What they could do, is produce a limited ammount of mascot merchandise and sell it at all the Rugby League grounds, if it goes well produce more. It will get the attention of the younger fans and hopefully get their interest and they are our future in Rugby League.

Just out of interest to those people criticising it, what do YOU think would have been a better design? I see lots of criticism but nothing in the way of alternative suggestions to what the mascot should have consisted of or looked like?

what recession

Are you expecting this cuddly toy or mini rugby ball with a face on it to be gold plated or something? What a stupid argument.

An adults opinion of a children's mascot is irrelevant. That is all there is to it.

...sorry, but as a parent who was expected to purchase everything from Disney's Fantasia (on video, not the original) onwards, I do not find the quality of design of a product irrelevant at all......so no, that's not all there is to it.

The mascots on paper look cheap and tacky and I certainly wouldn't consider purchasing one for a child, regardless of it being RL related or not......

Well then you are a bad parent...


...and a stubbon miserable old bugger too.

BUSTED TWICE

So called fans having a negative pop at their own sports, only in Rugby League !

The concept itself isn't that bad. No one seems to be bothered by the fact it's a bear and a ball, and I quite like the name Grubber and Steed. It's just the final drawing looks incredibly tacky.

I did a design A-Level about 7 years ago (bloody hell, was it that long?!), and although I can't remember much, there are some things that just spring to mind with this bear that really shouldn't be in a final design:

The ball looks 3D but the face on it is flat.
The bear's head looks like something from the 60s. The colour and the drawing look so dated.
The brown on the bear has shading, but only a tiny part of the shirt does. The shading is also in different places on the head, the arms and the ball. Where is the light supposed to be coming from?! And they haven't given it an outline, but they've give a part of its hair an outline. You either stick to it or don't, you can't just mix it up.
It looks completely flat, and their attempt to give it some perspective was to curve the lines on the shirt a bit. The lines just look wonky.
Speaking of the shirt, it's just too busy. Does it need every colour on it? Does it need every badge on it? The bear is meant to represent a player by the looks of it, yet how many RL shirts look like that? Even Harlequins didn't have that much colour. If you looks at the bottom right as well, not only is one if the panels empty, but the one below it didn't even fit and just sticks out of the shirt. That's just a shockingly amateur photoshop job there, not a professional job.

What I'd have done is have a completely different shirt. I'd have it based on the RLWC logo (which is a fantastic design and should be kept for future world cups to create brand awareness). Navy base, then the green, gold, red and blue chevron on it.

If also either make a far better effort with the shading, or just get rid completely and have it as just one plain colour so it looks simple (with black outline if they go that way).

Probably a completely different head as well.

A may conduct a social experiment on Monday and ask my Year 5 class what they think. Judging by the teddies they brought in on Friday for Children in Need, I'm not sure they'd like this current mascot much!

It's a bear?

You do know they aren't just going to have a cardboard cut out of that picture as the mascot?

Word.

Christ on a bike there's some miserable sods on here. If they're a hit with the kids then who bloody well cares?

Some fella called Mark O'Hanlon created it apparently. Some guy in Liverpool...

You do know that this is the imagery that will be used in promoting it?