Names : Sun Nov 27, 2016 2:50 pm  

I see Wakey and Hunslet are the two latest clubs to revert back to their original club names " or at least drop the animal, bird bit off the back" Wonder if Huddersfield will follow suit at some point . I have to say that the Giants doesn't bother me at all, For me Mr Davy can call them what he wants. Some seem to suit better than others to me, Bulls and Rhinos i would say have been the best, with perhaps the Giants and Wolves behind them, Tiger isn't bad either.

I feel that eventually League will have to become a City game to survive, I can envisage maybe a 16 team league, all City teams with realistic TV sponsorship, There is no way IMO it can survive in It's present form indefinitely , I can see the Names being far more acceptable then. Be a while yet though before the penny drops that 12 clubs TV earnings can't support 3 leagues, certainly not on the peanuts they get now anyway.

Re: Names : Sun Nov 27, 2016 5:26 pm  

Jo Jumbuck wrote:

I see Wakey and Hunslet are the two latest clubs to revert back to their original club names " or at least drop the animal, bird bit off the back" Wonder if Huddersfield will follow suit at some point . I have to say that the Giants doesn't bother me at all, For me Mr Davy can call them what he wants. Some seem to suit better than others to me, Bulls and Rhinos i would say have been the best, with perhaps the Giants and Wolves behind them, Tiger isn't bad either.

I feel that eventually League will have to become a City game to survive, I can envisage maybe a 16 team league, all City teams with realistic TV sponsorship, There is no way IMO it can survive in It's present form indefinitely , I can see the Names being far more acceptable then. Be a while yet though before the penny drops that 12 clubs TV earnings can't support 3 leagues, certainly not on the peanuts they get now anyway.

I agree Jumbuck I have said the same for years if the lower league RL clubs were industrial concernes most would have gone to the wall years ago.

Re: Names : Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:28 pm  

Jo Jumbuck wrote:

There is no way IMO it can survive in It's present form indefinitely ,

Didn't they say that 120 years ago?

Re: Names : Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:34 pm  

name or no name who really cares?!

Re: Names : Mon Nov 28, 2016 2:06 pm  

You could go back to been the barracuda's.

Re: Names : Mon Nov 28, 2016 2:25 pm  

Tigerade wrote:

You could go back to been the barracuda's.

'Arena 84ers'

Re: Names : Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:37 pm  

brearley84 wrote:

name or no name who really cares?!

The team with no name eh, or the Huddersfield no names.

Re: Names : Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:28 pm  

the way we perform at times .........LEMMINGS would suit better maybe?
sorry - a bit harsh ! (but true)!

Re: Names : Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:47 pm  

Should go back to FARTOWN GIANTS if we have to keep the silly american nickname either that or good old fashion HUDDERSFIELD RLFC

Re: Names : Tue Nov 29, 2016 5:01 pm  

We've never been Fartown Giants lol

Giants is embedded now, no need to change back, in fact I'd say it would be more damaging

Huddersfield Giants aka the Fartowners

The only change I'd like to see is swap 1895 on the badge for 1866