The Nickname, The Moniker, The Mascot

[Tommygilf]

Why did Warrington get rid of Zingari??

[wiganermike]

12 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Why did Warrington get rid of Zingari??

Presumably as they obtained a settled home ground as I believe Zingari (an Italian dialect word for gypsies) referred to them not having a home venue and travelling around to play. That former moniker has been covered in threads on various fora previously. Were they still using it then perhaps this would have been a club moniker that came in for criticism and came to be changed/dropped as others have been.

[wiganermike]

10 hours ago, idrewthehaggis said:

Exeter Chiefs

In our post post modernist world, demonstrative declarations of admiration for native American warrior hood is mere offence now. Yes Calvin, it might have been acceptable in the 80's, but not now.

Still crude all that happened is a badge alteration. 

Sale Sharks.

In the historical lexicon of Cheshire and Manchester, I do not recall a Shark having any relevance.

A worker bee - yes.

A grinning Cat - yup.

But shark, not even late down the Ship Canal. 

You can imagine it at the PR consultancy "brain storm" (as they would have been called then) and Hugo and Clemency are debating what rhythms with Sale.

In the great alliteration game, clearly they ditched Sailors, Smugglers, Skinny Dippers, Saints, Swans, Seagulls, Shamen, Sanitarians and so on.

Meanwhile the more robust RL would have merely looked at the average remaining punter on a Friday nigh/Saturday morning 2am in Leeds and Wigan, where a many rhino lass and warrior laddie is abound.

 

 

 

With regard to the relevance of sharks in Cheshire, the area contains large salt deposits (and mines) as a legacy from the period of prehistory when it was covered by a sea so at that stage at least sharks could have been found in Cheshire. I suspect as you say the name was selected for alliterative reasons as with many others rather than as reference to the ancient sea though a link could be claimed to exist.

[Sports Prophet]

2 hours ago, theswanmcr said:

It doesn’t matter whether you find it offensive or not - you’re not the group potentially being offended.

why should one person’s offence matter more than another person’s? If I am offended, then yes I am in the group being offended.

anyway, to the thread. Chiefs is a terrible mascot for a team in Exeter, as is Raiders for a club in Canberra, Panthers for a club in Penrith and Titans for a club on the Gold Coast.

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

It did work well for Carlisle though. An example of a name that you did hear fans use and which seemed to fit the club.

I don't think there's ever any hard and fast rules for what will work and what doesn't. To my eye, for example, the Rhinos branding at Leeds is just really poor and yet it has obviously won people over and now is the natural name for the club.

As ever, though, I would advise anyone interested in such things to spend some happy hours trawling the Minor League Baseball website - or seeking out independent/unaffiliated baseball clubs and leagues in the US.

There is obviously a difference between using a moniker, and one where the club embrace it to the point where the fans use the theme for everything. My own club Widnes for instance use the Vikings, and it appears on the logo and the odd bit of merchandise but it's hardly a situation where thousands of fans attend wearing horned helmets etc. 

[Maximus Decimus]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Why did Warrington get rid of Zingari??

More importantly why did they get rid of the Wolfs?

[theswanmcr]

6 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

why should one person’s offence matter more than another person’s? If I am offended, then yes I am in the group being offended.

anyway, to the thread. Chiefs is a terrible mascot for a team in Exeter, as is Raiders for a club in Canberra, Panthers for a club in Penrith and Titans for a club on the Gold Coast.

Of course it can matter for one person more than another. If you’ve no Native American heritage then calling a team chief ‘chiefs’ has no historical or cultural significance - you’re only ‘offended’ because you think it’s ridiculous which is not the same.

I agree with you on all those club names though

[Maximus Decimus]

2 hours ago, theswanmcr said:

It doesn’t matter whether you find it offensive or not - you’re not the group potentially being offended.

And if a group does find it offensive then of course it’s your right to call them drama queens if you want - but your personal viewpoint is not from a member of that group.

I couldn’t really care less either way but if a group is offended, and has long called for this change, then it’s just common decency - not some nonsense ‘woke’ catchphrase - to look at it again.

The Chiefs example is a rare one, in that an established group speaking on behalf of a community have asked that it be stopped. This does then put the group keeping wanting to keep it in a difficult position morally.

However, I do think there is an oversensitivity. I can certainly understand in the US, where there is a Native American population why those stereotypes could be damaging but a group of English people enjoying it in a way akin to drinking Guinness and wearing a Leprechaun hat on St Patrick's day is hardly going to cause a lot of damage. This is also a good example in that Irish people don't tend to be bothered by non-Irish people celebrating St Patrick's day in this way. Watch this space though.

Also, I think Wokeism absolutely does exist. Yes it is imprecise, overdone and used politically but it is the best current descriptor for a phenomenon that exists. One its fundamental features is the taking of extreme offence over the smallest thing. I could absolutely see a scenario where some people kick up a stink about the use of Warriors because of its connotation with violence; or Vikings because of rape and pillaging, Centurions because the Romans used slavery and even Rhinos because they are making light of an endangered species.

The question then becomes whether offence in itself is enough to warrant change.

[Maximus Decimus]

Also, how has nobody mentioned Wakefield Trinity Wildcats?

[John Rhino]

On 11/02/2022 at 15:21, Eddie said:

Was it really Marksman? Well I never! 

The name of the Mansfield Brewery best bitter

[Eddie]

8 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

The Chiefs example is a rare one, in that an established group speaking on behalf of a community have asked that it be stopped. This does then put the group keeping wanting to keep it in a difficult position morally.

However, I do think there is an oversensitivity. I can certainly understand in the US, where there is a Native American population why those stereotypes could be damaging but a group of English people enjoying it in a way akin to drinking Guinness and wearing a Leprechaun hat on St Patrick's day is hardly going to cause a lot of damage. This is also a good example in that Irish people don't tend to be bothered by non-Irish people celebrating St Patrick's day in this way. Watch this space though.

Also, I think Wokeism absolutely does exist. Yes it is imprecise, overdone and used politically but it is the best current descriptor for a phenomenon that exists. One its fundamental features is the taking of extreme offence over the smallest thing. I could absolutely see a scenario where some people kick up a stink about the use of Warriors because of its connotation with violence; or Vikings because of rape and pillaging, Centurions because the Romans used slavery and even Rhinos because they are making light of an endangered species.

The question then becomes whether offence in itself is enough to warrant change.

Weirdly, I’ve learned from this forum that Leigh aren’t called Centurions because of the Romans but because they were 100 years old when they got the moniker. 

[The Art of Hand and Foot]

Rovers, warriors, centurions, hornets, town, city, devils, Vikings, knights, crusaders, raiders, hawks, fc are all ten a penny. On the other hand there's only one Roughyeds!

Edited February 12, 2022 by The Art of Hand and Foot

[Leyther_Matt]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

Weirdly, I’ve learned from this forum that Leigh aren’t called Centurions because of the Romans but because they were 100 years old when they got the moniker. 

100 years old as a RL club, but had existed for 20ish years before the split. Could have been applied to any of the founder members still in existence in reality. 

[Sports Prophet]

Expansion teams seem equally can find it hard to come up with a good mascot.

Brisbane Bombers was universally panned. Not because it’s a bad one. It’s just a bad one for that club.

Western Reds with their red kangaroo was a great one. Now they instead use Perth Pirates. A very poor version.

I prefer them when they have an attachment to the area the club represents.

[Martyn Sadler]

On 11/02/2022 at 16:29, Damien said:

I always thought Halifax Blue Socks was terrible in terms of English Rugby League. I know some U.S sports teams have had similar names for over a century but its not really offering much as a 1990s random choice out of nowhere.

It was actually the Blue Sox.

And I thought it was a very good name for several reasons.

1 The club plays in blue

2 The name suggests the textile industry that was once a major feature of the town of Halifax

3 The Halifax fans used to chant the Blue Sox moniker.

4 The name was unique at the time Halifax adopted it. No other significant team in the world shared that nickname at the time, although some defunct baseball teams had used that moniker but had stopped doing so long before 1996. Since 1996 the most prominent club to use the moniker is the Sydney Blue Sox, who play in the recently formed Australian Baseball League.

The big mistake the Halifax club made was not obtaining a trademark for the name, so that anyone else wanting to use it would have to pay them a fee.

I found it surprising that they ditched the moniker, but that was mainly at the instigation of one of their most assertive supporters.

I'm not sure that the moniker 'Panthers' has as much relevance to Halifax.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, Martyn Sadler said:

It was actually the Blue Sox.

And I thought it was a very good name for several reasons.

1 The club plays in blue

2 The name suggests the textile industry that was once a major feature of the town of Halifax

3 The name was unique at the time Halifax adopted it. No other significant team in the world shared that nickname at the time, although some defunct baseball teams had used that moniker but had stopped doing so long before 1996. Since 1996 the most prominent club to use the moniker is the Sydney Blue Sox, who play in the recently formed Australian Baseball League.

The big mistake the Halifax club made was not obtaining a trademark for the name, so that anyone else wanting to use it would have to pay them a fee.

I found it surprising that they ditched the moniker, but that was mainly at the instigation of one of their most assertive supporters.

I'm not sure that the moniker 'Panthers' has as much relevance to Halifax.

I know it was Blue Sox. Predictive text.

It was a rubbish name and gave the club nothing to work with. Its a marketers nightmare. More importantly Halifax fans thought so too. Your points 1-3 are awfully tenuous.

I don't see how not trademarking it was the big mistake. Im not even sure that would stop anyone else using it without a fee anyway. It may prevent another Halifax Blue Sox but I doubt it would stop someone else from another sport, from a different town and with a different logo from using it.

Anyway that is a mute point. The very fact that by your admission, no one else of note has bothered with the name in near 3 decades should tell you how poor it is. For a century before that no one of note did either, just a few random minor Baseball teams. Hardly a moneymaker even if your trademark point was valid, which again I doubt.

The big mistake was not listening to what fans wanted. Ignore them at your peril.

Rhinos in Leeds and Bulls in Bradford had no relevance either but took off far more successfully than Blue Sox which was one of the biggest failures.

[Martyn Sadler]

33 minutes ago, Damien said:

I know it was Blue Sox. Predictive text.

Yes, I can see that predictive text played a big part in your post.

 

38 minutes ago, Damien said:

It was a rubbish name and gave the club nothing to work with. Its a marketers nightmare. More importantly Halifax fans thought so too. Your points 1-3 are awfully tenuous.

If you define a good name as being a distinctive one, then it was an excellent name.

And my points 1 to 3 are factual, not tenuous. As with any name, some fans like it and some don't, but I don't think the fans would chant a name they didn't like.

41 minutes ago, Damien said:

I don't see how not trademarking it was the big mistake. Im not even sure that would stop anyone else using it without a fee anyway. It may prevent another Halifax Blue Sox but I doubt it would stop someone else from another sport, from a different town and with a different logo from using it.

Try setting up a company and calling yourself Apple, or Tesco, and so on.

 

42 minutes ago, Damien said:

Anyway that is a mute point.

Presumably you'll claim this was predictive text again.

 

42 minutes ago, Damien said:

The very fact that by your admission, no one else of note has bothered with the name in near 3 decades should tell you how poor it is. For a century before that no one of note did either, just a few random minor Baseball teams. Hardly a moneymaker even if your trademark point was valid, which again I doubt.

I suspect that the Sydney Blue Sox have trademarked the name, but even if they haven't, you seem to have a strange grasp of what is and isn't marketable.

 

46 minutes ago, Damien said:

The big mistake was not listening to what fans wanted. Ignore them at your peril.

It all depends which fans you listen to. The fan who voted himself onto the 'advisory group' who wanted to ditch the moniker listened to no one but himself - although he did have a very loud voice. He was motivated primarily by anti-Nigel Wood sentiment, given that Nigel had been the club CEO who introduced the moniker.

 

46 minutes ago, Damien said:

Rhinos in Leeds and Bulls in Bradford had no relevance either but took off far more successfully than Blue Sox which was one of the biggest failures.

The Rhinos and Bulls did take off, which tends to illustrate that marketing spend is the crucial factor.

Incidentally, are you this Damian, who presumably was upset when the club ditched its moniker?

[Damien]

34 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Yes, I can see that predictive text played a big part in your post.

 

If you define a good name as being a distinctive one, then it was an excellent name.

And my points 1 to 3 are factual, not tenuous. As with any name, some fans like it and some don't, but I don't think the fans would chant a name they didn't like.

Try setting up a company and calling yourself Apple, or Tesco, and so on.

 

Presumably you'll claim this was predictive text again.

 

I suspect that the Sydney Blue Sox have trademarked the name, but even if they haven't, you seem to have a strange grasp of what is and isn't marketable.

 

It all depends which fans you listen to. The fan who voted himself onto the 'advisory group' who wanted to ditch the moniker listened to no one but himself - although he did have a very loud voice. He was motivated primarily by anti-Nigel Wood sentiment, given that Nigel had been the club CEO who introduced the moniker.

 

The Rhinos and Bulls did take off, which tends to illustrate that marketing spend is the crucial factor.

Incidentally, are you this Damian, who presumably was upset when the club ditched its moniker?

And the predictable condescending reply. You really don't like differing opinions do you?

I don't define a good name as being a distinctive name. I certainly wouldn't claim one to be excellent on the basis of that. I don't know what sane person would. Your logic is just bizarre.

Yes Halifax playing in blue, a long gone textile industry and a name you say was unique at that time is not tenuous when it comes to the very American Blue Sox moniker. As another Halifax fan has already said Halifax Blues is much better than Halifax Blue Sox if you are going down the Blue route. Blue Sox is just a lame, unoriginal and very American moniker.

I can't believe you are seriously comparing Blue Sox, a name that has existed for over a century, to Apple or Tesco. That is a woeful comparison and you evidently know absolutely nothing about how trademarks work. The very fact you think this is the big mistake Halifax made is even more laughable.

At the end of the day you think Blue Sox is marketable, I don't. I certainly don't think it is the kind of name that gets kids engaged or would have attracted a younger audience like Bulls and Rhinos did. And the fact is it didn't. I also think it is you that has a strange grasp of what is marketable. 2 long, rambling posts and you have still not mentioned one thing about what is marketable about Blue Sox. 

The fact is the Blue Sox name was a huge failure, backed up by Halifax dropping it. The fans didn't want it and didn't choose it. Indeed the club didn't even bother reusing it when they returned to using a moniker, preferring Panthers instead.

[fevtom]

I find most monikers cringy at best or downright embarrassing at worst but I can put up with them for marketing reasons, drawing in kids etc.

I generally think they’re done tastefully in rugby league but my main gripes are when the badge looks like some kind of clipart used by an 11 year old (Rochdale Hornets, old Keighley Cougars etc but there are far worse examples abroad) or the americanised over use where you have grown men running around shouting “go wolfpack” or “go dolphins”.

Castleford Tigers, Warrington Wolves etc do well with their branding but personally I prefer the more traditional names.

[gingerjon]

10 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

The big mistake the Halifax club made was not obtaining a trademark for the name, so that anyone else wanting to use it would have to pay them a fee.

Halifax Blue Sox registered as a trademark in 1996.

Link: https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00002068402

[The Art of Hand and Foot]

Weren't Halifax originally going to be called the halifax bombers? But certain sensitivities overruled it? I always felt bluesox was a last minute rush job.

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, The Art of Hand and Foot said:

Weren't Halifax originally going to be called the halifax bombers? But certain sensitivities overruled it? I always felt bluesox was a last minute rush job.

Bombers won a poll (I believe) and this is often used as an argument that you should always respect the public vote in such matters.

In other news, 'Rhinos' did not win the poll for the Leeds nickname.

[Gerrumonside ref]

I was surprised that a new team in the NRL was launched with just a nickname such as the Dolphins.

I don’t understand really how that will work in the long run unless the other NRL teams ditch reference to their place names too.

That seems drastic - is it really the direction of travel in Australia?  A move towards every franchise lovers dream scenario.

Edited February 14, 2022 by Gerrumonside ref

[Damien]

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Halifax Blue Sox registered as a trademark in 1996.

Link: https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00002068402

Yes, thanks for that. Obviously the important point is that is Halifax Blue Sox and their logo and as I said yes you can do that and prevent someone else becoming another Halifax Blue Sox. However that is quite different from thinking you can just register Blue Sox and prevent any club, in any sport, in any part of the world from using it without paying you royalties.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

In other news, 'Rhinos' did not win the poll for the Leeds nickname.

What did win?