burningmuscles

Let's face it... Unless either Wales or France get up to speed to play England competitively each season, then there is literally nothing that's going to plug the gap between club level, and playing Australia or New Zealand. Besides, Yorkshire isn't even a proper county anymore either. Parts of Yorkshire were annexed into Greater Manchester, Lancashire, and Cumbria. And now you have four separately governed counties based on different geography (one of which used to be called Humberside, now bizarrely called East "Riding" of Yorkshire)

I wonder why domestic and European soccer teams never adopted this trend of attaching monikers to their established names. Newcastle Magpies Manchester Red Devils Brighton & Hove Seagulls etc... It must be really difficult for a team simply named Everton to attract youngsters without a suffix that you can market and use as the basis for a mascot. Except it's not, because sporting culture follows different, more meaningful pathways through family lineage, TV exposure, and success on the field. In other words, I think these nicknames were simply vandalism of the clubs by the clubs themselves. I would argue they have had no noticeable benefits whatsoever on the success, or popularity of any club that decided to adopt one. Football has many ills, and faults, but not one club of fans would have stood by and watched their team name be altered in any way, shape, or form. The Hull City Tigers saga was concrete proof of that. Even naming-rights of stadiums are vehemently defended, because this stuff matters*. *in a sporting sense, not in the grand scheme of things, obviously.