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.

It would have been quite difficult to borrow a great white.

Pays the mascot's salary, I suppose, and I understand the thinking. However, marketing to this age group means little if they can't be retained. I was always less than convinced by the claim of some Hudds fans that playing Sunday afternoons was great in that regard. Yes, they might have attracted, say, 300 young kids that otherwise wouldn't have gone but how many of those translate into paying spectators a decade down the line? Whereas the Friday night clubs appealed, I felt, more to an older audience (often with a shandy or two inside them) that appreciated a slightly edgier experience - and offered a more immediate return in financial terms (yes, yes, yes, they could/can be a total pain in the ). Not ideal, I concede, but dumbing the whole thing down to infantile levels does run the risk that the kids attracted in that way simply outgrow that experience.

Although I'm happy that Wakefield have gone back to Trinity I absolutely disagree that the names are a waste of time.
The very fact that Rhinos, even if there are none in Leeds, is such a powerful brand proves its case.
If you pick a good one and actually market it correctly it can be invaluable.

I prefer the Broncos to Harlequins that's for sure. Broncos isn't a bad name. When they re branded post Harlequins it was put out to the fans what they wanted the club to be called. I suspect it was influenced by the owner as his number plate is L13 RFC!

As a Leeds fan I think the Rhinos (or at least I did when it first case in) was a bit rubbish, however...

The suggestion they should get rid now after 20 odd years of doing a very good job at building brand equity up is utterly ridiculous. Both the Rhinos and Bradford Bulls showed how to market these 'monikers' correctly.

You are right to say that The Bulls (and Rhinos) got the marketing right and unfortunately that's what its all about these days.
We have Meerkats advertising insurance and clowns advertising burgers etc, etc.

The long and short of it is that some were done well and have gone on to be excellent brands, whilst others have been awful.

I'm certainly happier without the "wildcat" name being included at Trinity.
The mascott is great but the name was truly cringeworthy, just as Blue Sox, Sharks (Hull), Giants and others are/were.

I'm probably a little old fashioned but, proper clubs, with proper names seems right. We're talking about Rugby League clubs here, not under 7's dance troupes.

Personal opinion but, the modern world is far too bothered about style over substance and while we're at it, I'd much rather see some junior rugby on the pitch at half time than a bunch of dancers. Progress eh.