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?