becoming successful are slim in this country. MK Dons appear to be having some relative success in spite of this attitude but I think they are benefiting from the sport they are playing.

As for the club I support. I hate the name Wildcats, it represents everything that is bad about copying American sports, but as I wonder round with my replica shirt on the kids are full of enthusiasm and instantly recognise the top as a ‘Wildcats’ top. I suspect that these are the people the name is hoping to attract, not older, already converted supporters such as myself.