What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

2018 Jerseys/Logos/Sponsorships

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hello, I'm The Doctor

First Grade
Messages
9,124
You're naive if you believe that...

Also I agree with you that for a multitude of reasons it'd be better for them to stick with the Tigers brand this late in the game, but what is best for the club and what a powerful group of ex-Magpies dripping in nostalgia and desperately wishing for a return to the 'glory days' want are two very different things.

For mine it's not a matter of if the Magpies will at least attempt to re-brand the NRL team as the Magpies it's a matter of when, and their attempt will have nothing to do with what is best or what is most logical for the club or their business it'll be purely for their own emotional reasons.

I think you are right to a degree, however the Wests group have shown a lot of restraint in this area. Where they could have taken over totally when Balmain defaulted, they have given Balmain every opportunity to get back on their feet.

Maybe this is entirely cynical, Wests trying to look like the “good guys”. But that still shows that they are very aware of public image.

I think there is a nice middle ground that they could go for. They could remove the animal entirely and call themselves West Sydney RLFC or something and just have a badge with WS. They cnt be accused of favouring one side of the merge so much as just going for a more neutral brand.

Honestly i think this mascotless brand would hve been better for all the merge teams. Let the fans fill the void with something organic that they can collectively own. And maybe after a decade formally pick the fan favourite...
 

unforgiven

Bench
Messages
3,138
I think you are right to a degree, however the Wests group have shown a lot of restraint in this area. Where they could have taken over totally when Balmain defaulted, they have given Balmain every opportunity to get back on their feet.

Maybe this is entirely cynical, Wests trying to look like the “good guys”. But that still shows that they are very aware of public image.

I think there is a nice middle ground that they could go for. They could remove the animal entirely and call themselves West Sydney RLFC or something and just have a badge with WS. They cnt be accused of favouring one side of the merge so much as just going for a more neutral brand.

Honestly i think this mascotless brand would hve been better for all the merge teams. Let the fans fill the void with something organic that they can collectively own. And maybe after a decade formally pick the fan favourite...
So what would have Balmain got from a mascotless merger?

That is one of your worst ideas. You would have half the fans calling them Tigers and the other half calling them Magpies. Having lived the merger I know the disharmony that would have caused would have likely killed the club.
 

Diesel

Referee
Messages
20,930
How long do we reckon before Wests try to give up the Wests Tigers brand and relaunch the Magpies in the NRL?

Something tells me that now that they have the power in the merger that unless something drastically changes that it's only a matter of time. Either they'll finally get the shits enough with Balmain to bury the Tigers brand out of spite or eventually an old player/fan will get into power and push it through.
although I have no affiliation to the club, Wests reverting to Magpies and Balmain moving to WA could be a good move. WA gets a strong identity and Balmain Tigers supporters get a stand alone Tigers club, with loose ties to Balmain. The Tigers brand is too iconic and strong to lose at top flight level.
 

The Great Dane

First Grade
Messages
7,855
I think you are right to a degree, however the Wests group have shown a lot of restraint in this area. Where they could have taken over totally when Balmain defaulted, they have given Balmain every opportunity to get back on their feet.

Maybe this is entirely cynical, Wests trying to look like the “good guys”. But that still shows that they are very aware of public image.

I think there is a nice middle ground that they could go for. They could remove the animal entirely and call themselves West Sydney RLFC or something and just have a badge with WS. They cnt be accused of favouring one side of the merge so much as just going for a more neutral brand.

Honestly i think this mascotless brand would hve been better for all the merge teams. Let the fans fill the void with something organic that they can collectively own. And maybe after a decade formally pick the fan favourite...

Yeah, no offence but that’s a dud idea.

So alternatively they could do what I assumed they’d do in the first place (cause it seemed the most logical thing to do) and meet in the middle by removing orange from the colour scheme and have a white tiger for the logo and the mascot.

Will never happen though...
 

Prometheus

Juniors
Messages
1,081
I think you are right to a degree, however the Wests group have shown a lot of restraint in this area. Where they could have taken over totally when Balmain defaulted, they have given Balmain every opportunity to get back on their feet.

Maybe this is entirely cynical, Wests trying to look like the “good guys”. But that still shows that they are very aware of public image.

Years ago elements within Balmain, led by Benny Elias were pushing for Balmain to break up the joint-venture and go it alone (Wests were experiencing financial difficulties at the time). The Northern Eagles had broken up and Manly rejoined the NRL as a stand-alone club. Elias assumed that if the Wests Tigers broke up that Balmain would get the NRL licence because it was in a stronger financial position. The NRL had to step in and make it clear that the licence granted to the Wests Tigers belonged to the joint-venture and if they split, it would not go to either club. The reason that Manly came back in after the demise of the Eagles was because they had been using Manly's licence all along.
 

unforgiven

Bench
Messages
3,138
Years ago elements within Balmain, led by Benny Elias were pushing for Balmain to break up the joint-venture and go it alone (Wests were experiencing financial difficulties at the time). The Northern Eagles had broken up and Manly rejoined the NRL as a stand-alone club. Elias assumed that if the Wests Tigers broke up that Balmain would get the NRL licence because it was in a stronger financial position. The NRL had to step in and make it clear that the licence granted to the Wests Tigers belonged to the joint-venture and if they split, it would not go to either club. The reason that Manly came back in after the demise of the Eagles was because they had been using Manly's licence all along.
Balmain were never going to break up the joint venture, it doesn't matter what Benny Elias has said, he is a grub of the highest order.

I highly doubt Wests will push for the return of the Magpies either. Wests Ashfield actually saved Balmain from going broke and losing the stake in the Wests Tigers. Wests Ashfield repaid Balmain's debts to the NRL of around $5m in return for an extra 25% in the club giving Wests Ashfield 75% and Balmain 25%. Ashfield could have easily taken the full 100% ownership if they wished. Wests Ashfield also now have Wests Tigers branding on their leagues club, so I don't see the Magpies coming back any time soon.
 

Prometheus

Juniors
Messages
1,081
Balmain were never going to break up the joint venture, it doesn't matter what Benny Elias has said, he is a grub of the highest order.

He was leading a rebel faction trying to get control of the board at the time. I don't think the people actually running Balmain had any plans to break up the joint venture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top