Lets go back to Eastern Suburbs

[strong_latte]

If you want to persuade management to change their mind, asking them to justify a decision made 20 years ago, that a number of them may not have been involved in, is not the way to do it. Reason being the answer may well be "it wasn't our decision and we don't see why it needs changing" for all I know. If they were, do you honestly think doing it that way will see them come out and go "yes it was a mistake"? One thing people in positions of power and authority the world over usually have a problem with is saying "yes, I/we made a mistake" - they view it as losing face.

Well Politis has been involved since the change occurred, so that's one down. As for admitting it was a mistake... well "pride" isn't really a particularly rational reason to continue on with "Sydney" if your main argument is you need rational reasons to change back, but I do see where you're coming from in terms of dealing with big egos at the managerial level.

All the same, it's also not entirely necessary for anyone to lose face - Along with the Tigers and us, the Bulldogs went down the "Sydney" path too, and it achieved nothing for them. The club was then plagued with problems, but since their management overhaul and rebrand to their original name they have increased their membership base in spite of their relatively middle of the road performances.

So the management could make an economic argument on the basis of that experience, which would mean no one had to openly admit to making a mistake.

As our management seem to look at the bottom line on most matters, that is why I am saying you need to be able to articulate why changing back would be beneficial. If you get management thinking along those lines then it is more likely to occur in my book.

Otherwise people can say all the want about how they feel and what have you but it won't influence those who you want to influence now will it? That is what you are not understanding nick, hence have you thought that is why I might be pushing on the matter like I am?

This is fundamentally a branding issue, and I look at it as the NRL's version of the "New Coke" saga. Sadly, the best time for this from a marketing perspective was definitely the club's century (would have made a great PR event - unveiling the new jersey with the old school logo and then talking about a rebrand that would more appropriately honour our history), but it certainly can still be done.

In any case, the money isn't an issue really, given the make-up of our board include men of a combined worth in the billions, so the pennies it would cost them to rebrand wouldn't be part of the argument. That said, the argument would remain centred on a long term strategy to build the fans base.

The angle would be about memberships and about connecting with the club's base by having a huge PR event surrounding the change at the beginning of the year which focussed on our heritage, authenticity, and glory. So in a sense it'd be for the same reasons the first change occurred, only this time not treating the public like muggs and instead trying to appeal to them reestablishing our NRL's brand with our roots.

We are after all talking about a club which is still called Eastern Suburbs, and who's past glories of the game's infancy and the great 70s era all occurred under that banner. The fans love all that stuff - the AFL in Melbourne are masters at channelling it - and the whole thing could form part of a wider membership and attendance drive.

 

[RoosTah]

This is fundamentally a branding issue, and I look at it as the NRL's version of the "New Coke" saga. Sadly, the best time for this from a marketing perspective was definitely the club's century (would have made a great PR event - unveiling the new jersey with the old school logo and then talking about a rebrand that would more appropriately honour our history), but it certainly can still be done.

In any case, the money isn't an issue really, given the make-up of our board include men of a combined worth in the billions, so the pennies it would cost them to rebrand wouldn't be part of the argument. That said, the argument would remain centred on a long term strategy to build the fans base.

The angle would be about memberships and about connecting with the club's base by having a huge PR event surrounding the change at the beginning of the year which focussed on our heritage, authenticity, and glory. So in a sense it'd be for the same reasons the first change occurred, only this time not treating the public like muggs and instead trying to appeal to them reestablishing our NRL's brand with our roots.

We are after all talking about a club which is still called Eastern Suburbs, and who's past glories of the game's infancy and the great 70s era all occurred under that banner. The fans love all that stuff - the AFL in Melbourne are masters at channelling it - and the whole thing could form part of a wider membership and attendance drive.

Fair points and you're definitely right that we're talking about a club not short on cash with the make up of its board.

So really, the challenge is more about building the fan base - and I agree that in a funny sort of way making our name more region specific and truer to our heritage would likely help.

 

[ram raid]

What was the reason it was changed in the first place?

 

[Mr Spock!]

What was the reason it was changed in the first place?

Broader market. There was the Sydney City Roosters and the Sydney City Bulldogs after the Superleague war.

You guys will always be Easts.

 

[RoosTah]

Broader market. There was the Sydney City Roosters and the Sydney City Bulldogs after the Superleague war.

You guys will always be Easts.

Yeah that was the "Logic", but it turned out that - surprise surprise - 100 years of history and associations to a specific region can't be wiped out with a label change. Of course, it didn't help that the club that owns the license to the Sydney Rooster remains the ESDRLFC and is based in the east.

We should go back to Eastern Suburbs, or Eastern Sydney - give its now a national comp - as that's where we've always been.

 

[Lockyer4President!]

Right or wrong I can't see the NRL running a comp without a 'Sydney' team.
Easts are the logical club to use that name and tbh it doesn't hurt your image in the slightest.

Only thing I'd change is for the club to go back to using the traditional logo (or the updated traditional logo on the first page). Just have it on the jersey like Souths have the simple rabbit on theirs. It looks classy on the teamwear and training gear, would look just as good on a jersey.

 

[saint.nick]

But it doesn't improve their image either. I also don't see why the NRL needs a 'Sydney team'. The EPL works fine without a 'London team'.