That you've expressed a contentious opinion is without doubt. Whether it was intended to provoke debate or not is...errr...debatable since you've tried to stifle any debate by shouting down someone who expressed a different, equally contentious opinion, and by avoiding requests for further information.



However, I think you're smart enough to see where my question was leading: to the contradiction that lies at the heart of the name change as you've expressed it. If it's important enough for a change to achieve anything, it's important enough for someone to get upset about it. That's why it's a very high risk strategy. Desperation stuff.

I don't think I've shouted anyone down. I was genuinely amazed that a fan could turn their back on their Club over such an issue and I've talked about that, and expressed my opinion. Like I've said plenty of times already I was just arguing from the other point of view to see if others could do so to. I said that a change NOW would probably be a negative option regardless of argument as my own personal feelings on the matter. However, I don't make these decisions, and if the Club moved out of Salford or changed its name at some point in the future I'd still follow it because it's my team and Club that I've followed from being a kid and I would never turn my back on it. The fact that others could is their prerogative and is totally alien to me, but that's fine if it's their feelings.



You're right in that it's a high risk thing to do, which is why I think that a move away would be the preferred option of a desperate management, before a name change. A name change splits your hardcore support whereas a move isolates less. Hopefully none of this will come to pass as the Salford Public will find its mojo again soon.

A new ground inSswinton. Salford and Swinton to merge call themselves Manchester, job done. Look forward to bumper attendances

I like it tooooooooooooooooo

WOOOOOSH!

I'm amazed that you're amazed, so it's amazement all round. The argument for changing the name is that potential new supporters are put off by the Salford name (although the only evidence that ever gets provided for this assertion seems to be that "it stands to reason"icon_wink.gif. It would be the same club, same players, etc. So, in that argument, the name is important. If the name is important, then, then it's important to everyone so, inevitably, a number of existing supporters will be upset and will stop supporting the club. In order to make the argument in favour of a name change work, you have to hold the contradictory position that the name is important and not important at the same time: it's important to potential new fans and not important to the existing ones.



Having said that, I hold a similar contradictory opinion, but it's the other way round: the name is important to the current fans but less important to new ones. The reason for this is that the club's impressive track record of not amounting to much has left us down to the diehards. These are the people who turn up to watch their team even though its trophy cabinet is so bare, stolen photos of it end up on dodgy websites. And that club is called Salford. This lack of success is also, I would argue, the thing that dissuades potential new supporters. It's a disappointing but relevant fact that there is not a single player currently in Super League who wasn't still swimming around in his father's nut sack last time Salford won anything of significance. And that includes Adrian Morley. It's not an attractive proposition, and this is why a name change is such a high risk strategy. You alienate existing fans with no guarantee of attracting new ones.



Not only that, but this. Here's a couple of lists, grabbed off the miracle of [url=http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/the Rugby League Project[/url. Care to guess what they are?



[listCastleford (0)

Leeds (0)

Hull FC (1)

Wigan (1)

Warrington (2)

Huddersfield (5)

St Helens (6)

Catalans (7)

Bradford (11)

London (15)

Sheffield Eagles (16)

Widnes (21)

Halifax (26)

Hull Kingston Rovers (2icon_cool.gif

Featherstone Rovers (31)

Wakefield Trinity (35)

Leigh (43)

Salford (45)

Barrow (47)

Hunslet (49)

Workington (56)

Dewsbury (71)

[/list:u

[listLeeds (0)

Wigan (1)

Warrington (2)

St Helens (6)

Hull FC (9)

Bradford (11)

Sheffield Eagles (16)

Halifax (27)

Castleford (2icon_cool.gif

Widnes (30)

Featherstone Rovers (31)

Hull Kingston Rovers (34)

Leigh (43)

Wakefield Trinity (51)

Barrow (59)

Huddersfield (61)

Workington (62)

Dewsbury (71)

Salford (76)

[/list:u

Once you've worked out what they are, you'll see it doesn't make for good reading. Addressing this is what will bring the punters in. As we've seen with other clubs, as soon as you start flashing a bit of silverware - or even just create the possibility of flashing a bit of silverware - you attract a whole bunch of [delglory hunters[/del people who have always supported the club but have previously done so from a safe distance.



I think we're on the right lines. Just.

The second list is the number of years since we won the Challenge Cup. Not sure about the first one.

The first is the number of years since we reached the CC final.

This thread is just going around in circles now, and some of the drawn out arguments (My own included) are beginning to look like we've been sitting in a crack house, passively smoking for too/to/two/toooo long.



Suffice to say I understand and don't disagree with you RJ. What you're saying makes sense. Most of it anyway





And it shows how subjective these kind of decisions would be if they happened.

Only read the top couple of entries, but is the first list "Number of Forks in a Typical Family Tree"?

Excellent shot sir. Well played.

The first list is the average mensa IQ of fans per Town.

The second the number of 'intact females '?