I voted 'yes'. I think it works, especially with young children. The 'tags' that the clubs have adopted have been important in the SL era to give clubs easily recognisable brands. Regardless of tradition/history/whatever, the 'Warriors' brand is used effectively as a marketing tool and helps to get youngsters' attention.

I sat with 5-year old Miss JTB on Saturday night with the replay of the match on TV and when she spotted Mighty Max she was leaping around with excitement (and I don't think it was the Quavers). That can only be a good thing.

We added the tag because of the introduction of Super League.

Have we benefited from the 'Warrior' tag? I can't think of any evidence of us doing so. In regards to 'Warriors' being a world wide name, well due to lack of silverware and a lack of achievments on the pitch our name hasn't really been circulated world wide. In fact I doubt those outside of the UK who heard of Wigan pre-1996 know that we have changed our name to 'Warriors' because we have not done anything to warrent being in the world media.

But apart from Max, in what other way to way utilise our 'Warrior' name?

Drop it

We don't need to be called Warriors to have mascots for the kids

wrong........we won the first grand final, and went to 3 others.

i think the rest of the rugby league world (oz,nz) know by now that wigan are now wigan warriors. changing it back might confuse them.

mention "sea eagles" to me and i know you mean manly....thats how it works.
Knights? Roosters?
same thing.

it helps sell merchandise too........did we have merchandise pre superleague apart from a shirt and scarf?

I'll add another piece of annecdotal reasoning too Alex. I work in the music industry and a couple of years ago was working with a German production team. When they found out where I was from they asked did I support Wigan to which I, of course, replied yes. The response was 'must be good to have a team in the Premiership!'... The point is we live in a very rugby-centric community and it's very easy to think that the rest of the country/world follows suit. That's simply not the case. The Warriors tag gives us an extra level of branding that further differentiates us from the football team. Let's face it, if someone says they support the Yankies, The 49ers or the Redskins no one is in any doubt which team they're on about!

The simple fact is that no-one, including those voting to drop the tag, even thinks twice about using the Kangaroos, Kiwis or Lions tags; neither do they think twice about wearing gear emblazoned with the names and logos of American football/baseball teams that use branded nicknames. Hell, we don't even think twice about refering to the NRL teams as the Bulldogs, Sharks etc. It may take a couple generations but the same will be true of the Warriors tag.

The simple fact is that I know, from my own experience of introducing 2 new fans last season, that the Warriors tag does capture the imagination of new fans. I come from the Central Park era of Wigan R.L. but am not blind enough to see that things have changed since those days. As older fans we can choose to use the Warriors or not as personal taste dictates, but with so much more now vying for the attention of new/potential fans, anything that helps promote the club to this group is to be welcomed. After all, just like the younger players we are all currently getting behind, they are the future of our club!

I'm not bothered either way. My lad knows us as Wigan Warriors but I know us as Wigan. The fact that we're called Wigan Warriors doesn't mean I have to refer to us as that.

It's doing no harm at all.

Get it dropped ASAP in my opinion, its cheesy and pointless. We are Wigan R.L.F.C

I share this view, i over heard some young lads chatting at the bus stop last week "are you going watching the warriors on saturday".

To the younger generation (our future) we are known as the Warriors, we shouldn't just change the name back just because the older generation want to or dont see it as tradition. We have moved on just as the game has.

We incorporated the design into the finest shirt we have hever had!

Quote ="wigan pie man"wrong........we won the first grand final, and went to 3 others. i think the rest of the rugby league world (oz,nz) know by now that wigan are now wigan warriors. changing it back might confuse them. mention "sea eagles" to me and i know you mean manly....thats how it works. Knights? Roosters? same thing. it helps sell merchandise too........did we have merchandise pre superleague apart from a shirt and scarf?'" When you look at Wigan in pre-1996, two major trophies in 13 years is a lack of silverware, is it not? An appearence in a Grand Final is not silveware. If you ask anybody in NZ and Australia who the 'Warriors' are they'll tell you New Zealand Warriors. They see Wigan as 'Wigan' mainly because we made headlines when we were just 'Wigan'. Also, look at the following random Australian articles where not one of them mentions the name 'Warriors'. They simply do not relate us to the tag. www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... public_rss www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news/ro ... 23277.html www.smh.com.au/news/League/Wigan ... 00382.html In regards to merchendise, what merchendise does the name 'Warrior' help to sell/promote? The only thing I can remember that has been made with ''WARRIORS'' in mind was this:

Quote ="wigan pie man"wrong........we won the first grand final, and went to 3 others. i think the rest of the rugby league world (oz,nz) know by now that wigan are now wigan warriors. changing it back might confuse them. mention "sea eagles" to me and i know you mean manly....thats how it works. Knights? Roosters? same thing. it helps sell merchandise too........did we have merchandise pre superleague apart from a shirt and scarf?'" When you look at Wigan in pre-1996, two major trophies in 13 years is a lack of silverware, is it not? An appearence in a Grand Final is not silveware. If you ask anybody in NZ and Australia who the 'Warriors' are they'll tell you New Zealand Warriors. They see Wigan as 'Wigan' mainly because we made headlines when we were just 'Wigan'. Also, look at the following random Australian articles where not one of them mentions the name 'Warriors'. They simply do not relate us to the tag. www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... public_rss www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news/ro ... 23277.html www.smh.com.au/news/League/Wigan ... 00382.html In regards to merchendise, what merchendise does the name 'Warrior' help to sell/promote? The only thing I can remember that has been made with ''WARRIORS'' in mind was this:

Nail and head Hogan!

Any merchandise sold to younger fans for whom the Warriors tag is part of their club identity, Alex. You can't take things in isolation. The Warriors name is part of a greater whole. In fact I'll counter your argument by asking what merchandise does the 'Warrior' prevent from selling? It's a complete non-question.

Btw I'm not having a go at you...just answering your question.

I see your point, but I was 9 when I first started watching Wigan; we weren't called Warriors then, and if we were, it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. It was enough for me that I liked the sport - I was aware of "branding", due to the coverage of American Football on Channel 4, but it never occurred to me that we should do the same, and I certainly didn't develop an affiliation to any Gridiron teams because of it. This is despite the fact I actually quite like American Football.

The Mighty Max point - we can have a mascot without being called 'Warriors". Can't we?

Yes - you still see people walking round in Ellgren gear, presumably because of the tat that has been on offer in recent years.

Oh I know, it's just a good debate.

But what I'm trying to say is that if Warriors does attract new support and better our club then fantastic! Let's keep it. But, we do absolutely nothing to utilise our ''WARRIORS'' name. It doesn't attract people, it's not created new merchendise, it's not created an affiliation or a new identity. We certainly wouldn't lose out on anything should we remove it from our name, would we?

The Warriors name isn't a hinderance, it's just pointless.

Nor me Robinson. But then people didn't used to realise that they needed cars to get around. What's wrong with the good old horse n cart!

Things move on. There is far more vying for children's attention today, whether that be a premiership football team in the town or the latest computer game. Anything that gives an extra edge, whether that be a major one like the recent low season ticket prices at the Giants (

), or new approaches to marketing and branding is to be applauded. It all adds up.

No problem with that.

My view is that we should get rid of the tag, but mainly for the reasons Alex points out - that it doesn't get used.

I'm not a fan, myself, but that doesn't cloud my judgement on the matter. If we had used it, promoted it, people had taken to it, and were actually GETTING new fans on the back of it, and selling loads of merchandise, then I would vote to keep it.

Maybe the question should not be 'keep it or dump it'? It should be 'USE it or dump it'

Lasy years merchandise out sold anything previous.

"Recent years" means further back than last year. No point being selective. The Kooga stuff is reasonable. The Patrick and JJB stuff WAS complete tat.

amen to that

Agree with that. Probably a much better point than the poll on offer.

So last year wasnt recent?

The JJB stuff was awful yes, that can be said about anything JJB manufacture. But hey at least they got the stuff made on time

Just had a text off a mate of mine asking about the new shirt. His wife bought one at the game on Saturday and when they got it home it had no Kooga or Wigan crest on it.

Drop the Warriors, bring back Kelvin the Gorilla and move back to Central Park. Job done.