Some were, some were more 'armchair' Broncos followers.

I know I've been out of the loop for a while but where is this 'change of name ' talk coming from?
The Super League Show had five minutes about it at the weekend and the RL Express is running something on it.
Is it that we will have yet another new administration to go with the new franchise David Hughes is so sure we'll get? Just for the record I think we should have London somewhere in the name.

Quote: Homer "Trouble is thats moving the goalposts a bit............ changing the ground [for which I am in favour] is a different matter to changing our name and staying at the Stoop in the hope it beings in many more seat warmers. In an ideal world of course we would own our own ground, be branded under our own identity and have enough investors on board in order to help fund a winning side, but all of those steps are unlikely to be achieved at once. Ps, the Valley was souless.'" I see it Homer as expanding the goalposts, as all must be looked at in the same re-launch package, yes I understand the ground will as I said be the real aim and part of our development for the next licence application, but if serious money is to be invested in marquee players to look at making progress on the pitch with real commitment to marketing then we have to start now and not wait until the new ground to start branding the new name and strip. You are correct when you say these aims will not be achieved all at once but we need to begin! As I stated earlier the possible increase in Sky investment may be part of all this re-launch? The Guardian, www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/ju ... CMP=twt_gu

Quote: Homer "Trouble is thats moving the goalposts a bit............ changing the ground [for which I am in favour] is a different matter to changing our name and staying at the Stoop in the hope it beings in many more seat warmers. In an ideal world of course we would own our own ground, be branded under our own identity and have enough investors on board in order to help fund a winning side, but all of those steps are unlikely to be achieved at once. Ps, the Valley was souless.'" I see it Homer as expanding the goalposts, as all must be looked at in the same re-launch package, yes I understand the ground will as I said be the real aim and part of our development for the next licence application, but if serious money is to be invested in marquee players to look at making progress on the pitch with real commitment to marketing then we have to start now and not wait until the new ground to start branding the new name and strip. You are correct when you say these aims will not be achieved all at once but we need to begin! As I stated earlier the possible increase in Sky investment may be part of all this re-launch? The Guardian, www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/ju ... CMP=twt_gu

Someone posted up the pictures of an RU shirt and a RL shirt and said that people were stupid if they couldn't tell the difference. There is so much wrong with that. I wouldn't be able to tell you were the colours were on a RL shirt or a RU shirt but I'd be able to tell you black, green, grey, magenta and brown made up the shirts and I'm a fan. The shirts are so similar (obviously), there's no way you can label people "morons" or what not based on this.

The likelihood of Saracens, Irish and Wasps fans jumping aboard is something I don't understand. Not one of these teams plays in London, I imagine their fan base is largely made up of people from Watford, Reading and Wycombe respectively. I can't see thousands flocking through the gates because the name is now "London Broncos" again.

The club is a small business. Small attendances means small income and money has to be spent correctly. I fully understand the point of view that Harlequins and the whole brand is a working point. The colours are recognisable, the club is recognisable but unless there's some exposure of the club, we'll forever be "oh, they have a league team" or "Aren't they a Union team". I was convinced a name change was the way to go but I'm not so sure now, the problem is the "m" word. I know its the main subject of debate on here but its true. Marketing is a big factor. If you don't advertise your business how do you expect to gain any custom? Some exposure is desperately needed, another big name like Martin Offiah or Shaun Edwards or even a crazy publicity stunt like Dwain Chambers, its all column inches.

I would much rather we followed the Huddersfield model of signing experienced players such as Robbie Paul and Mick De Vere to add to the young talent of Wild, Brown, etc that began their upward spiral. Year on year they have built on that squad and consistently attracted larger crowds.

Players come because they see growth and building things, the stunt players only come for the money, and that is no model for progression. We do need to sign better Aussies that Nick Koups, but at the same time Chris Bailey has been a breath of fresh air for the club. We need to bite the bullet pay for the type of loanees we have brought in, pay that extra £10k a year that is quoted for living in and around London, although I'm sure we can find ways to better that with the houseshares that some already do.

Marketing the 2010 side must have been a knightmare, 2011 has seen us at least put some feelers out there with free tickets (the ground should be full every time Sky roll into town for a game, because many have been put off by the 1 stand position that was in place over recent seasons) and 2012 will be even more positive with a competitive side that can realistically challenge for the 8.

Sean Long or Leon Pryce along with young Aussies Adam Cuthbertson Dane Laurie may well be the type of names that can produce the sort of kick-start that the Giants have experienced over recent seasons.

Moneyball players over names has to be the way to go, but we should, as Gus Mackay seems to be saying, that 2012 will be year we make contact, with the rest of sporting world, on and off the field.

David Hughes interviewed on this topic here rlhttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/13881855.stmrl

Well it looks like it is nailed on then. Yet again the club shoots itself in the foot. Absolute joke. How about addressing the fundamental problems before fannying about tinkering with the main asset that we have. Useless.

I can just imagine it now.

"London Broncos eh, I'm sure I remember that name from years ago"

"That's right, they went into liquidation several years ago"

"Oh right, so why are they back?"

"Yeah, we were Harlequins RL last year, but we decided we didn't want to be associated with Harlequins anymore and go back to an era of failure and go through it all again, rather than attempting to establish ourselves"

" "

" "

Huddersfield have marketed well, thats also what you missed out on. I know we're back to the dreaded "m" word but they have done their marketing fantastically. They called a fancy press conference at half-time of a game. This led to Sky rocking up, the crowd in, the fans getting an exciting buzz from what the story would be and sending the media into overdrive with mad rumours they were signing so and so. It may have been a damp squib considering it was just reduced season tickets but it did work. I'm not saying lower the current price at the Stoop, maybe make it one price throughout the ground but the marketing at Huddersfield was spot on. The likes of Leon Pryce's and Sean Long's are a little away from the mark but signing a few Keith Mason's, Lee Gilmour's and Gareth Raynor's is a decent idea. The Giants' business plan is the model though.

Also, why aren't the Union fans turning up for the RL? After all its still the Quins club, colours and ground? It would be nice to try and work this out, I can only think of the added cost issue (i.e they have ST's at the RU and paying out more for RL may put some off) or the competition. What does Super League have to offer Quins now? Try and market the Hull KR game would be hard. Quins are out the running for the play-offs (and the Cup) and have nothing to play for and HKR can probably scrape the play-offs, hardly the cut and thrust top four/relegation battles of the Aviva Premiership is it? I'm not blaming the RFL for Quins attendances, its just me having a rant.

Good post.

Hughes is losing the plot and grasping at straws. Pathetic.

If we do change names, will you become the Harlequins RL rupe1?

Perhaps this has more to do with investors and sponsors who don't recognise the difference between Harlequins RU and RL undermining our ability to attract investment into the club a problem faced by the Board and staff and not those that post on here. The club has already changed the logo and name to Harlequins Rugby League due to feedback that the kids and probably their families thought RL stood for Rugby Lessons. I doubt the club expect a mere name change and different coloured kit to resolve everything but is part of a wider strategy of raising our profile and separate identity.

As for mere spectators I only have annecdoatal evidence regarding a few union fans that I know but the recognition of the league side is non existent since we changed names. They thought we disappeared several years ago.