RugbyRebels

Scrumhead wrote:Rumours that Gloucester are re-branding to Gloucester Lions too.

Gloucester saw the Lions success in super rugby and thought that will do us.
Step one sign the head coach
Step two sign the players
Step three copy the name (Fortunately the kit is already similar).
Step 4 repeat step two.
Step 5 Profit?

If it helps crack the US market and brings in a few $$$$$$ does it really matter. Even if it doesn’t, does it really matter.

Cant say i'm fussed one way or the other. Its pretty ridiculous but these things are part and parcel of sports packaging nowadays.
I'd just like it if teams wore hooped shirts with collars and an alternative kit was something you grabbed out of the back of a cupboard only when it was absolutely essential.

A much bigger issue might be will all the AP teams be using cheerleading squads next season? It always feels a bit weird, even before it's often middle aged blokes salivating over children

Still think its naff but think the "Bears" name be limited to;
1) commentators/media
2) piss taking

But Bristol does have connections to Bears - https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-fea ... f-bristol/

Mellsblue wrote:If it helps crack the US market and brings in a few $$$$$$ does it really matter. Even if it doesn’t, does it really matter.

Nothing really matters.

Any way I'm highly sceptical of this "cracking the US market". What makes say premiership football relatively popular with some people in the US is that it's completely different to what they experience. It's the atmosphere.

What they want from english sport is tradition and club badges with coats of arms and all that stuff. This branding is just shitty second rate versions of what they already have in american football just with tiny crowds and what they perceive as lesser athletes.

I'm obviously no professional at this but they seem to be failing at selling the club game to the locals. To dilute it even further to try and sell it to some hypothetical american fan that "likes animal names dude" seems just bizarre and dumb. Especially when they are just copies of already existing names from places where the animals actually make sense.

Stom wrote:
That's still something, and NZ is not a big place. Those counties are not giant places. It's still an important identifier. It makes them feel real.

Erm...
NZ: 268,021 km²
UK: 242,495 km²

The Canterbury region alone (which includes the rugby provinces of Canterbury, Mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury) is more than twice the size of Wales. The Crusaders region, including the other provincial unions Tasman, Buller, and West Coast, is bigger than Scotland. Mind you its total population only slightly exceeds that of Dorset.

A little reminder for those railing against "modern" branding of teams, may I remind you that the founding members of the RFU included the "Wimbledon Hornets"*, the "Marlborough Nomads"** (no doubt named after the mounted hordes descending from the Wiltshire steppe), and the "Flamingoes"*** from Battersea Park (which of course was riddled with pink wading birds throughout the 19th Century).

The Exeter Chiefs' racist branding also has deep roots, given that two other founding clubs were the Gipsies**** and the Mohicans*****.

*"Wimbledon RFC" since 1874
**Amalgamated with Rosslyn Park in 1911
***Disbanded 1877, most members joining Harlequins
****Disbanded 1880
*****Disbanded 1874