They help with branding, marketing, advertising and also raise the appeal to the younger demographic. As others have already said, we need all the help we can get in enticing youngsters to become fans of the sport and like them or not, these names and brands help with that.

I think it works for some clubs. Especially for Leeds who have a sports club the nation know as “Leeds” who aren’t the Rhinos.

I don’t know a single Warrington fan who wouldn’t be happy to see “Wolves” ditched from the club name.

I don’t know any Wiganer who refers to Wigan as “The Warriors”. They certainly would not miss that name if they ditched it.

I was pleased when Manchester RL went for the traditional local rivival name of “Rangers” rather than opt for a silly animal name that has nothing to do with the city.

But if it works for Leeds then they shouldn’t change it.

Did the Roosters exists in the 70's or were they an area of Sydney ie Easts?

Having a marketable moniker is a tool with which to sell the club and it's merchandise. No one could surely argue that Bradford didn't benefit from dropping "Northern".

I suspect Leeds becoming "Rhinos" was partly a consequence of a rather tepid interest in rebranding at all. Then you have Halifax who seemed to miss the point altogether by using blue sox which really limited their ability to produce merchandise or even just to grab the attention of kids in local schools. Wasn't it the jolly fat chap who masterminded that error? It can't have helped capture the hearts and minds of people in Shelf etc against aggressive Bradford marketing.

They should have gone with Bombers instead.

I don’t see people complain about Australia and New Zealand constantly being called Kangaroos and Kiwis. They’re probably referred to and recognised by these names as much if not more than Leeds are by Rhinos regardless of it being a nickname over an official name. People yearn for the reintroduction of “Lions Tours” and day the Lions bane and brand is great yet a SL club shouldn’t have an animal name.

Hull F.C. were the sharks for a while which was embarrassing as they launched it with a dogfish borrowed from Scarborough sea life centre I think ,but in Hull Hull city are known as City Hull FC are known as Hull and Hull KR are known as Rovers

Some clubs have had nicknames/monikers etc for over a century. Hull KR for example. I don’t think any Hull KR fan could argue they haven’t benefitted from being called Rovers. You have some in football too. Wolves, Blackburn, Wycombe. Even the term United is a moniker. It’s just not animal related.

My view is if it works for your club like Leeds, Bradford, Cas etc then great. If it doesn’t then I’d say you should do like Wakefield and return to traditional name.

Well technically a Dogfish is a Shark.

That was the plan,but somebody persuaded them that people would associate that name with the IRA (terrorist bombers) not the Halifax Bomber. Mussed opertunity

I believe they were known as Eastern Suburbs until the 90's. Roosters was adopted in the 90's. However some clubs already had animals as their emblem i.e Eastern Suburbs was a rooster. Balmains a tiger etc.

I was going to say that myself after reading the comment about confusing Leeds with Leeds United. If you say you went to watch Hull, everyone in the city knows that you are referring to FC. And you guys had a very distinctive name to begin with, so had no need for a nickname.