They are not more adult necessarily. But the point was the new names were brought in (or so it seems) to appeal to children, whereas the older names just represent the locality, community and context of the clubs and they're formations. And it's not just a hang-up, because these names are old, but rather because they possess meaning, a narrative, and identity related to the clubs - where as the new names don't. It's not difficult to understand the argument for those in favour of the old names - especially as it definitely is (to relate to the title thread) ing on histories which should be cherished and relevant today.

What meaning? If you spoke to most people in leeds and called them a loiner they wouldnt have a clue what you were talking about, What relevance does a group of men from the holy trinity church 130 years ago have to the people of Wakefield today? Do you think many people from know what a dreadnought even is and what link it has with a city which is miles inland? How many people under 40 know the link between Castleford and Glassblowing? You start calling people glassblowers and they're likely to think you were accusing them of some weird sex act. The old names just arent relevant today, things change

If they were still relevant, they would still be used and there would be no need for the new ones.

We have a lot of history we can celebrate and cherish, what some people used to call the team 50 years ago isnt one of them

We'll disagree on this. Though, I suppose it's subjective, and raises the question how does society gain meaning from the past, when a part of it is cherry picked, and part discarded along varying degrees. Of course, cultures reappropriate certain things from the past, and assimilate them in different fashions. I'm not arguing these old names have any relevancy to 21st century society, but my argument is - these names [ionce had meaning[/i where as the new names [inever did[/i, never have done, never will do. If for the sake of argument, the names were "updated" and based on things which did have some proper context without wreckless contrivance, then I doubt there'd be any point to discuss vis-a-vis old versus new.

History is good and some traditions are great, but this is the present and I'd rather live for the future.

I just don't see how the evolution of the game and the clubs within it as 'tossing aside' history.

Eboracum didn't lose any of its history when its name changed to Jorvik and then to York. The name changes merely marked a new phase in that history.

So it is with RL. Superleague doesn't negate it's past or 'toss it away'. It is merely an extension of it.

You're over-intellectualising the issue in my opinion; some clubs went through a re-branding exercise to align themselves with the modernised vision of SL - organisations of all shapes and sizes undergo re-branding all the time and aside from a few kooks on Facebook, it's rarely lamented.

Seriously - be thankful that RL exists at all and that Sky TV has ensured that it is disproportionately well funded (at Elite level) in relation to the number of people who actually watch it; aside from that, rely on the clubs themselves and the communities they exist in to protect and preserve their respective histories as much as they deserve to be, whilst also promoting themselves to a new audience.

As an aside - I'd hate to own a RL club; how exactly do you market to a stakeholder group who are only happy when they're unhappy?

I see merit in both sides of this discussion, preserving tradition versus new, modern innovation, both have their place.

The one name I miss is Bradford Northern. I think that the name ,Northern, being an abbreviation of Northern Rugby Union football, was a bold declaration of our independence from RU and a defiant declaration that, even though the the original club went to soccer and flirted with a return to RU, the Northern Union faction would not be killed off would continue to hold to the values and playing rules of their Northern Union,which were held in such esteem in the game s heartland. The preservation of this name and the re education of the younger generations as to its historical significance, to me, made it worthy of retention.

107 years later, the repudiated remnants of the Bradford club who became Northern are the dominant and pre eminent football club in their city. This proud nickname says more to me than Bulls which were never a big part of Bradfordian culture and have no identity with the City. However, from the point of view of logos, I can see the marketing reasons for a desire to change the nickname.

Well as people keep saying RL keeps innovating, maybe we will see another rebranding process for some clubs in the near future.

I think it has been proved by St Helens, Hull FC and KR that we don't [ineed[/i the tacky logos/animals to have successful clubs, I'm not saying it [ihasn't [/ibeen successful for some clubs, but there is no proof to say clubs like Wakefield and Warrington wouldn't have been successful without their respective Cat and Wolf.

Are the kids who watch those 3 clubs mentioned above going to be put off attending matches and getting the bug? I can't say for definite obviously, but I'd guess not, in fact I fully expect these clubs to prosper, and they have prospered greatly in their own ways. I doubt this thread is going to go anywhere other than in a circular direction, as we all seem to have different views.

Fair enough if some people like the branding but to say clubs [ineed[/i it is a little naive IMO all things considered.

For some it's great for others total waste of time but that should never stop us trying new things.

All I'm saying is that if those who say never touch it we liked it as it was got there way
Well we would still be watching union or not at all in my case

No doubt some could have been done better and could be used better now and no doubt some clubs have simply pick a name seemingly at random and stuck it to the end of their name and expected miracles but thats just poor execution.

Huh?

EDIT, I think I know what you mean? Are you saying that change is part of our sport and as such we need to constantly embrace change? If so then in a lot of areas you are right, however I think on field changes are the main things that have changed and set us apart as a sport more than anything, I don't really get...

I'm not even sure what I'm replying to anyway here! Time for bed!

....you can't.

You just hope they remain hooked/keep up the habit of attending and that they breed like rabbits.......which as far as I can see is the basis of the marketing plan of the London Broncos v.2

Thats all very nice and all but I's over complicating the point I was making.

I just don't personally think that we need the image that we currently have to thrive as clubs and as a sport in general. Thats why I referenced the 2 Hull clubs and St Helens as examples, we have many people insinuating we need this image but I simply cannot agree.

It seems we all have different views, but you're right about wasting energy, back to work for me!

TFC if you read back some of my posts i never said change worked in every case, fully agree Warrington, Both Hulls and Saints work well and in the Hull case changed back because it was better for them. But also accept that it has been a success for some clubs Cas Tigers, Bardford Bulls, Wakefield Wildcats ( except the badge maybe ) Huddersfield Giants and Salford City Reds IMHO are better with the new branding.

But life is an opionion and this is mine, the world is a better place when we are allowed our own without recourse.

Enjoy your day

I didn't mean you, apologies, I meant other posters in the thread.

With regards to clubs being a success with their respective nicknames I wouldn't be so sure, Wakefield have for the majority of their time in Super league struggled, Cas have been relegated twice, Bradford undoubtedly [iwere [/ivery successful, but now have fallen from grace, all 3 of these teams still have poor stadia. Again Huddersfield had a dire period after being nicknamed the Giants finishing bottom a few times and merging with Sheffield Eagles, Salford City Reds although having just acquired a new stadium have been another mediocre club having been relegated twice.

Like you say though we have our own opinions on what constitutes success and such things as branding, which of course hasn't been a complete failure, it is simply a matter of opinion. However I can agree to disagree quite happily, enjoy your evening sir.