RugbyLeagueGeek

False equivalence

Very possibly! Cas fans may not be happy either! Although a blue and red V isn't as synonymous with Wakey as a red V is with Saints.

Yes, but in the same breath, there needs to be a long term plan for the future of the international game, so that any England branding is future-proofed. I.e. if the powers-that-be decided to use the old GB shirt for England (on the assumption that the GB concept is dead and buried forever), then they'd have to make sure that GB doesn't suddenly make a reappearance again, thus risking causing further confusion to the branding/identities of the 2 teams.

I 100% agree that the V is distinctive branding for rugby league and we should definitely use it. I'm not sure that a double red V would appease the anti-Saints brigade though, and the blue and red may offend those who want to see a return of GB. Red with a white V arguably looks too much like Wales (although we haven't played them for 8 years). A white shirt with a navy blue V wouldn't clash with anything to my knowledge, but would offend those who want to stick with the colours of the flag. As would a blue shirt with white V. But the underlying issue with this whole branding topic for me is not about the views of the relatively small number of people in the country who are already fans of England RL - we're going to support them regardless of whether they're wearing white, red or blue. It's about creating an identity that raises an awareness of the team and the sport of rugby league amongst the millions of people in the country who don't even know what RL is. That's the whole point of any branding - to increase awareness of your product. It ain't straightforward! But totally agree that the V definitely needs to be on there.

Exactly. So no need to be constrained by colours on a flag. It all links back to the branding and what identity we want for our sport and national team.

But you don't need to be constrained by the colours on the flag - Australia and New Zealand aren't. Germany and the Netherlands aren't in football either, for example. Even England football have had blue on their strip for as long as I can remember, despite there being no blue on the flag. White every time means that we'll never have an identity that is sufficiently distinct from union, and that's a big problem for me. Whilst I wouldn't have a problem with a white shirt if it had a distinctive red V, there are loads of fans who don't seem keen because it's too close to Saints. So it's either got to be predominantly red or blue for me.

I could definitely get on board with that. It would have a much clearer distinction from the other code, which is desperately needed IMO.

And yet it is an England shirt. As is the home England hockey shirt which is also red.

Stick a navy and white V on that and I reckon it'd look great! Navy shorts and it'd still be recognisably England. I just don't buy that we can only play in predominantly white because of the flag.

For me it isn't a case of being scared about being mixed up, it's just a practical approach to try and create a distinct identify that differs from theirs. Given that this thread is about branding, I can't imagine why anybody marketing a product would choose to base their branding on a very similar appearance to that of one of their major competitors. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Unless they are trying to ride on the other product's coat-tails and are happy to be seen as a poor relation, like Aldi or Lidl's own brands. To be fair, that isn't what I said. The swathes of armchair viewers do not define RL by GB - instead they do not even know what rugby league is. The point is not to let these people "dictate what shirts we use", because they neither know nor care about rugby league at the moment. Instead, the point is to help these people realise that there is different sort of rugby to union. A major part of this is having infinitely more fixtures for the national team, and another part is creating a distinct identity for that team. If you are happy not to try and engage with this bigger potential audience, then it's only logical to expect RL to be regarded largely as an irrelevance by the wider population. I only got into RL by watching GB internationals as a kid. I knew very little about RL or the intracacies of the game, or how it was distinct from RU. But I knew instantly that I was watching GB RL, because they looked completely different from England RU. Please understand - this isn't a GB vs England point. This is about the branding and appearance of the national team.

And yet England football have featured blue on their kit for years. England cricket wear blue in their one-dayers and have for 40 odd years. Australian sporting colours are green and gold despite neither being on the flag. But if we were to stick to red and white. England hockey wear red as their home shirt. Perhaps the most famous English sporting image of all time is Bobby Moore lifting the World Cup wearing a red shirt. So there's no reason why we need to have predominantly white jerseys and risk increased confusion with RU. If it were one or two then I would agree with you, but unfortunately it's hundreds of thousands of armchair sports viewers who know extremely little about rugby league. Where I live, when I talk to the uninitiated about rugby league, the most common questions I get or used to get are "is that the one Jonny Wilkinson plays?" or "is that the one England plays?" (meaning RU in the 6 Nations). It's not about whether it's copying or not. It's about creating a distinct identity for our sport and our national team. Unfortunately we haven't got it at the moment, and the sport needs to be a lot smarter to get some easy wins in terms of increasing public awareness. As I mentioned earlier, you wouldn't have pepsi deciding to use all red cans in case consumers confused it with coca cola. The layperson out there has no clue why/how rugby league is different to union, so let's at least go for an easy win and have a visual distinction between the 2 sports.

For me, the previous England logo screamed Sports Direct and knock-off England football supporters gear much more than the current one. It's virtually identical, and one of the reasons a lot of us hated it when it was launched. It just contributed to subconsciously reinforcing a market stall image for the sport for me.

The V is synonymous with Rugby League. Hoops far less so, as a number of union and soccer teams have them. Get a V on the England shirt! And get away from the white - make it predominantly blue or red. Rugby League having a predominantly white shirt is too similar to union. Most laypeople outside the heartlands don't really understand the 2 different sports, so don't confuse matters further by having kits that are too similar - make it very different. Otherwise it's akin to pepsi trying to compete with coca cola and using the same colour schemes on all their products. When I first got into RL it was through watching internationals, and this was what the national team looked like compared to union: There was a massive visual distinction between the two sports, so a novice could tell exactly what they were watching. In contrast, the most recent England kits look like this: Far too similar for the uninitiated outside of the heartlands (i.e. who our target audience needs to be in order to raise our profile and grow). As a sport with a relatively low profile amongst the wider public, we really don't do ourselves any favours. If we don't develop a significantly different image, we run the risk of the wider public judging us in comparison to union like the examples below I don't really want Rugby League to be perceived by the wider public as Norpak...

Not everyone, but a lot.

I think a lot of people have quickly forgotten about Tyson Fury's views which led for a call to be banned from the BBC Sports Personality awards, only for him to become a bit of a media darling in the past year.

Fair play fellas - you've fished me back in with those classic comments. Priceless! I'm learning all about loyalty from people who say they'll stop supporting their club if they can't get promoted to Super League - that's outstanding loyalty right there! And one of you is refusing to go and support the national team because you don't like the coach!!! Phenomenal loyalty! Remind me to make sure that I've got a pair of loyalists like you either side of me when it's time to go over the top of the trenches! I'm off to go and learn about loyalty now, because evidently I've been operating under a different definition all these years...

That's a bit disappointing - I thought you were above childish comments and wanted a genuine discussion which is why you kept coming back to it. I'm out.

Not from a commercial point of view. It's about total numbers. Total numbers of eyes of branding, total numbers of subscriptions sold etc. The Leeds support may be a smaller proportion of cake compared to somewhere like Leigh or Featherstone, big it's a far far bigger cake.

For me, yes. I believe we need the biggest clubs with the biggest supporter bases (or the potential for the biggest supporter bases, given typical fluctations around form) ring-fenced in the top division in order to maximise commercial opportunities.

I bet some youngsters who grew up watching Hull FC in Super League did. If KR disappeared tomorrow, then a big chunk of fans would also disappear. But over time, those youngsters with no affiliation who are predisposed to enjoying rugby over soccer would gravitate towards Hull FC as the biggest game in town. I expect the same would happen with Leigh and youngsters gravitating to Wigan. Kids will see something that inspires them and gravitate towards that. It's why some kids in India fall in love with Manchester United, for example. And now the same thing is happening with Liverpool, because they're the big team who are inspiring youngsters. 15-20 years ago it was Arsenal and Chelsea. This has been the case throughout my lifetime, with very few kids at school wearing shirts of the local football team, and most wearing shirts of whoever was most successful at the time. Moreover, by your logic, any fans that a club loses due to relegation would be replaced by an equivalent number of fans supporting the promoted club, so any difference in overall support for the game would therefore be negligible. I personally don't think this is the case, as some clubs are bigger than others, which is why I believe that the game needs to ring-fence those bigger clubs.

And by the same argument, if he's wrong then any 'damage' would be repairable. Why? It isn't like kids growing up in Birmingham who have no idea what rugby league is. As you say, they have big SL clubs already on their doorsteps that the best players already gravitate to.

What is the squad make-up of typical Championship clubs? Do they draw a majority of players from their own town, or do they recruit ex-academy players from Super League clubs. Genuine question - I don't know the answer. I'm not convinced this would be the case. Clubs like Leigh East and Wath Brow were consistently strong in the NCL during licencing years, despite being in areas where the pro team wasn't in SL. With the SL clubs now having to run reserve teams, there are still going to be plenty of playing opportunities for players to aspire to. Looking forward, if there wasn't a pro club in Leigh, wouldn't local youngsters who enjoy rugby ultimately just end up popping the 5 miles up the road and gravitating to Wigan for their pro rugby fix? Not every town has a pro cricket team but it doesn't seem to stop talented players gravitating to their most local county.

As someone who unfortunately hasn't been to either, would the atmosphere at the new ground be markedly better if they had standing down one side like Warrington do?

So does licencing. With the added benefit of clubs being able to put together long-term business plans and long term player recruitment and development plans, without the fear of potential relegation after just one season hanging over them.

No doubt a few, but I've not heard a compelling enough argument to convince me that P&R in its current format is in the sport's best interests.