With the Stobart Super League soon to be announced, I think it is time to address a problem that it has had for the advent of this era, as well as the traditional big hitters, such as Keighley and Fetherstone coming to the end of their time at the top of Rugby League, we saw a make shift solution to the games image problem through the advent of the 'Mascot' like Tigers, Warriors, Giants, and Rhinos. Names like the Chemics and the Dreadnoughts and Fartown have been ignored in favor of the Wildcats and Vikings and Giants, and the more concerning trend remains the ignoring of the classic names of 'Wakefield Trinity' and 'Bradford Northern'. Can many RL fans Under 16 name Neil Fox, Dave Valentine, Albert Rosenfeld, Brian Bevan and even Ellery Hanley?

16 years on, and although some names and 'brands' have been accepted, such as the Rhinos and the Giants, we currently have the older generation cringing at the cheesy new badges pushed upon them. Is it so outrageous to suggest that we should, as Rugby League fans, try to aim to see what they were promised, to see 'their clubs receive a greater profile nationally', as Rodney Walker put it - we should see our clubs return, not the clubs that the Super League era has put upon us. Wouldn't it be wonderful to see Wigan Rugby and Wakefield Trinity and Widnes Chemics return? Is it too much to ask to see the RFL glorify it's wonderful heritage of our game, a game that has faced attacks from all sides, yet refused to budge as a prominent member of the WRU said in the 1950 'Rugby League is yet an infant, but it should be strangled at birth' - and even as we expand the game, we should look to carry a universal belief in the games ethos and history across the nation.

I think it really is time for us to put aside the issues of franchising and the SC, and look at the serious issue, the destruction of our games Heritage, and the seeming lack of interest in it.

In my opinion tradition is important but so is remaining relevant. I think the vikings brand has been terrific for us, it hasn't impacted the reputation of the club but having a more marketable image is essential to hook the next generation as it has never been more difficult to entice them.

Bottom line is, I like being the a fan of the vikings. Chemicals are no longer part of the town, and whilst they will forever be part of our history I'm not that bothered about hanging on to the old nickname in an official capacity.

Don't know how people of other clubs feel but I know I'm not alone in Widnes. You will always get people moaning about bringing back winter rugby and the smell of wintergreen but change happens.

I'm more bothered about how we're treating some of the more traditional clubs as opposed to what we're calling them. Some of the new nicknames and logos are brilliant.

Why is it the RFL who are tossing aside history? It is the clubs who have chosen to retain these names. Wigan in particular had a great opportunity to ditch the unloved Warriors name when they were last taken over, but decided to retain it.

It may make many cringe - it does me to some degree - but most clubs, in fact all clubs, continue to drink deep at their wells of history whilst still having these names - it isn't a binary choice so I don't quite know where you are coming from. For sure RL is a progressive sport but I don't see any distinction between that and celebrating the past as all clubs do.

The more substantive point you make, which is the dislocation between Super League and the rest, is harder to address. The game needs a high profile top flight as its flagship and yet there isn't the financial or numerical support for many teams who truly meet the criteria for a flagship competition beyond nine or ten at most. There has to be a cut off and where the RFL can take action, as it continues to try to, is to provide a genuine competition for those in the national leagues - one which is worthy of winning in and of itself and where everything isn't just about getting promotion to Super League.

The attitudes of the fans of the clubs in the national leagues is difficult to change and easy to understand - yet the greater financial interest of the game lies in the ongoing strength of Super League. But applying the standards of a slightly misremembered yesterday to the problems of today is foolhardy.

Are you being serious??

The Rhinos brand is undoubtedly a success, but putting the Giants in that same bracket...you are deluded.

I suppose you long for the days of the Barracudas??

And how historic are these Widnes Chemics you speak of?

The modern names are almost completely accepted now, and certainly will be in the next 5-10 years...as people who are old enough to have seen Neil Fox, Dave Valentine, Albert Rosenfeld, Brian Bevan die off.

Like it or not, it's called progress and it happens whether we want it to or not.

And as metioned, it certainly isn't the RFL's "fault".

I like that Saints, Hull KR Hull FC (forget Hull Sharks) have remained traditional.

I think many of the monikers just don't bring much to the table, I think clubs should keep the Americanized brands as part of their community department, and keep mascots for the kids, but I've never met an adult who has said they like being known as the 'Wildcats'.

I might just be speaking on my own clubs behalf here as I think Wakefield have the worst 'brand'. I just think it's all very tacky and unbecoming of the sport. I cringe at the thought of Sheffield Owls vs Sheffield Blades.

However I must be wrong as the clubs still have these 'animals/warrior super fighting force' emblazoned on their merchandise every year

I don't see a problem, is it not just the game coming into the 21st century and appealing to the younger generation? I don't think the clubs have forgotten their heritage at all, the game just has to move on. As a franchise, it is much more marketable if they have a clear nickname (or brand) to display.

You know, I would have agreed with you, especially when it was introduced, but it really has become "normal" (obviously there is an entire tranche of people who it doesn't sit with).

Many people talk about "going down to Wildcats" in Wakefield now.

Having said that, it is also our premier lapdancing venue...

Whilst I refute Conorgiantsfan's assertion that the game is somehow "tossing aside history" there is to my mind a good argument to be had about the real benefits and/or success of many of these nicknames. It's virtually unknowable at most clubs whether they have really driven increased support - I don't see any particular evidence that Leeds, Wigan, Wakefield etc have actually derived much benefit from their respective appendages; or that it has done the Hull teams and St Helens much damage by not embracing, or ditching, them.

Where, as in the cases of Bradford and Keighley, it was completely tied in with a complete overhaul of everything the club represented, they were no doubt critical. Yet too many clubs have taken this rather slack "21st Century/younger generation/it must be right" approach, stuck a nickname on and not actually done anything else - certainly that was the case at Leeds; the driver for, slightly, increased crowds over the pre-Rhinos days I would assert has been a more succesful team.

I don't know whether tossing aside history was exactly fair really, but I think that it is concerning that we've simply forgotten the great names and stories of Rugby League. American Football fans know Joe Namath and Joe Montana. Football fans know George Best and Pele. Rugby Union fans know J.P.R Williams and others. Gaelic Football fans know Paidi O Se, yet Rugby League have no-one. I would also point to the 'success' of the Names, kids go to football games, they have no 'Wildcats'.

Also, I accept that Rhinos and Vikings have worked, and to be frank, in Huddersfield the Rugby team is now the Giants to most people, bar a minority who were around - therefore is a success as it has been accepted. But I would say the Wildcats, the Warriors even the Reds, although that name is well founded, have not brought anything new, and I would not put this down to 'progress' but simply renaming for the sake of renaming. Rugby League needs to strike a balance between progress and history I think.

"Giants" a success? A poor club - still a poor club.

"Vikings", a success? A great club for a short period of time, now trying to rebuild.

"Rhinos", always a relatively successful club, certainly so now.

"Wildcats", once a great club, trying to rebuild. Many in Wakfeild now refer to the "Wildcats" - under your measure of the Giants, therefore also a success.

And RL has no famous players? Someone better tell the RFL and Wembley to cancel the statue!

Your entire argument is ill-thought and baseless.

A success compared to what we once were, a club with very little support. 3,500 support, gone up 110% - that's a success in my book. From having a scattering of fans, Huddersfield Rugby, like it or not, is now synonymous with the 'Giants'.



It is a success as many fans have accepted the name.



See Widnes



Wakefield fans would rather be called Wakefield Trinity, and anybody over 12 sees the Wildcat name and cringes.



Ask 1000s of RL fans Under 16 to name who any of the people on the list are. Then ask them to talk about Pele or Best.



You're oblivious to the problem.

That's why we kept "Bluesox". Rampant success.

Cheers Nige

Rhinos is certainly more marketable than loiners as is Bulls compared to Steam Pigs. Its not the brand that is at fault, it is the marketing that is the issue. Bradford didn;t have all that commercial success due to picking a good nickname, they had it due to some outstanding marketing staff.

Having said that I am glad we kept our world famous historical name though at the time I quite liked the idea of being Hull Kingston Knights!

I would say that at some clubs it has worked and been a plus for the club, whereas at others it hasn't worked so well. Though I don't think it's put anyone off, except at Fax maybe, due to the truly awful name decided upon.
At Leeds for instance, while I'd take MjM's point that Leeds' success has helped, but I would say the club has benefited hugely from the Rhinos brand since it appeals so well to kids. The Ronnie the Rhino mascot is perfect to attract the interest of kids and you can see the results by the amount of kids attending Leeds games and being involved in the various kids schemes at Leeds that bring in vital revenue throughout the year. Also of course kids don't go to games on their own, they take an adult with them even more revenue. The focus on marketing the club to kids could only have worked with a child-friendly mascot backed up by the Rhinos identity.
It simply wouldn't work with a half-d approach of just producing an artificial mascot out of nowhere that has no obvious connection to the club. Ronnie the Rhino wouldn't work if the club was still called Leeds RLFC with the old City of Leeds crest as the badge.

I know kids still follow football teams who don't have a "name" but that's because football is so huge, RL isnt and has to fight against that initial pull that all kids feel toward football, it has to be different and offer something different.

I'd rather we were in football's shoes where we didn't need to do that but that's the position we're in. I'd also say that those clubs where it really hasn't worked that well, it might be in their interest to revert to a traditional name and badge. I'm obviously coming from an outsiders point of view but it would seem that Salford & Wigan could revert to more traditional names and badges and Saints to a more traditional badge without negatively affecting the club.

Wakefield Trinity Wildcats are the only professional sporting club in the city unlike Leeds and Huddersfield who can easily be differentiated now by their new tag lines.

Also I have never heard anyone say 'I'm off to watch the wildcats' or suchlike and if I did I would be having words with them! As Conor said earlier 'Wildcats' is just so cringeworthy, I've never heard anyone in the crowd cheer for the 'Wildcats' and doubt I ever will. Wakefield belong in the Hull FC, HKR and St Helens bracket. Wakey have the worst suffix in Super League, many of the others have stuck or are necessary in some cases.

I think the Wildcats aspect could be kept as part of the community side of the club if need be but not as part of the name. God knows why we didn't get renamed to Wakefield (Trinity) Dreadnoughts. Anyway life goes on...

It probably takes years for new nicknames, official or otherwise, to stick with fans. Part of rebranding is to help with things like official merchandise. In Wakey's case, the club's traditional name, Wakefield Trinity, has been in common use so long it's probably in law 'public domain' so that anyone could make scarves, shirts etc with that name and sell them without paying the club. With the copyright 'Wildcats' name that can't be done.

I don't see why tradition and 21st century branding can't co-exist. Warrington get called Wolves a lot, especially in the press, but fans old and young also call them Wire. To be fair, you do say that you personally hate the name Wildcats, whereas I think most Warrington supporters are happy with Wolves, which comes from the old town crest anyway.

I think this is what sticks in my craw. I'm not against nicknames per se, but 'wildcats' is purely arbitary and there is no link to the city or the club. It smacks of laziness and the alliteration just makes it cheesy.

At Keighley we've had the Cougars moniker for 20 years now. It's become synonymous with the club. You don't hear in conversation "Are you off to watch Keighley (or The Rugby) this weekend?" You hear " Are you watching Cougars this weekend?".

The club have always been keen to make sure that the fans be they young, new or old understand that Rugby League didn't start in Keighley with Cougarmania. Our main supporters bar is our Hall of Fame with framed montages of all the great players (yes we've had some) who've played for the club in the past including team photos, newspaper reports and programmes from the era that they played in. It doesn't cost anything extra to go in and have a look around when there's a game on.

I know a few other clubs so something similar, Hunslet being the first one off of the top of my head. It would be nice to see a lot more clubs bring something in like that.

Leeds Rhinos works for me but the badge is terrible.

Wakefield Trinity sounds good and the name is associated with Rugby League. The whole wildcat package is a poor one.

Wigan - OK but the mascot looks like an idiot.

Huddersfield - Same as Wigan.

I don't like Saints new badge.

Catalan Dragons and the Bradford Bulls have the best 'new era' names & badges.

IMO

On the whole I'm not a huge fan of the rebranding, especially where there is no real tie to the adopted name (ie Bulls, Rhinos, and thankfulyl shortlived sharks), the logos are generally tacky (again Rhinos & Sharks I'm looking at you). Would much prefer the "historic" names and nicknames were kept, and am pleased that Saints, Rovers and Hull not bothered with the new names and logos, or where they did, not stuck with them,

All that said, Widnes Vikings works due to the historic presense of vikings, and the new(ish) logo is very smart, if there were more like that I'd perhaps not be quite as anti them.

The club had plenty of young fans before it became Leeds Rhinos, and crowds now are not IMO disproportionately larger than they were in the pre-Rhinos days before the team started winning things. Having watched the implementation of the Rhinos name, I would use exactly that phrase - it was half-d. They came up with a totally inappropriate name, then got themselves a logo, got a mascot, chanced upon someone who could create a character inside the rhino suit and, bingo, that was the rebranding done.

Since then they have done a fair amount with it, but I have seen little evidence that it is totally reliant on the Rhinos name - although removing it now would be impossible as it has managed to become associated, one way or another. Plenty of clubs in other sports have worked with mascots without renaming the entire club to suit. Leeds, along with the rest of SL in 1996/97, were caught up in the clearly foolish idea that an appendage to the name would change everything. It required, and requires, a lot more work than that as Bradford and Keighley showed.

The SL names which continue to stand out are Rhinos, Wildcats, Warriors and, arguably, Vikings which seem incongruous and undistinguished for some of the game's finest clubs. Pre-Giants Huddersfield weren't much of a club to begin with so I won't include them in that.

Leeds Rhinos - Goes well with the club, it has really stuck well, as well as separating themselves from Leeds Utd and Carnegie. Badge is a bit poor but hey ho.

Bradford Bulls - Rolls off the tongue well, club colours are incorporated well, similar to Leeds.

Huddersfield Giants - Again the club colours remain in tact, seems to have stuck quite well with the fans.

Warrington Wolves - Like someone mentioned previously this has not just been slapped upon Wire but is quite historical and is all around a good bit of branding.

London Broncos - Does it matter what they're called? Nah, OJ but this club more than any need a strong identity in London and I think Broncos has stuck with the club.

Widnes Vikings - Once again I think this suits the club well, similar to Huddersfield in many ways.

Wigan Warriors - There is no 'Warrior' as part of their logo, think the Warriors part could easily go and no one would be bothered.

Salford City Reds - Don't see how this benefits the club really, but it's not really an 'offensive' name to hear or see, but I suppose some branding is needed.

Cas Tigers - Were known as Tigers long before Super League AFAIK? Black and Amber obviously go well will the branding, all in all a very good package.

Catalan Dragons - I don't know any Catalan fans nor do I know where Dragons came from, personally I think it is ok though, as I like Dragons



What is quite prevalent is that in all cases the club colours are worked into the logo well, but Wakefield just have a big yellow cat?

I reckon Wildcats should be kept as part of a supporters club for kids, use the branding on kids clothes or whatever. But I hate walking around with a great tacky yellow cat on my clothes. The new logo is much better but still has that big cat on it.

anyone else find it ironic that a thread on the 'destruction of the game's hertage' through the 'serious issue' of club names and mascots was started by someone whose username is Connor Giantsfan, rather than the more heritage correct Connor Fartowner?

TFC: Dragons comes from the fact that the patron saint of Catalonia is San Jordi - or St George as he's called in English

Très Interessant, once again the branding actually comes from [isomewhere[/i and once again the colours are incorporated well.