: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:42 am  

I am happy with them, "C'mon Fax!" works much better than "C'mon Blue Sox!" however!

: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:46 am  

Alex Mc wrote:

IMO teams such as Hull Kingston Rovers, St Helens, Bradford Northern, Wakefield Trinity never needed to change their names as they are very distinctive. However i can understand why a team just named after the town/city they play in would add a tag line to their name to make it more distinctive. Personally, the only one that works for me is Castleford Tigers.

The old one works for me but the club feels that to attract youngsters a new name was reqiured and then we became "Wildcats".
Dreadnoughts the old nickname seems to have almost gone.


If Wildcats is the way forward the so be it.

: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:46 am  

General Zod. wrote:

I remember a CC clash at Craven Park in the 92/93 season? when you lot brought loads despite being a lower league side and only just lost in the last minute 30-28 IIRC...

Remember them bringing about 1500-2000 on a Good Friday in 1995 too when they were chasing the Div 2 title. Will always feel that they should have been promoted to SL instead of London, despite LeagueFan's constant digs at us!

: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:51 am  

Roofs wrote:

Remember them bringing about 1500-2000 on a Good Friday in 1995 too when they were chasing the Div 2 title. Will always feel that they should have been promoted to SL instead of London, despite LeagueFan's constant digs at us!

Your team has managed to do what we couldn't/were not allowed to do.

Good for your team, they managed to play the system well, we didn't and that's how it goes.

: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:51 am  

GanEden wrote:

We are the Reds and the Reds we are and will always be! We don't want some stupid devils name attached!

Incorrect, you don't want the Red Devils nickname, I think it has been proved time & again that you are on your own amongst Salford fans where that issue's concerned.

: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:53 am  

Leaguefan wrote:

Your team has managed to do what we couldn't/were not allowed to do.

Good for your team, they managed to play the system well, we didn't and that's how it goes.

Just never made any sense at all to me, such a rugby-strong area and with plenty of other clubs nearby home/away support would have been great. Don't see how anyone could ever justify you not getting a place.

: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:56 am  

Kevs Head wrote:

I've nothing against Wildcats, Reds, Rhinos etc but I do object to clubs being renamed. Leeds should be Leeds, Warrington should be Warrinton etc. Trinity are slowly becoming Wakefield Wildcats which, in my opinion is just plain wrong. The nicknames should be just that - nicknames. They could stil be used as marketing tools but not as the actual club name.
Arsenal are known throughout the world as the Gunners but they're not "Arsenal Gunners".

Agreed, the nicknames should not be there but not incorporated into the club name, like most football team nicknames (Owls, Terriers etc). For this reason I like Hull and Rovers nicknames.

: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:16 pm  

RobotMonster wrote:

I have never referred to any club including my own by their "SL nickname." I just don't like them, most of them were badly thought out and rushed to suit the new Super League.

I'll agree with the highlighted bit. I don't mind 'em personally, and think they can be a good thing. Being a student in both Bradford and Leeds, people not familiar with the area or the sport always refer to them as the Bulls or the Rhinos.

It's majorly an awareness thing. People may think "yeah, but their fans never call them that so what's the point?" have obviously missed the point (obviously otherwise they wouldn't ask I suppose! Dumb me!). A Leeds fan may refer to them as Leeds, but what do others (others outside the sport) refer to them as? Leeds could mean anything. Leeds Carnegie. Leeds United. But when you say the Rhinos, you know who they mean. That's the sign of good brand awareness in an area.

Another good sign is when you say Rhinos and everyone who follows that sport knows who you mean. Same with Bulls.
That is why I don't like Warriors. Whenever they say Warriors, I immediately think NZ. That's why I don't think that one has worked. Not to mention it pretty much has nothing to do with anything with the club (no historical thing there, is there?). Just a rushed alliterate nickname. Something that people struggle to get attached to.
Sharks? Cronulla. Nothing there.
Broncos? Brisbane. Yeah, Brisbane took over them, but they didn't need the same nickname. Broncos will always mean Brisbane in RL.
Blue Sox? Too American. No attachment there.
Bears? North Sydney.
PSG? Isn't that a football team?
Harlequins? Enough said.
Reds? There's history there I suppose, but Liverpool are the Reds of the NW aren't they really. Red Devils? Man Utd. Slight awareness problem for Salford I feel.

Tigers was added before SL so it wasn't rushed, it meant something to the club.
Giants I suppose isn't too bad, and I think there was a story behind it somewhere too. Distinguishes them from the football team and any other RL team.
Wolves has a connection with the town IIRC, although people might get confused with the football team sometimes.
Saints have always been Saints. But I think there are a lot of "Saints" in sport. St George even in RL, but they're the Dragons I suppose.

Basically, a good nickname will give a club good awareness not only in their area but their sport as a whole, and will be something that the locals can attach themselves to (or something that won't stop them anyway!).

That's my two-pence worth anyways!

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:33 pm  

Wellsy13 wrote:

I'll agree with the highlighted bit. I don't mind 'em personally, and think they can be a good thing. Being a student in both Bradford and Leeds, people not familiar with the area or the sport always refer to them as the Bulls or the Rhinos.

It's majorly an awareness thing. People may think "yeah, but their fans never call them that so what's the point?" have obviously missed the point (obviously otherwise they wouldn't ask I suppose! Dumb me!). A Leeds fan may refer to them as Leeds, but what do others (others outside the sport) refer to them as? Leeds could mean anything. Leeds Carnegie. Leeds United. But when you say the Rhinos, you know who they mean. That's the sign of good brand awareness in an area.

Another good sign is when you say Rhinos and everyone who follows that sport knows who you mean. Same with Bulls.
That is why I don't like Warriors. Whenever they say Warriors, I immediately think NZ. That's why I don't think that one has worked. Not to mention it pretty much has nothing to do with anything with the club (no historical thing there, is there?). Just a rushed alliterate nickname. Something that people struggle to get attached to.
Sharks? Cronulla. Nothing there.
Broncos? Brisbane. Yeah, Brisbane took over them, but they didn't need the same nickname. Broncos will always mean Brisbane in RL.
Blue Sox? Too American. No attachment there.
Bears? North Sydney.
PSG? Isn't that a football team?
Harlequins? Enough said.
Reds? There's history there I suppose, but Liverpool are the Reds of the NW aren't they really. Red Devils? Man Utd. Slight awareness problem for Salford I feel.

Tigers was added before SL so it wasn't rushed, it meant something to the club.
Giants I suppose isn't too bad, and I think there was a story behind it somewhere too. Distinguishes them from the football team and any other RL team.
Wolves has a connection with the town IIRC, although people might get confused with the football team sometimes.
Saints have always been Saints. But I think there are a lot of "Saints" in sport. St George even in RL, but they're the Dragons I suppose.

Basically, a good nickname will give a club good awareness not only in their area but their sport as a whole, and will be something that the locals can attach themselves to (or something that won't stop them anyway!).

That's my two-pence worth anyways!

we've used 'a' wolf emblem since the early 90's as it's part of the warrington crest, the cheshire wolf. cullen incorporated it as part of the design when he was marketining guru and when out deal with ellgren started.

as for the actual name, we are Warrington Wolves, not the wolves,i know it's common place and logical to refer to us as the wolves but supposedly the club do not, and we aparently had problems with wolverhampton wanderers(proper name) who didn't want us to refer to us as the wolves(their nickname).

But we told em to fook off and did it anyway, plus i think we've put more effort into our logo then they have/do.

: Sat Mar 07, 2009 12:35 pm  

GanEden wrote:

We are the Reds and the Reds we are and will always be! We don't want some stupid devils name attached!

You mean apart from the fact that we've always been the Red Devils?