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!

Brisbane2 Bid News

Which Brisbane2 Team Name?


  • Total voters
    213

joshreading

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
1,720
It is certainly the Brisbane NRL bid - if you check the ownership of brisbanebombers.com you will get confirmation it is owned by the "Brisbane NRL expansion Bid" with key admin being Nicholas Livermore.

Check this link

http://who.godaddy.com/whois.aspx?domain=brisbanebombers.com&prog_id=GoDaddy

They have also registered the .com.au

I think it is either a silly idea (there clearly is a strongly branded bombers team which would likely challenge this) it is a marketing ploy to gain attention before changing the name or they have come up with some agreement with Essendon.
 
Last edited:

smithie

Juniors
Messages
527

BIRTH OF A NAME
The consortium behind the bid for a second Brisbane team are set to reveal the name, colours and logo of the new franchise. Among the names being considered are Brisbane Bombers, Brisbane Heat, Eastern Stingrays, Rivercity Kookaburras and Sin Bin's personal favourite, South Queensland Rogues. Once the team's identity is known, merchandise will be launched by Canterbury, one of the bid's backers.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...grand-final-20110707-1h4w1.html#ixzz1RUpvYh6W
 

joshreading

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
1,720
oh of note the Brisbane Bombers were registered as a company on the 25th of Feb. Now my point in highlighting such is just that they have given an impression that votes etc mattered in regards to the name of the team but it seems to have been decided a while ago
 

BDGS

Bench
Messages
4,102
oh of note the Brisbane Bombers were registered as a company on the 25th of Feb. Now my point in highlighting such is just that they have given an impression that votes etc mattered in regards to the name of the team but it seems to have been decided a while ago

Nature of the bid.
 

taipan

Referee
Messages
22,443
What's wrong with where is the Brisbane Buccaneers.Reply!! behind my bucking head:sarcasm:.Fans wearing patches over one eye.:a marketer's dream.:cool:
 

Herzog

Juniors
Messages
31
Sorry if it's already been discussed--and I understand that it's only a proto-type--but what's with that abhorent Brisbane II bid logo/shield?
 

meltiger

First Grade
Messages
6,268
I think it is either a silly idea (there clearly is a strongly branded bombers team which would likely challenge this) it is a marketing ploy to gain attention before changing the name or they have come up with some agreement with Essendon.

On what basis?


There are plenty of teams across both codes with competing nicknames.


I seriously doubt Essendon would have "Brisbane Bombers" trademarked.
 

BDGS

Bench
Messages
4,102
Essendon may have the name "bombers" trademarked or copywitten for all things to do with sport though. I'm sure it's possible to do things like that.
 

Jankuloski

Juniors
Messages
799
I'm not that sure.. The logo, colors etc yes.. but just the nickname "bombers" .. to trademark it across sports?? Doubt it.

I'm meh on the Bombers name... doesn't thrill me.. doesn't enrage me..
 

_Johnsy

Referee
Messages
27,658
Carlton Blues 1864 - NSW Blues 1907
Collingwood Magpies 1892 - Western Suburbs Magpies 1908
Essendon Bombers 1872 - Brisbane Bombers
North Melbourne Kangaroos 1869 - Australian Kangaroos 1954?
Richmond Tigers 1885 - Blamain Tigers 1908
Western Bulldogs 1883 - Canterbury Bankstown Bulldogs 1935

Seems like a bit of lack of creativity amongst RL teams.

They failed to make the Grand Final that year (eventually won by Essendon), but in 1950 they did reach the last Saturday in September, gallantly going down to defeat by a more efficient Essendon. It was in this year that the club adopted the "Kangaroos" mascot. (Gerard Dowling, "North Melbourne Football Club", in Andrew Brown-May and Shurlee Swain, The Encyclopedia of Melbourne, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 2005, p.511)

Essendon were known as the same olds until 1921 (Hutchinson, C., "How the teams got their names", p. 159 in Ross, J. (ed), 100 Years of Australian Football 1897–1996: The Complete Story of the AFL, All the Big Stories, All the Great Pictures, All the Champions, Every AFL Season Reported, Viking, (Ringwood), 1996.)

In the absence of the VFA team, there was no need for the "Same Olds" distinction and, by 1922, the other nicknames "Sash Wearers" and "Essendonians" that had been variously used from time to time were also abandoned. The team became universally known as "The Dons" (from EssenDON); it was not until much later, during the War years of the early 1940s, that they became known as "The Bombers" — due to Windy Hill’s proximity to the Essendon Aerodrome. (The Clubs – The Complete History of Every Club in the VFL/AFL, Editors G Hutchinson and J Ross 1996 p159.)

At first the team wore a blue uniform. One of the most important features of a nineteenth century footballer's uniform was his headgear, and Richmond opted for yellow and black striped caps, the same as the cricket club. After a couple of years, yellow and black stripes replaced blue as the colours of the team's guernseys. The team was variously called the "Richmondites", the "Wasps" or, the "Tigers".

Footscray, known as the Prince Imperials from 1880–1882, played in the junior division of the VFA before joining the senior division of the VFA in 1886.
 

Goddo

Bench
Messages
4,257

League players slam the door on expansion plans for NRL


NRL players have voiced their opinion in numbers that the existing competition should stay as it is - 16 teams and no more.

The revelation is a massive blow to expansion bid contenders Perth, the Central Coast, Central Queensland, Wellington, Papua New Guinea and Brisbane, with 40 per cent of the 104 players who responded to the question declaring the competition is fine just the way it is.

Many cited financial and logistical reasons for voting against any expansion in the foreseeable future, while others feared the introduction of new sides could spark a player talent crisis.

There are also concerns that any extra revenue from the new TV deal would be diluted among the expanded playing group.

NRL chief executive David Gallop has said he expects the competition to incorporate two new sides by 2015 and one possibly as soon as 2014.

But only 31 per cent backed that decision.

Pressed on the issue where the next team should be based, the responses proved critical for the Central Coast Bears bid, with just under 23 per cent throwing their support behind the banished Bears.

It was a different story for boom capital Perth however, with the overwhelming majority of almost 44 per cent of players declaring if the game was to expand it must be into a new state.

''I can't really see the point of expansion if we're just putting teams into areas where there's already rugby league,'' one player said. Another added: ''If we want to actually grow the game, then it would have to be in Western Australia for sure.''

A second team in Brisbane and the Central Queensland bid were the next best options, players said, with only 22.9 per cent believing NSW should be given another team.

The Brisbane and Central Queensland bids both were shown support by 25 per cent of participants, a sure sign that players are well aware of where the future of NRL lies.

''Certainly Perth and another team in Queensland are very attractive options,'' Gallop said. "There's Gosford, too. To extend the game's national profile is a long-term goal.''

And sadly for the Bears, it's not on the Central Coast, which has NRL teams an hour away either side of Bluetongue Stadium.

On Perth, cult Manly figure George Rose said a team in Western Australia was an obvious choice.

''I think it's a good number at the moment, the competition, but if we have to go somewhere I reckon Perth,'' he said.

''If they want to throw a team in at Perth, I'd love to travel over there.''

But injured Penrith and Blues star Michael Gordon was a little more favourable towards expansion and the Bears, declaring he'd like to see as many as 20 teams in the competition.

''Expansion is good if they're able to survive - 18-20 teams,'' he said. ''Central Coast would be up there, and Perth and Brisbane have a big bid for a second team. They would be the first three.''

--------
I always have a chuckle when Gosford is thrown into a "national footprint" statement.
 
Last edited:

danmiles73

Juniors
Messages
246
On what basis?


There are plenty of teams across both codes with competing nicknames.


I seriously doubt Essendon would have "Brisbane Bombers" trademarked.

The "Bombers" trade mark is registered in classes 16, 25 and 41. The owner of the trade mark is the AFL, not the club itself.

Check out the trade mark search on the IP Australia page.

The "Brisbane Bombers" mark isn't registered. However, its registration is subject to s 43 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth):

An application for the registration of a trade mark in respect of particular goods or services must be rejected if, because of some connotation that the trade mark or a sign contained in the trade mark has, the use of the trade mark in relation to those goods or services would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

Lawyers at 20 paces!
 
Last edited:

Paullyboy

Coach
Messages
10,473
I despise the Bombers name. A team is much, much more likely to get significant recognition nationally if it has a unique name. If you wear a Tigers scarf in Melbourne people would assume it's Richmond and so on.

As for the SMH article, players should have a very minor say on this issue. Just like coaches should have a minor say on rule changes - massive conflict of interest.
 

Perth Red

Post Whore
Messages
67,093
Just on the article, touched on it the WA Reds thread but if only 40% of players voted against expansion how is that a crushing blow to bid hopefuls? 31% support it and I gues sthe other 29% don't care. Hardly an overwhelming response!
 
Top