With the Stobart Super League soon to be announced, I think it is time to address a problem that it has had for the advent of this era, as well as the traditional big hitters, such as Keighley and Fetherstone coming to the end of their time at the top of Rugby League, we saw a make shift solution to the games image problem through the advent of the 'Mascot' like Tigers, Warriors, Giants, and Rhinos. Names like the Chemics and the Dreadnoughts and Fartown have been ignored in favor of the Wildcats and Vikings and Giants, and the more concerning trend remains the ignoring of the classic names of 'Wakefield Trinity' and 'Bradford Northern'. Can many RL fans Under 16 name Neil Fox, Dave Valentine, Albert Rosenfeld, Brian Bevan and even Ellery Hanley?

16 years on, and although some names and 'brands' have been accepted, such as the Rhinos and the Giants, we currently have the older generation cringing at the cheesy new badges pushed upon them. Is it so outrageous to suggest that we should, as Rugby League fans, try to aim to see what they were promised, to see 'their clubs receive a greater profile nationally', as Rodney Walker put it - we should see our clubs return, not the clubs that the Super League era has put upon us. Wouldn't it be wonderful to see Wigan Rugby and Wakefield Trinity and Widnes Chemics return? Is it too much to ask to see the RFL glorify it's wonderful heritage of our game, a game that has faced attacks from all sides, yet refused to budge as a prominent member of the WRU said in the 1950 'Rugby League is yet an infant, but it should be strangled at birth' - and even as we expand the game, we should look to carry a universal belief in the games ethos and history across the nation.

I think it really is time for us to put aside the issues of franchising and the SC, and look at the serious issue, the destruction of our games Heritage, and the seeming lack of interest in it.

In my opinion tradition is important but so is remaining relevant. I think the vikings brand has been terrific for us, it hasn't impacted the reputation of the club but having a more marketable image is essential to hook the next generation as it has never been more difficult to entice them.

Bottom line is, I like being the a fan of the vikings. Chemicals are no longer part of the town, and whilst they will forever be part of our history I'm not that bothered about hanging on to the old nickname in an official capacity.

Don't know how people of other clubs feel but I know I'm not alone in Widnes. You will always get people moaning about bringing back winter rugby and the smell of wintergreen but change happens.

I'm more bothered about how we're treating some of the more traditional clubs as opposed to what we're calling them. Some of the new nicknames and logos are brilliant.

Why is it the RFL who are tossing aside history? It is the clubs who have chosen to retain these names. Wigan in particular had a great opportunity to ditch the unloved Warriors name when they were last taken over, but decided to retain it.

It may make many cringe - it does me to some degree - but most clubs, in fact all clubs, continue to drink deep at their wells of history whilst still having these names - it isn't a binary choice so I don't quite know where you are coming from. For sure RL is a progressive sport but I don't see any distinction between that and celebrating the past as all clubs do.

The more substantive point you make, which is the dislocation between Super League and the rest, is harder to address. The game needs a high profile top flight as its flagship and yet there isn't the financial or numerical support for many teams who truly meet the criteria for a flagship competition beyond nine or ten at most. There has to be a cut off and where the RFL can take action, as it continues to try to, is to provide a genuine competition for those in the national leagues - one which is worthy of winning in and of itself and where everything isn't just about getting promotion to Super League.

The attitudes of the fans of the clubs in the national leagues is difficult to change and easy to understand - yet the greater financial interest of the game lies in the ongoing strength of Super League. But applying the standards of a slightly misremembered yesterday to the problems of today is foolhardy.

Are you being serious??

The Rhinos brand is undoubtedly a success, but putting the Giants in that same bracket...you are deluded.

I suppose you long for the days of the Barracudas??

And how historic are these Widnes Chemics you speak of?

The modern names are almost completely accepted now, and certainly will be in the next 5-10 years...as people who are old enough to have seen Neil Fox, Dave Valentine, Albert Rosenfeld, Brian Bevan die off.

Like it or not, it's called progress and it happens whether we want it to or not.

And as metioned, it certainly isn't the RFL's "fault".

I like that Saints, Hull KR Hull FC (forget Hull Sharks) have remained traditional.

I think many of the monikers just don't bring much to the table, I think clubs should keep the Americanized brands as part of their community department, and keep mascots for the kids, but I've never met an adult who has said they like being known as the 'Wildcats'.

I might just be speaking on my own clubs behalf here as I think Wakefield have the worst 'brand'. I just think it's all very tacky and unbecoming of the sport. I cringe at the thought of Sheffield Owls vs Sheffield Blades.

However I must be wrong as the clubs still have these 'animals/warrior super fighting force' emblazoned on their merchandise every year

I don't see a problem, is it not just the game coming into the 21st century and appealing to the younger generation? I don't think the clubs have forgotten their heritage at all, the game just has to move on. As a franchise, it is much more marketable if they have a clear nickname (or brand) to display.

You know, I would have agreed with you, especially when it was introduced, but it really has become "normal" (obviously there is an entire tranche of people who it doesn't sit with).

Many people talk about "going down to Wildcats" in Wakefield now.

Having said that, it is also our premier lapdancing venue...

Whilst I refute Conorgiantsfan's assertion that the game is somehow "tossing aside history" there is to my mind a good argument to be had about the real benefits and/or success of many of these nicknames. It's virtually unknowable at most clubs whether they have really driven increased support - I don't see any particular evidence that Leeds, Wigan, Wakefield etc have actually derived much benefit from their respective appendages; or that it has done the Hull teams and St Helens much damage by not embracing, or ditching, them.

Where, as in the cases of Bradford and Keighley, it was completely tied in with a complete overhaul of everything the club represented, they were no doubt critical. Yet too many clubs have taken this rather slack "21st Century/younger generation/it must be right" approach, stuck a nickname on and not actually done anything else - certainly that was the case at Leeds; the driver for, slightly, increased crowds over the pre-Rhinos days I would assert has been a more succesful team.

I don't know whether tossing aside history was exactly fair really, but I think that it is concerning that we've simply forgotten the great names and stories of Rugby League. American Football fans know Joe Namath and Joe Montana. Football fans know George Best and Pele. Rugby Union fans know J.P.R Williams and others. Gaelic Football fans know Paidi O Se, yet Rugby League have no-one. I would also point to the 'success' of the Names, kids go to football games, they have no 'Wildcats'.

Also, I accept that Rhinos and Vikings have worked, and to be frank, in Huddersfield the Rugby team is now the Giants to most people, bar a minority who were around - therefore is a success as it has been accepted. But I would say the Wildcats, the Warriors even the Reds, although that name is well founded, have not brought anything new, and I would not put this down to 'progress' but simply renaming for the sake of renaming. Rugby League needs to strike a balance between progress and history I think.

"Giants" a success? A poor club - still a poor club.

"Vikings", a success? A great club for a short period of time, now trying to rebuild.

"Rhinos", always a relatively successful club, certainly so now.

"Wildcats", once a great club, trying to rebuild. Many in Wakfeild now refer to the "Wildcats" - under your measure of the Giants, therefore also a success.

And RL has no famous players? Someone better tell the RFL and Wembley to cancel the statue!

Your entire argument is ill-thought and baseless.

A success compared to what we once were, a club with very little support. 3,500 support, gone up 110% - that's a success in my book. From having a scattering of fans, Huddersfield Rugby, like it or not, is now synonymous with the 'Giants'.



It is a success as many fans have accepted the name.



See Widnes



Wakefield fans would rather be called Wakefield Trinity, and anybody over 12 sees the Wildcat name and cringes.



Ask 1000s of RL fans Under 16 to name who any of the people on the list are. Then ask them to talk about Pele or Best.



You're oblivious to the problem.

That's why we kept "Bluesox". Rampant success.

Cheers Nige