The club hasn't ever to my knowledge executed an "intense" marketing campaign. So we don't know how well it would work. There's no reason to suggest that a successful, well marketed Harlequins Rugby League club wouldn't be as appealing as a successful, well marketed All New London Broncos 2012 RLFC (or whatever we are called next).

I could say it might stand a better chance as Harlequins Ruby League is associated both with the sport we play (Rugby League) and our location (Quins = Twickenham to most people). But discard those arguments for a moment, because they probably show my bias.

If we embark on a costly and time consuming rebranding then think of the extra time and money that would left to actually spend on marketing. As no one needs reminding, we are a club with neither ample staff nor resources.



You've explained it like it is a simple cause and effect relationship. Lose the Harlequins name and colours and watch us reach our full potential! It is hardly that clear cut, otherwise we would have done it before Harlequins bailed us out by offering us three years rent free stay after the 'Broncos' had gone bust.

To suggest the Harlequins name has in any way contributed towards our current predicament is flawed as the club hasn't been successful or attracted the level of support to be viable entity under any of its previous guises. To say it has been an "anchor" is bordering on disingenuous.

The reason people don't flock to our games isn't because we are Harlequins. The reason is because for years on and off field performances have been poor. There were never any glory years, just glimpses of light.

I wrote it and it wasn't silly. Sure Saints were a good team and we couldn't have expected to beat them. Problem was that our team wasn't of a standard that could compete with them at all. To get the QuinsRL venture off to a good start, we =#FF0000had to compete. We weren't capable of that and should have known it. I'm sure that fixture was chosen to give the new venture a bumper send-off. Back-fired totally. Next season, let's start with a home game against Widnes, Wakefield or Bradford [

.
No, things had already gone wrong - those results just perpetuated the trend that was started in the first game.


Now I'm with you.

I agree with you Lambeth Quin, I too feel that the re-branding is a red-herring (possibly dreamt up as a way of justyfying a new SL license for a failing London club). I'm up for keeping the faith and looking forward to next season.

Mark, the link you have posted has some positive remarks re QRL and I think the majority of the posts on that thread are entirely reasonable, imo. Also, you say that their board doesn't mention RL but it does have a link to this board on the bottom left of their home page.

Furthermore, as you seem to be thin-skinned re what you perceive to be snide comments, then you'll forgive me for feeling that you are being "snide" referring to me as "Loyal Londoner". Either that or you are taking the complete pi$$.

"To support the activities and enterprises of the Harlequin Football
Club (hereinafter called “the Club”) both on and off the field; to
promote and facilitate the interest and activities of members of the
Association in their support for the Club; to represent the interests of
its members to the Club."

That is taken from the constitution of Quinssa. We ain't Harlequin Football Club. That is why they don't have much to do with Quins RL. Fair enough to my eyes.

Quote ="markrammond" They have made no effort and the supporters are disparaging, this is the general state of snide remarks made: www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/read ... 0,12530725 '" Erm, I actually wasted some of my time reading that, and seems like a load of mainly reasonable people being mainly reasonable. What's your beef? Maybe the Union club could have done more, but they're not a charity. Fact is as usual we royally stuffed this one up alone - no attempt at marketing beyond the sporadic half ars*d, and appalling performances on the field. We needed different outcomes in those two facets of the business, and might have had a chance. Any new name will also fail unless both are addressed (and we'll waste yet more time/resources starting from scratch yet again...). Brand has never been the main issue for this company, it's a massive straw man - it is, and has always been, poor execution.

Quote ="markrammond" They have made no effort and the supporters are disparaging, this is the general state of snide remarks made: www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/read ... 0,12530725 '" Erm, I actually wasted some of my time reading that, and seems like a load of mainly reasonable people being mainly reasonable. What's your beef? Maybe the Union club could have done more, but they're not a charity. Fact is as usual we royally stuffed this one up alone - no attempt at marketing beyond the sporadic half ars*d, and appalling performances on the field. We needed different outcomes in those two facets of the business, and might have had a chance. Any new name will also fail unless both are addressed (and we'll waste yet more time/resources starting from scratch yet again...). Brand has never been the main issue for this company, it's a massive straw man - it is, and has always been, poor execution.

161 games played as Harlequins Rugby League, 100 of these were losses with 56 wins and 5 draws. Points difference of
-1,417 and a seasons average of 19.5 competition points are all factors in why the club have failed to pack'em in since 2006. I doubt very much that our jersey or name had as bigger influence than the depressing stats above