Yes I am for real! always think it is the lowest form of debate when you need to attack rather than just debate, it does not mean we have to agree all the time.

Please tell me what positive the Union club have done for us? they are the ones who benefit and that is why they took us back in the first place as they were desperate then before going back into The Premiership, if we said we were leaving next season I can't envisage any protests Please Don't Go! LOL But it is the Only Option at Present until we can find a ground which we will part own and then make so income from and not be a tenant.

Prince of Denmark, I never feel we have marketed our brand like we should! The London Crusaders had a stupid looking badge/emblem in my opinion! which was dated and looked as if it was more a sponsorship for the Daily Express.

So I take it that you didn't like the Bronco's name, during the time when we moved first time around to The Stoop I felt the brand worked, the place rocked it was around the time of The Club Championship, I also felt that families came along and younger people identified with the what you say American branding were we really took it from the then Aussie owners. In fact we lead the way, because others followed and such as Bradford as the Bulls and Wigan as the Warriors have really worked, but they had real dammed good marketing departments. Currently Wigan are running TV commercials in the North West under the brand Wigan Warriors V Huddersfield Giants THE BIG ONE! this they have done successfully in the past with games against Leeds, Warrington, they go for full size poster boards and usually run a promotion with schools or youth teams to run a cup knock out on the day, just watch out what the attendance that day will be! in fact is is THE BIG ONE! with Huddersfield being on such a good run.

Perhaps we need to send our marketing team during the close season to Wigan for a few weeks training! the BULLS successful period was when the late Peter Deakin was in charge (also later with Sacarens) Peter and myself he pushed me into it did an Australian RL Marketing Course and when we both approached clubs here at first they had the heads in the sand as usual, No that is not for a Northern Game! but thankfully Bradford when with it and Peter and he turned them around off the pitch and then the results came on the pitch.

It is not a Royal we, the opinion about the Harlequins brand is shared by many of our supporters, not all 3,000 are members here! it tends to be a limited number the same names, but I Hope the Club itself and David Hughes do check out opinions. The brand of Quins is not modern and smells too much rah rah! I would go for just being LONDON RUGBY LEAGUE CLUB but we need to start to appeal to young people and families and we need for that some catchy add on to London, St Helens have been the Saints forever and that is the name they are known by and it is not dated.

This is a forum, I read carefully every post, it would be a funny old world if we all agree every time!

I like the name "London Harlequins"- that could catch on! - Would it keep both sides happy in this argument though...not sure??

Dunno mate, might do for some but if we're changing the name then I'm for changing it completely. FWIW London RLFC would be my choice - plain and simple, says where we are and what we are.

London Harlequins, NO! - When we move to a sharing a ground as part owner we would need another change of name. Paul Wilson who wrote the original article in The Guardian has covered it in even more detail in this weeks "League Express!

Only morons can't identify the difference between a League and a Union club. A simple explanation tends to suffice when I am telling someone about my weekend plans.

London RLFC is completley anonymous and unworkable. Nobody knows what RLFC stands for and nobody can associate with it. I wouldn't be surprised if a significant proportion of our current supporters have no idea what RLFC stands for as it is a term that belongs in the 90's and before.You cannot market RLFC. You cannot market London.

Harlequins RL is perfect. Clearly distinguished from the Union club yet has the power of the Harlequins brand. Harlequins Rugby League is also fine.

Then and now are completely incomparible. The Broncos of then was a completely unsustainable venture full of Australian imports and "star" names amongst English Rugby League.

When we became Quins I was told by Nick Cartwright that it would bring lots of sponsors! We can't even get a shirt sponsor. I think Harlequins as a name has as many negative connotations as positives. But names don't mean that much it is money that talks.

He probably assumed that the name was to be used as part of an integrated strategy. Which it hasn't been. Cartwright was fairly sharp, there is no way he would have thought that the name would automatically stand up by itself and attract sponsors.

I thought Robbie Hunter Paul covered and stated the case well last night on the "Super League Show" which I have only just watched, this guy has so much to offer Rugby League I would ensure he is given a job at the top of Super League or as a CEO he is so articulate/

Yes Dave I accept a lot has changed, but do you really feel however much money is invested next season (if we are awarded a licence in 4 weeks time) that it will work under the Quins brand, I just can't see it happening, the average sports person and young people we need to attract are not seeing the difference in the two brands, we have no USP we need to stand alone with a club name whatever it may be.

A lot has changed? What an understatement. Beyond the obvious arugment about finances, we are also working under a completely different set of quota rules, as well as a restrictive salary cap. These were barely factors in this glorious period of "success" as the Broncos. The desperate failure of the brand is a far more significant consideration as the problems we were faced with then were far more similar to now. Even then we could sign Australian internationals on vast contracts and still go into liquidiation as nobody bothered to turn up and watch us, as most of the time we were useless. Now we are building a far less spectacular team, full of English and local players. Nothing will work overnight, no matter if we are Harlequins or London Broncos. It is pathetic to read about people instantly dismissing the Harlequins brand after 5 years ffs. This is not a 5 year project.

Why do you keep bleating on about the "average sports person" not "seeing the diference in the two brands"? Could you be any more condescending? And just out of interest, do you have ANY evidence to support this claim? What is the "average sports person" anyway?

We have no USP? Sorry to follow The Penguin's tone, but are you for real?

This nonsense about people "failing to distinguish between the two brands" is making my head hurt. I cannot get my head about how people can actually think this is a reason for our club struggling at the moment. There is one brand, Harlequins, used by the Union club and the League club. Two clearly seperate entities engaging in seperate activities. At what stage of selling the RL club are these people out there apparently failing to tell the difference between League and Union?

Let us look at perhaps our most successful piece of marketing, the opening offer in the Evening Standard. Do those who believe in this "problem" think that people elected not to take up the offer because they thought it was a Rugby Union match?! I suggest you have a careful look at the literature on offer, and you will realise it couildn't be any more clear cut what is being advertised. A game of Rugby League being offered by the Harlequin brand.

But isn't that a Rugby Union team?