472 replies to this topic

[Red Willow]

Many fans don't live in Salford but they acknowledge the history of the Salford club. Changing the name to Manchester doesn't attract new fans or maintain them.

I say this everytime but look at the Manchester storm and Giants teams Or Manchester RU and tell me what the long term benefits of the Manchester name are?

[DeadShotKeen]

the vast majority of the club's fans just do not identify with Manchester.

What is this based on? I think you'll find more Salfordians out in Manchester on a Friday and Saturday night than knocking around Salford Precinct. It's about 20 minutes walk to Manchester town centre from there. I've always viewed Salford as more of an extension of Manchester than an independent city. That's no criticism of the place or its facilities but with Manchester joined to your hip you'd have to be pretty pigheaded and stubborn to not take advantage of the shops, pubs, clubs etc. just a stone's throw away. I know a lot of proud Salfordians but not one that harbours any bitterness towards Manchester, most have even moved to Manchester, usually due to work.

[DeadShotKeen]

Changing the name to Manchester doesn't attract new fans or maintain them.

Again, what is this based on?

Some market research around the topic would be most welcome. I think you'd find many, many Mancunians that would take more interest as a result. It's a very proud Northern city - why wouldn't it want its own rugby league club?

[Padge]

I presume nobody from Salford watches Manchester United or Manchester City since the name would obviously put them off.

[Amber Avenger]

I've always thought for all the effort and heartache it would cost to rebrand Salford to "Manchester", the club might as well try and give the club a proper push in Manchester as Salford - if you see what I mean. Rightly or wrongly most people associate Salford quite closely with Manchester anyway, so it's unlikely put too many people off especially with the ground being right next to the Trafford Centre.

I've lived in Manchester for 7 and a half years, but in all that time I can't say I've ever seen much from Salford unless I went specifically looking for it (although understandable with the situation they are in now), I do think it could work, but it depends how much effort the club want to put in. Of course they should never forget the original fanbase, but I don't think you can ignore a market as big and, crucially, diverse as Manchester when you play where Salford play. A simply name change won't do the trick - Salford can be marketed in Manchester - but it depends on how much work goes in. I don't think "Manchester Reds" will solve many problems.

[trakl]

I've lived in Manchester for 7 and a half years, but in all that time I can't say I've ever seen much from Salford unless I went specifically looking for it (although understandable with the situation they are in now), I do think it could work, but it depends how much effort the club want to put in. Of course they should never forget the original fanbase, but I don't think you can ignore a market as big and, crucially, diverse as Manchester when you play where Salford play. A simply name change won't do the trick - Salford can be marketed in Manchester - but it depends on how much work goes in. I don't think "Manchester Reds" will solve many problems.

Just as a matter of interest - and feel free to stick this in the schools rugby league thread, if you prefer - but do you know what kind of presence rugby league has in the city of Manchester's schools? Have Salford themselves - with RFL help, of course - ever made a concerted effort to introduce and establish the game among this great city's schoolchildren?

[Amber Avenger]

I honestly couldn't say for certain. From what little I do know, Salford don't particularly go into schools in the south of Manchester where I am based. I know the Mancunians RL do quite a bit of after school stuff, but I don't think they have ever crossed paths with Salford in this area (although I think they have tried to get them involved without much luck).

[Father Ted]

If re-branding is thought to be a good thing then why not simply retain the name Salford and go with -
"Salford Red Devils"
I can't imagine that small name change upsetting anyone and it might attract a small amount of publicity.

[trakl]

I honestly couldn't say for certain. From what little I do know, Salford don't particularly go into schools in the south of Manchester where I am based. I know the Mancunians RL do quite a bit of after school stuff, but I don't think they have ever crossed paths with Salford in this area (although I think they have tried to get them involved without much luck).

Thanks for your response.

It appears truly strange to me - as an outsider from the deep south - that after all these years and with such a wealth of athletic potential in a major city at the game's disposal - relatively little appears to have been done in any concerted/sustained sense about establishing the game in Manchester schools.

[Martyn Sadler]

I've always thought for all the effort and heartache it would cost to rebrand Salford to "Manchester", the club might as well try and give the club a proper push in Manchester as Salford - if you see what I mean. Rightly or wrongly most people associate Salford quite closely with Manchester anyway, so it's unlikely put too many people off especially with the ground being right next to the Trafford Centre.

I've lived in Manchester for 7 and a half years, but in all that time I can't say I've ever seen much from Salford unless I went specifically looking for it (although understandable with the situation they are in now), I do think it could work, but it depends how much effort the club want to put in. Of course they should never forget the original fanbase, but I don't think you can ignore a market as big and, crucially, diverse as Manchester when you play where Salford play. A simply name change won't do the trick - Salford can be marketed in Manchester - but it depends on how much work goes in. I don't think "Manchester Reds" will solve many problems.

In the case of Salford I think the location is far more important than the name.

The Salford club has a tremendous opportunity, if well managed and marketed, to build a large audience to follow it in Barton.

And it strikes me that it has the opportunity to be the biggest sporting club in Salford or, at best, the third biggest in Manchester. At one time I was in the vanguard of those calling for a name change to Manchester, but Salford is now coming up in the world, with the BBC locating its sports department there, and I don't think there is anything negative any more (if there ever was!) about the City of Salford.

So to change the name would probably be a waste of time and effort. I don't see a problem in making Salford appeal to supporters throughout the Greater Manchester conurbation while continuing to carry the name of the city in which it plays its games.

Unfortunately the Reds have been moribund off the field for several years, but it's hard to deny the potential the club has to be successful. I'm sure Mr Koukash is smart enough to recognise that potential.

[PhillH]

People launching into the debate over branding of Salford RLFC seem to be completely overlooking the fact that a key player is Salford City Council.

So long as they have any influence over the matter, rebranding to Manchester simply will not happen.

The Council has provided massive backing to the Reds both practically and financially, for years the two organisations have had a common goal of redefining the nature of local identity in the area.

One huge irony being that the Reds no longer even play in true Salford anyway - if the name were to correctly reflect the location of their current match day venue they would become Eccles!

[gingerjon]

Get the product right on the pitch and it becomes a hell of a lot easier to do all the other things.

[MikeTommo]

<sub>If the RFL really want a 'Manchester' team in SL then that's absolutely fine. What I don't undertsand is why everybody seems to think a club with over a 100 years of history should give up it's identity and become the Manchester club they want.

Leave us to be Salford in whatever guise. If a Manchester club is a necessity for the RFL then by all means go ahead and create one, just leave us be in the process.

Anyhow, the whole Salford/Manchester debate has been done to death and is slightly off topic. In terms of the potential new investor, it's not just the investing side of things that we will benefit from here. Unfortunately, we've been mismanaged for years. Lots of credit has to go to Wilkinson for keeping us afloat for this long but the eye had been well and truely taken off the ball a good while ago. Our marketing is terrible (lack of funds often cited as the reason for this) communication shoddy at best and overall profile in Rugby League circles not where it should be. The club on the whole seems to be seen as a bit of a joke. Hopefully if Dr Koukash does come in along with Peel and a new CEO then the club can be put back on the right track and our overall profile will be increased.</sub>

Edited by MikeTommo, 09 January 2013 - 03:34 PM.

[Bulliac]

What is this based on?

Nothing more scientific than the fans who post on here and elsewhere to be fair, I mean I've not done a postal vote or anything. Certainly, the impression I get (rightly or wrongly) is that many are going to have their noses put out of joint with a change and it hardly seems a good idea to alienate the current support for the 'bird in the bush', which may well turn out to be illusory. Maybe, since it may be an important point, the club should hold some kind of vote and find out once and for all?

[Pottsy]

True, but the club have 5,000 fans, not enough to survive without free subsidies from the rich.

Out of the 5,000 4,950 may vote to stay as Salford

But how many would walk away if the name changed??

And if the name changed to Manchester how many more fans could be attracted??

However what's in a name??

And how many Salford fans don't live in Salford?? Could be a lot.

This club primarily needs one thing - to be competetive on the pitch and make a salford game an event, last time it was an event they got 10,000.

Eventually, I knew you'd manage to get something right, Parky

I travel 50-odd miles every other week to support the club representing the city of my birth. If they ceased to do that, I probably wouldn't bother. I suspect many others feel the same.

If the game can afford to wave bye bye to a core support of 5,500 (and a latent support of similar size) then good luck to them.

But do you really think there are a similar number of supporters in Manchester ready and waiting to fill the void?

[Pottsy]

One huge irony being that the Reds no longer even play in true Salford anyway - if the name were to correctly reflect the location of their current match day venue they would become Eccles!

Sorry to be picky, but Eccles has been in Salford since before I was born. Moreover, the ground is actually in Barton (which is also in Salford).

[JohnM]

Sorry to be picky, but Eccles has been in Salford since before I was born. Moreover, the ground is actually in Barton (which is also in Salford).

but sadly, not before I was born.

Eccles was fully "acquired" by Salford in 1974 though a bit was lopped off in 1961. My mother used to take me kicking and screaming on the bus to Eccles to go shopping at the Maypole in Eccles back in..er...er.....1955!!

Regarding rugby in Salford and particularly is schools, it was always border country. I went to secondary school in Salford between 1957 and 1962 and the code played at school was union, and the decent players played for local union teams. AS I came from Swinton, just three miles away I had never heard of union so it all came as a bit of a shock. As for Manchester itself, that really was a that time union territory.

At that time Salford did nor own places such as Swinton, Little Hulton etc and I guess league was the code at schools. However, the major game by far was always soccer.

[keighley]

1. Leeds and wigan develop players by having the money to pay full salary cap, by having the money to staff junior development, by having the facilities, by promoting the game in their areas, by winning loads of cups, by being famous as the games two greatest ever clubs of all time, and through this by stimulating many junior RL clubs in their areas.

Maybe the new owner has earmarked investment of large proportions for a couple of generations to achieve this?

2. Nine players from overseas make Les Catalans a top six club. How would a French born X111 go in Superleague?

You are just negative to be negative, the word curmudgeon comes to mind.

1. On the one hand , you state all this as a necessity before any success can be achieved in developing players but, when it suits you, you champion London as the beacon from which all junior development shines but which said club have had no success, no cups, no trophies, are not at all famous and whose owner has stated he dosn't know how long he can keep up his investment in the club. I would think Salford fall somewhere in the middle between those opposite and conflicting positions that you have previously espoused. With a new owner on board, let's see what tney can achieve before you write them off. You are just too keen to slam dunk all promising outlooks for the game.

2. Nobody is denying the influence of a foreign born players at Catalans. If they were all French, they would end up mid table probably. I am sure they could beat anything in the bottom hald of SL. But that's just a speculative assumption that you have interjected into the thread so as to send it off on a tangent.

[keighley]

In the case of Salford I think the location is far more important than the name.

The Salford club has a tremendous opportunity, if well managed and marketed, to build a large audience to follow it in Barton.

And it strikes me that it has the opportunity to be the biggest sporting club in Salford or, at best, the third biggest in Manchester. At one time I was in the vanguard of those calling for a name change to Manchester, but Salford is now coming up in the world, with the BBC locating its sports department there, and I don't think there is anything negative any more (if there ever was!) about the City of Salford.

So to change the name would probably be a waste of time and effort. I don't see a problem in making Salford appeal to supporters throughout the Greater Manchester conurbation while continuing to carry the name of the city in which it plays its games.

Unfortunately the Reds have been moribund off the field for several years, but it's hard to deny the potential the club has to be successful. I'm sure Mr Koukash is smart enough to recognise that potential.

Arsenal are a huge maga soccer club but the name "Arsenal" does not denote that they are a london club ior even that they are a North London vlub and it is not the name of any geographical location in London. I don't think rebranding them "London Arsenal" or "Highbury Arsenal" would add anything to their allure or marketing and supporter recruitment potential.

I think the same arguments are valid in the Salford/Manchester debate. I don't think rebranding as Manchester Reds would help any, it would just bring attention to the fact that they are a poor third in the Manchester name recognition stakes behind man U ansd Man City.

[EastLondonMike]

Pedant mode: Arsenal is a shortened version of their original name, Woolwich arsenal, due to its location next to the old Gun making facility, known as the Arsenal. They moved to North London from Woolwich sometime in the 1800's i think. Pedant mode off. apologies..

I say keep them as Salford and adopt the old moniker of 'Red Devils'.