gnidir

I think this might be the start of the evolution of our international game. We are a pro sport, you play for the club that pays the most, but in our international game now, there is opportunity to play for the team that your heart lies with. I agree, it's not the traditional choice, but that hasn't worked for us in comparison to Rugby union for example. Maybe this is our way of doing this. We can settle on having one major club comp (Maybe 2, if Superleague gets its act together), but look at the affect the national teams have on these pacific nations, who would have no chance of building a business case to join the NRL. It might not be conventional, but maybe, just maybe, its a way forward. In short, who loses?

Since I moved to NZ, this took me a while to understand, but the best way I can explain it, is that what we see in Europe as nationality would be better described as ethnicity down here. I have suggested a fair few times that we would need to update the eligibility rules to reflect this, or we would lose the momentum that Tonga etc have generated. Personally, I wouldn't have gone great grandparent, but if you had an ancestor who had represented a nation, that should make you eligible. This means the dependents of Taumololo for example, could continue to represent Tonga, if they wanted to. My only issue with the international game is the multiple options one. Id say you can change once, but thats enough. The decision is who you want to go to war for, where does your heart lie. So lets not make a way for people to gain a rep jersey, for the sake of getting a rep jersey.

Well exactly. Was the purpose of these nicknames to bring in new people who didn't 'buy into' our sport? From the outside, I think we have, and lately increasingly do, look like a cheap council estate knock off. If we are aiming for big Professional organisation as an approach, like the NFL, I wonder if what we actually took, was just the nickname, and none of the professionalism off the field. What's quite unique in British sport is that the team represents a place, in working class communities at least. The 'INSERT COOL ANIMAL HERE' dont move from Preston to Aberdeen for business reasons (MK Dons aside) So, in naming a team, did we sell ourselves short? My opinion is Blue Sox is actually better than panthers as a name for Halifax (Not saying either are the best choice), because it at least considered the area, the people. Yet, it's hugely unpopular. So, moving forwards, should new teams be claiming the 'Cowbooys' 'Bills' 'Jaguars' etc, or would we, 30 years after the Super league revolution, be better off with the Gallant Youths, playing against the Dreadnoughts? As an aside, I do like the authenticity of some of the college football teams in the USA, and also the Green Bay Packers, named because of the factory workers. Packers fans go by the 'Cheeseheads', so there's a place for weirdness. I wonder if we are ignoring our own

Posing question: Would people have taken to the Halifax Blue Socks ? Or, Would they be more likely to get behind the Halifax Hawx Bux Maverix SaXons OR, 30 years later, are we, as a sport, still picking a name from a hat and hoping that this time it sticks? (Stix? )

I do wonder lately, do (Or did) clubs swarm to claim the 'cool' sounding names because they instantly draw popularity, or is the popularity of the nickname due to the NFL / NBA / NHL / MLB team making it sound cool over time? I think in 96, it seems like it was a deliberate attempt to modernise the perception of the clubs, but looking back, although I found some of it cool, it did turn into more of a copy of the american names, but perhaps without the same thinking. In Wigans case, they took the Warriors name, whilst, I think, Whitehaven were using it. Possibly because it was a double 'W'...... then, in time, they have moved from the town crest to that weird thing, which I dont really associate with Wigan. I did like a version on here that used the castle from the old town logo. Its like they are trying to fit Wigan around the Warriors, and losing some value in it (For me anyway) In Halifax case, was it a clamber to claim the 'Panthers' because its one of the 'cool' big cats, therefore kids will love it? I also wonder, based on Martins comment.... what are the best nicknames that Clubs have dropped? Would we like to see any of them return permanently?

Just for a bit of fun. I was going to start this with the title Blue Sox, but stick with me for a second...... Why is a Panther supposedly a better sporting identity than a Blue Sox? Why is a Rhino more appropriate than a Loiner? Why does Vikings sound more marketable than Chemics? Version of this topic have come up repeatedly over the years, and Blue Sox is usually near the top of the list of worst nicknames. But let's compare it with 2026. For me, Halifax have Swapped Blue Sox for a vomiting panther. The Blue Sox carried the 'X' from Fax, who wear (At least 50%) blue socks, and the area has a history of cloth making. Was it actually just too ahead of its time, or maybe too far a step as a name, and seen as unauthentic? I look now and wonder how the Rhinos, so often spotted in Medieval Leeds, became so successful, but the Blue Sox so disliked. More than this, do clubs just claim the cool sounding names and hope for the best. Prescott and Blackpool were there first, im not sure that went for them. For Halifax, would Lynx even be a better match!? Or, perhaps could there be something only one letter to the right?....... Thanks, if you are still reading at this point HaliFAX > Fax HalifAX > AX, Axe, geddit? Just wordplay you say, I agree... until..... the Gibbet! Halifax's own version of the Guillotine, but instead of the slanted blade, it instead used.... An Axe head! So, my controversial opinion. Blue Sox is a better thought out identity for Halifax than Panthers! and, accepting the fact that they could actually have just used a Fax machine as the logo, it was still the 90's..... Could there have been something quite special, just one letter to the right? What about other rebrands...... any thoughts?

I really hope they update the name. Bengals would be fine. 2 Vikings teams is bad enough. Surely we can find 35 unique and relevant nicknames for our clubs. I do wish them well though.

Oxen are a horrible brand, I mean, im not a fan of the collar bone manufacturer logos (They face the wrong direction), but F**! me, how much room do they need. The jersey would be fine, but the oversized sh** logos absolutely trash both the England and this jersey. Proper low class

Error in post

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAJKGMGA3Ho

thats a serious commitment, I do wonder what the RFLs concerns over the Crusaders are. If they were to collapse, it would hardly be national news, and if they manage to grow something, well, its cost the RFL nothing really. They have had some poor ownership, but that could be said for many clubs who were simply let back in as a Phoenix. My only real concern with them is there isn't really a coherent plan of what they are trying to do. Personally, I think put down roots in Wrexham, with odd home games in Colywn Bay, or other parts of North Wales is enough. I worry that putting a red dragon on a shirt and changing a name is thought to somehow interest a whole nation. I have read a few times that fans wanted a change from Crusaders last time, and that might be the thing, perhaps something authentic would appeal more to a core demographic. set that, grow from there. It would be a shame to lose presence in Wales at a time when even Union is struggling and cutting teams. There is still a sporting landscape, its just not at the imagined scale, and so, a local, community backed team could just carve out a long term future there. Either way, I wish them all the best.

Crazy Train Hurricanes? It would be a fantastic excuse for a walk out song at least

WTF is that! How hard is it to get a Leeds jersey right!? that looks like a council estate Parramatta jersey

the collar is like the GB jersey from the 90s, John Smiths logo, thick blue chevron, thin red each side. I can add a link. I dont mind it, I think a return to collars is overdue.

0% plus a minority of clubs would though, wouldn't it? im not sure of what's on the table. I do think the NRL is trying to grow the commercial elements of this, as opposed to 'buy' the league. Strong European competition paves the way to a World league, a World League brings in NFL level money. I get the impression that NRL are looking to bring some expertise, rather than dictate all terms, but they are looking at it through a commercial lens, whilst some clubs might not be able to. In a global game for example, how does a Castelford, or a Featherstone fit into that, for example.