I can understand people suggesting using a historical brand like Redcliffe or Ipswich which might gain some loyal support from the off, but what about the long term? Will either of those mean much to anyone down the line?
Equally I can understand people wanting Brisbane in the name and a completely new nickname, but will that get the support of people in Redcliffe who felt like they should have been the NRL franchise?
Therefore I think they need something completely neutral and different. Something that EVERYONE in Brisbane and the surrounding areas can get behind...
I’d suggest: Brisbane United RL or Brisbane City RL. Completely new for RL down under, classy, no cringe, and it would catch the attention of any RL supporter who doesn’t affiliate with the broncos could get behind.
The idea that you have to have an animal or a marketable nickname is outdated in my opinion as quite a few MLS franchises are proving.
This sounds like a soccer club, "united"
It just lacks effort, it's almost like the gold coast united a-league team, uneventful.
A mascot is meaningful, and the colors are a representation of the area, and that of the mascot, tigers are usually orange and black, its a powerful animal, and represents strength.
If you don't have a symbol that represents your team, like the Broncos, might aswell just be the crushers again.
The NSWRL had 11 animal mascots and the jets prior to 1982, the old jerseys were bright and simple, and everyone in the crowd stood out when they wore their colors, sharks have blue, dragons have red, magpies, black.
There is real divide between teams back then, so much so not many had an alternate jersey, now it's weird, titans are navy and are trying to copy the storm this year, tigers dont have an orange jersey, now you want to have team without an emblem basically