Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Northern Sol

manchester rugby club 1960 - not a merger thread

154 posts in this topic

Taken from the Hornets' Centenary Booklet:-

The first meeting of the Hornets' Football Club was held on 20 April 1871 at the Roebuck Hotel, when the title was fixed upon.

...

There was much discussion as to a name for the club at the 1871 meeting. Rochdale Wasps, Rochdale Butterflies, Rochdale Grasshoppers were first suggested, but "at last some enlightened individual proposed a name that took their fancy more, Rochdale Hornets, and Hornets it has been ever since."

So, as artificial a name as any of the more modern ones created by a club's board of directors; it just seems traditional because of the length of time it's been around. And, in a late 19th and early 20th century context, it will have been used in marketing.

I know that but IIRC there was another Rochdale side which necessitated them calling themselves Rochdale X. And while there was no particular reason to choose Hornets, it wasn't done for commercial reasons.

I think most of us recognise the need for commercial interests in the game but they are a necessary evil.

On the whole I prefer names that say something about the club or area. The new clubs joining CC1 are All Golds (great name), Stags (fantastic) and err Oxford RLFC (boring).

Leeds Rhinos works very well as a device for flogging shirts but it's crass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the snippet I got from the Salford City Reds website, it was put there by club historian and yet nobody seems to know about it. It does tend to suggest that it was more than just the Manchester XIII rep fixture that wound folk up.

A proposal in 1960 to create a Manchester rugby league club at the former White City Stadium on Chester Road received strong opposition from Salford and Swinton. Their protests were renewed when a match was staged there between a Rugby League XIII and the New Zealand tourists in September 1961 and the idea was subsequently dropped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the snippet I got from the Salford City Reds website, it was put there by club historian and yet nobody seems to know about it. It does tend to suggest that it was more than just the Manchester XIII rep fixture that wound folk up.

A proposal in 1960 to create a Manchester rugby league club at the former White City Stadium on Chester Road received strong opposition from Salford and Swinton. Their protests were renewed when a match was staged there between a Rugby League XIII and the New Zealand tourists in September 1961 and the idea was subsequently dropped.

I think that you have solved the mystery with that quote. Great job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't really, this was the quote that got me thinking.

Why have I never heard of this before?

Why does nobody else seem to know about it?

Who was behind the club that never existed?

Why were Salford and Swinton fans so negative?

The last one is the real odd one, if it wasn't a merged club then why the anger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't really, this was the quote that got me thinking.

Why have I never heard of this before?

Why does nobody else seem to know about it?

Who was behind the club that never existed?

Why were Salford and Swinton fans so negative?

The last one is the real odd one, if it wasn't a merged club then why the anger?

Maybe because it would have been competiton to Salford and Swinton and they really didn't need that. After all, they had only just about rid themselves of Broughton/Belle Vue Rangers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe because it would have been competiton to Salford and Swinton and they really didn't need that. After all, they had only just about rid themselves of Broughton/Belle Vue Rangers.

The white city match was the combined Salford/Swinton team, but as you say the body of Belle Vue Rangers was still warm, the club having gone under 6 years earlier for the want of a ground, and it may be that people wanted to resurrect the club back nearer their Broughton roots at White City which I think is up the road from Old trafford, but not way over the other side of the city that Belle Vue was?. So maybe you have cracked it with that suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not just talking about SL, the names go down into BARLA and RLC as well.

Think old school we have Centurions, Crusaders, Knights, Vikings. Maybe if we had just one side called "Centurions" or "Crusaders", it would be okay but we've far too many.

edit: and Barrow were Braves before becoming Raiders.

Probably.

Hudderfield's is one of the most gratuitous. They must have spent about 5 mins flicking through the NFL handbook before picking the name of the biggest, richest club.

I quite liked the Sharks epithet, shame the fans didn't.

with rugby league being a combative team sport it's reasonable to expect 'soldier type' soubriquets.

However, for instance Widnes was a Viking settlement. I think your defining of Vikings as 'soldiers' by the way is a little one dimensional-they were farmers and trtaders as well, but no matter. Widnes were originally going to be called the Giants because one of the tallest men to live in the UK was butied nearby, but Huddersfield beat them to it. Why is Giants inapproriate for Hudds, but Rovers ok for fev?

I can't see what your beef is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with rugby league being a combative team sport it's reasonable to expect 'soldier type' soubriquets.

However, for instance Widnes was a Viking settlement. I think your defining of Vikings as 'soldiers' by the way is a little one dimensional-they were farmers and trtaders as well, but no matter.

You are confusing Vikings and Scandinavians. Viking means "raider".

I am aware of Widnes connections with Vikings. It's not a name I object to.

Widnes were originally going to be called the Giants because one of the tallest men to live in the UK was butied nearby, but Huddersfield beat them to it. Why is Giants inapproriate for Hudds, but Rovers ok for fev?

I can't see what your beef is

Because Hudds Giants is a meaningless name, it involved no thought and it had no connection with Huddersfield. Their logo is rubbish as well.

It's not as bad as "blue sox" but nothing is.

I don't know why Rovers chose that name but it is commonly adopted by teams lacking a stable home rather than for commercial reasons. Wanderers is another such example.

I understand why clubs had to adopt monikers but some chose well and incorporated traditional nicknames such as Lions and Rovers; others picked names that at least had local relevance such as Sharks or Vikings; others picked names that had commercial value like Rhinos. But Huddersfield and Halifax managed to avoid all of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are confusing Vikings and Scandinavians. Viking means "raider".

I am aware of Widnes connections with Vikings. It's not a name I object to.

Because Hudds Giants is a meaningless name, it involved no thought and it had no connection with Huddersfield. Their logo is rubbish as well.

It's not as bad as "blue sox" but nothing is.

I don't know why Rovers chose that name but it is commonly adopted by teams lacking a stable home rather than for commercial reasons. Wanderers is another such example.

I understand why clubs had to adopt monikers but some chose well and incorporated traditional nicknames such as Lions and Rovers; others picked names that at least had local relevance such as Sharks or Vikings; others picked names that had commercial value like Rhinos. But Huddersfield and Halifax managed to avoid all of that.

so we've narrowed it down to Halifax, who no longer use the name, and Huddersfield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And some other clubs like Keighley allowed the fans to pick their name.

cougars was one of the most ridiculed by the reactionaries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are confusing Vikings and Scandinavians. Viking means "raider".

I am aware of Widnes connections with Vikings. It's not a name I object to.

Because Hudds Giants is a meaningless name, it involved no thought and it had no connection with Huddersfield. Their logo is rubbish as well.

It's not as bad as "blue sox" but nothing is.

I don't know why Rovers chose that name but it is commonly adopted by teams lacking a stable home rather than for commercial reasons. Wanderers is another such example.

I understand why clubs had to adopt monikers but some chose well and incorporated traditional nicknames such as Lions and Rovers; others picked names that at least had local relevance such as Sharks or Vikings; others picked names that had commercial value like Rhinos. But Huddersfield and Halifax managed to avoid all of that.

sharks. I'm led to believe that Hull id a seafaring town, and Hull FC no longer use the name.. Vikings has already been explained to you.

What makes something 'traditional' Rugby League has a tradition of innovation, adaprarion and change-new names for clubs falls well within that ambit.

What names are traditional and why?

Why would a team 70 miles inland name themselves after pirates? At the time wouldn't it have been as gratuitous as Hudds calling themselves the Giants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said before, the fans didn't like "Sharks", I do. Perhaps the club should have consulted them.

As for Rover, it doesn't just mean "pirate" even if Fev do have a pirate mascot, it also means someone who travels.

A "tradition of innovation" shouldn't mean that any old ###### is acceptable. It's best to ask the fans what they want, I doubt that Giants would have been anyone's choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cougars was one of the most ridiculed by the reactionaries

Because it was first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so we've narrowed it down to Halifax, who no longer use the name, and Huddersfield.

There are a few others I don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with rugby league being a combative team sport it's reasonable to expect 'soldier type' soubriquets.

However, for instance Widnes was a Viking settlement. I think your defining of Vikings as 'soldiers' by the way is a little one dimensional-they were farmers and trtaders as well, but no matter. Widnes were originally going to be called the Giants because one of the tallest men to live in the UK was butied nearby, but Huddersfield beat them to it. Why is Giants inapproriate for Hudds, but Rovers ok for fev?

I can't see what your beef is

At leeds the club took a fans poll as to what nickname would be incorportated into the clubs name,and it was overwhelming vote for "LOINERS"which is a term for citizens of leeds,but the club said "well we cant really market loiner,like we can Rhino",Cant see what Rhino has got to do with Kirkstall road or Burley road,which is where most of the support for the club came from in the early 20th century.I think the reason for RHINO was because of the rivalry they had at that time with a very successful Bradford "BULLS"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At leeds the club took a fans poll as to what nickname would be incorportated into the clubs name,and it was overwhelming vote for "LOINERS"which is a term for citizens of leeds,but the club said "well we cant really market loiner,like we can Rhino",Cant see what Rhino has got to do with Kirkstall road or Burley road,which is where most of the support for the club came from in the early 20th century.I think the reason for RHINO was because of the rivalry they had at that time with a very successful Bradford "BULLS"

that's right: good for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few others I don't like.

each to their own

out of interest what are they?

"most of them have little thought behind them, it is just a case of looking up a synonym for "soldier" or the name of a large animal"

since this

we have narrowd it down to 'a few'

anyway those nicknames in full

Wigan Warriors: aggressive name, and is alliterative

St Helens-derived from name of town and dates before SL

Warrington Wolves: heritage related

Widnes Vikings: historical connection

Huddersfield Giants: denotes size, stature and power

Catleford Tigers: the team historically wear black and yellow hoops

Bradford Bulls: alliterative, powerful snorting beast

Leeds Rhinos, as above but no alliteration

London Broncos: historic association with Brisbane Broncos

Hull Kingston Rovers: dates pre SL

Hull FC: predates much of modern sport history

Salford City Reds: describes the team and refers to historic nickname

Catalan Dragons: historic connotations

Wakefield Trinity Wildcats: combination of historic name and marketing based name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

swinton weren't officially called the Lons until post SL. Many club nicknames weren't or aren't official

I can only think of one synonym for 'soldier' in Sl and that's Wigan Warriors.

almost all apart from Wigan and Hudds-not sure about the Wolves, and maybe Wakefield who still use the name Trinity alongside Wildcats, although Wolves badge has a border of barbed wire, and rhinos is arguably the most successful of the lot alongside perhaps Bulls, have names relating to the culture and history of the area.

If Featherstone and Rochdale had only just decided to call themselves Rovers and Hiornets would they be criticised for it?

Originally Wigan were Wigan Wasps playing in blue and white hoops :wacko:, the wasps name was adopted much later by the once very successful Wigan swimming club. Wigan were slow in adopting an official tag, for me they should have just gone for Wigan Rugby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

each to their own

out of interest what are they?

I think Wigan could have done a lot better. Wigan had a very strong brand but Warriors is very common.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it was first.

far from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that but IIRC there was another Rochdale side which necessitated them calling themselves Rochdale X. And while there was no particular reason to choose Hornets, it wasn't done for commercial reasons.

I think most of us recognise the need for commercial interests in the game but they are a necessary evil.

On the whole I prefer names that say something about the club or area. The new clubs joining CC1 are All Golds (great name), Stags (fantastic) and err Oxford RLFC (boring).

Leeds Rhinos works very well as a device for flogging shirts but it's crass.

tell that to the kids in local primary schools and hospitals when Ronnie The Rhino turns up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Wigan were Wigan Wasps playing in blue and white hoops :wacko:, the wasps name was adopted much later by the once very successful Wigan swimming club. Wigan were slow in adopting an official tag, for me they should have just gone for Wigan Rugby.

I agree. Why does arguably the biggest rugby club in the UK need a moniker like Warriors? Bath RU are simply called Bath Rugby, so why cant Wigan do the same? Btw my own team Leigh will always be "Leigh Rugby" rather than the awful Cent-ur-io-ons 4 syllable nightmare we are seemingly stuck with.

I also really dislike Wakefield Trinity Wildcats. FFS just drop the Wildcats. Two nicknames is wrong (Salford City Reds is also near as bad for the same reason). Huddersfields is also garbage for reasons pointed out by others

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Wigan could have done a lot better. Wigan had a very strong brand but Warriors is very common.

so we're down to one, sorry two including the rhinos, arguably the most successful one of the lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Why does arguably the biggest rugby club in the UK need a moniker like Warriors? Bath RU are simply called Bath Rugby, so why cant Wigan do the same? Btw my own team Leigh will always be "Leigh Rugby" rather than the awful Cent-ur-io-ons 4 syllable nightmare we are seemingly stuck with.

I also really dislike Wakefield Trinity Wildcats. FFS just drop the Wildcats. Two nicknames is wrong (Salford City Reds is also near as bad for the same reason). Huddersfields is also garbage for reasons pointed out by others

presumably Kingston Rovers is wrong as well. Two names and the same number of syllables as Centurions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017