Ave it – i specifically said Salford should keep their name but try and MARKET themselves as the Manchester area’s Super League team . Dropping the Salford name would finish off an already dwindling fan base. Sale Sharks , carry the name of a district of Trafford , play in Salford and happily market themselves as from Manchester when it suits. Depends how important hitting this mythical 8,000 number is to Dr Koukash but his largesse will not be limitless. But if Huddersfield can’t get regular crowds of 8,000 Salford never will as things stand. Perhaps the strategy of selling the great game of rugby league rather than specifically Salford might be the way to go (with the RL stumping up for some of the costs). With an exciting team, a good stadium, improved parking and better accessibility they would be the main beneficiaries. South Manchester would offer some possibilities. Fact is supporting is a habit , with many that habit has now been broken and they aren’t coming back any time soon if ever regardless of any success on the field . So replacements are needed.

I am aware of heresy at Cardiff City FC who changed their strip from blue to red - and managed promotion this year.
I don't know the full story but I have a link,or two rl

rlAnd Thererl

Apologies - I was on one and a took this line out of context.

Let's not put the cart before the horse here. How about getting the basics right first.

Regular updates to the website, Facebook and twitter would be a start.

I never thought this possible but the flow of information out of the club is even worse than it was during the Wilkinson era.

I think some people underestimate the interest in Salford, we have been (I'll be kind) poorly run for thirty years now, with relegation/promotion/survival our lot. There is interest out there and as I've said before the only thing never tried at Salford is success.

I think success will bring the crowds in not the build it and they will come model as used by the previous regime. Similar to what Moran has done for Warrington.

Anyone think a successful Salford side wouldn't take 30,000 to Old Trafford or Wembley ?

Personally I also feel people seem to forget the state of the economy I know of people who throughout my lifetime would walk over hot coals to watch even a rubbish Salford side home and away who through rising costs and unemployment (see last weeks Advertiser to see just how hard it is to find employment in Salford) can't afford to go and I know how much that hurts some of our fans, me included at the moment as I'm trying to justify what I miss out on next week in order to spend twenty quid (plus) on friday night.

It will take time of co but it can happen, successs marketing grass roots and pricing are a given, changing a name to another especially one with no interest in rugby is just desperation. For the record I have a mate who lives in Burnage (south manchester) he has a passing interest in rugby and taking the glamour of Wigan away has always said if he followed a team it would be Salford based on the fact it would be his local team.

Just for argument sake - A name change to Manchester would do nothing apart from lose a lot of our current diehard fans just look at the two biggest Cities to play in Rugby League, Paris & London and then look at the state of them, Manchester would be no different.

Even if the name Manchester wasn’t added but Salford was dropped I also would never attend again.

As it’s been pointed out a winning team along with “the club's media, marketing and promotional work, while also improving the transport links and spreading the brand around the city.” Will bring in the crowds. I just hope Matthews can sort it out and fast, little things like having the season tickets on sale for next year at the last game will help improve things slowly.

I think there is a lot more interest out there in Salford than some people think as ‘Salford red all over’ says we would sell out should we ever get to a cup final, years of poor management and poor results have put a lot of people off let’s just hope we can get them back.

I recall a club named Bradford Northern who became Bradford Bulls and they had a little bit of success after 1996.
Some bloke named Brian Noble may have had a slight input into the matter.

Leeds becoming Rhinos also enjoyed some success - Until tomorrow night !

The NH -> MUFC or Cavendish Street -> Salford argument for modern name changes is a very weak one. When these teams were changing their name, it was because they were no longer affiliated to a company (Newton Heath Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Cricket and Football Club), or a school or church (Cavendish Street Boys) and therefore changed their name to reflect that break, or even a move to different areas.

The talk of a lot of our support not being from either Salford nor Manchester is meaningless too. I fall into that category and I wouldn't want to watch a team no longer representative of the city of Salford. I mean, it doesn't do Manchester United any harm having Manchester in their title when attracting support from elsewhere.

A successful side built on a solid club foundation with roots in and around Salford will be the only way to successfully move the club forward. A simple name change will not have a positive effect on that in any way, shape or form.



With a lot of supporters staying away, protests, talk of a new club being set-up, a lot of good will lost. Those that have stayed with Cardiff on the promise of further glory don't seem to realise the consequences of Tan failing or not getting his way.

Great post

Just adding a bit more context to GT’s argument. The issues Cavendish had at the time were evident in many of the Northern church-based clubs. They struggled to earn matches against first-class opposition, i.e. middle-class clubs such Manchester or southern rep/university sides, which most clubs aspired to. Also, when the Church began to withdraw its support for football as a tool or conduit for moral education from say the late 1870s onwards, Cavendish found themselves without any kind of association. They didn’t really have anything to lose by changing their name to Salford, apart from possibly alienating a few ex-playing members. Whereas Newton Heath had gone bust, having seen their big rivals Ardwick successfully transition into Manchester City.

So to precis all that - circumstances changed and the management decided that a re-branding was in the best interests of the clubs concerned?

Northbank Rangers is the way forward, forget all this Manchester nonsense .

I think the best way to put it is that there was less friction and more perceived benefit, particularly as both clubs’ original association had lapsed, which GT points out.

Football was a very congested market in Manchester and Newton Heath had previously tried to change their name to Manchester, which the FA blocked, around the time Ardwick changed to Manchester City in the mid-1890s. I hazard a guess the locals were far more fazed by United’s six-mile move to Old Trafford eight years after the name change, who were more than made up by Salfordians walking down Trafford Road.

As for Cavendish, they really had nothing to lose although much of its membership had to be talked round to the idea.

Whereas dropping ‘Salford’ today has, I think, much more risk attached to it. The risk is alienating another portion of its support — clearly some have not transitioned over from The Willows, yet — and I doubt the club would make that up wholly with new support from elsewhere. The key, I think, as the last match at The Willows showed, is reconnecting with lapsed support, and keeping the Salford name is crucial to that. In either case, I fear it would take more money than any RL club has got to manufacture a buzz. I’m thinking epic, Manchester Storm in their pomp proportions.

Just to add, Salford FC struggled to attract support in the first couple of years of the name change. In fact they were ridiculed by locals (sounds familiar!). What turned things round was putting more local men in the side, who just so happened to be decent, and bourgeois patronage. I doubt modern day spectators are influenced by two of these three things.