Renaming #QPR "London FC"

[Macmoish]

I'd never heard this before; don't know if others had

As I posted on the QPR Report Blog

Monday, September 08, 2014

Renaming QPR "London FC"

Reading Terry Venables' new autobiography, "Born to Manage" (a prize from Queen's Park Rangers FC),
I was fascinated - and shocked - to read that Terry Venables, when manager of QPR back in the early 1980s,
had suggested changing the name of QPR to London FC. But QPR Chairman Jim Gregory had demurred.

Terry Venables writes in "Born to Manage" "I even suggested
changing the club's name, but I have to admit that Jim Gregory was
uneasy about the idea. His love affair with QPR was genuine. When I
put it to him that London FC would be a name for the future, he could
see what I was trying to achieve but never sounded convinced."

"I find it astonishing that London is the capital city, yet there
is not one club with London as part of its name.....Rangers is not
even in Queens Park.
That was why I wanted to see us adopt a new name.
London FC would have been simple, straightforward and instantly
recognisable but it didn't happen as it went against the grain
for traditionalists such as Jim."


Ironically just a few years ago (September, 2008), Charles Sale in the Daily Mail reported that "The super-rich owners of London Championship team QPR have been discussing changing the name of the club to Queens Park City in order to emphasis its location in the capital. Renault boss Flavio Briatore...has been openly debating the idea with friends in football and motor racing." Daily Mail

In response to that Sale article, QPR Chairman Flavio Briatore issued an official Statement
"This is pure fabrication and I don't know where the story has come from. I haven't spoken to anybody about this subject. "I don't know the journalist, but I know the story is totally untrue and we will be contacting our lawyers to pursue this matter further. "I can categorically deny that there is any truth in this article...."

[sharky]

London FC. El Tel did have big ideas!

[powerpump]

And we can remind ourselves that Terry was also instrumental in bringing the artificial pitch to our ground, which lets face it was not ultimately a success.

[blueeyedcptcook]

Sept 8, 2014 9:21:19 GMT sharky said:

London FC. El Tel did have big ideas!

Well what do you know. Seek and ye shall find.

[rangerray]

If all goes well with the new stadium we will be located in New Queens Park, so the identity question will never need to arise again.

[Macmoish]

Although think of the Global Branding opportunities if we HAD been renamed "London FC"!

[peterg]

If venables had tried London rangers he might just have swung it

And of course from a global branding and sponsorship point of view that can me would have had some leverage. Still would

But I rather like queens park rangers

[marshbowles10]

I think that the concept of adding London into the name of the Club was a good one.

I sent a few scribbles that I've added to the avitar showing how London could be incorporated to the Briatore idiot a year before his appalling logo change and also to Fernandez. I have written maybe 10 times to Philip Beard and I'm still waiting a reply.

I loved our old logo and thought that making it Queens Park Rangers (London) made perfect sense.

Many of the top clubs in the world have their City as a frame of reference such as Real Madrid, Manchester City, Bayern Munch, Paris St Germain, AC Milan…….the list goes on.

Whilst we have the London suburb clubs, of which we are one along with many others, who knows that Queens Park is part of London?

It was a fantastic opportunity with globalisation of football to link the Club to the greatest city in the World without changing any of the fantastic tradition of our team be that name, identity or anything else. It was a natural development that could and should have served the Club well.

Still what do I know about football logos?

Not enough…….. given the lack of response from LR……… although I was part of the creative team that created the Champions League logo that has remain unchanged since its launch in 1992.

[ingham]

I think that logic defeats itself, to be honest. If QPR - or any other Club - were the most successful Club side in the world, how would renaming the Club London FC constitute an advantage?

And if we are just an obscure, local side, without the high profile big stars and innumerable trophies bring, how would changing our NAME make a difference?

Did Man U or Liverpool fumble their eras or success because they weren't named London FC? Are Arsenal more successful than we are because they're called London FC?

Interesting about Gregory. He gave a long interview in the 1960s, I think, to the Evening Standard, where he stated his dream of merging the London Clubs into a London FC to challenge Real Madrid (just when Real Madrid had stopped winning anything, of course).

But naturally the overriding objection is that it wouldn't be QPR, and I wouldn't support it, although I wouldn't condemn those who wanted to. I'm of the sentiment expressed by that old Borough of Hammersmith badge and 'Then Now Always'

[Macmoish]

I don't remember the details re Brentford-QPR merger (I think they were just being subsumed into QPR under the name QPR. But Fulham and QPR merger
was the name change, to as I recall Fulham Park Rangers (playing at lOftus Rd in hoops, blah,blah...) as for the Wimbledon-QPR Merger, again name change to I forget

[londonranger]

I like Willesden Junction F.C. Of course I was born in Willesden. We aren't Londons football Club anymore than Tottenham, Arsenal, Chelsea, Fulham and so on.

Pretentious and silly Imo. Actually Hammersmith claims us as theirs too hence that lovely badge which most of us have. Nah, can you imagine the fans yelling,

come on you London Rrrrrrs.

[Macmoish]

Of course London is one poster whose Screen name says it all

[londonranger]

True Mac. and thanks, Still when we started up I was Reg Allen, but I got some feedback from family which put me off. Still London is my home town. From Sweeney Todd. "Ive sailed the seven seas

from the Dardenells to the mountains of Peru, ( almost as much as Bushman ,) but theres nowhere like London, my home town.

Heres one for you mates. Rochdale, Oldham,Stockport County, Wigan, Bolton, Bury more. Where are they, and who cares? Answer all a stones throw from Manchester environs, add Preston North End

may be another one?

[londonranger]

This thread has me obsessed. Why not London Arsenal, London Hotspurs, Chelsea of London, London Brentfords, The Den of London at Millwall, the Near London Watfords, Crystal Palace Londoners,

Charlton Athletic Londoners. Queens Pk Rangers of London as opposed to Rangers of Glasgow, Queens Park Edinburghers. So on and so on

Blame this on this silly two week break ,after 3 matches, drives me barmy.

[londonranger]

Well maybe its mania, I just can't stop. Then East Londoners, South Londoners, West londoners, North Londoners . For me, I like the East London West Hammers. For us the North-west London Rangers

of Queens Park and Shepherds Bush. Promise no more, except this one thing. I was over one year when we finished 5th, best in London. So this great Rs Sports shop corner of Uxbridge Rd and Loftus has

a jacket. QPR, London Champions, which I wore and almost got into a punch up with a Spurs fan who didn't think it was funny. So then another jacket with Rangers on back QPR on arms and front.

Nice piece which I still wear across the Pond. Someone will say "Oh so your a New York Ranger fan," No, Im a Texas Ranger fan. Of course the Texas Rangers were the State mounted police and still

are. Their motto is "Always Stalwart" Which brings me back to being a QPR fan, where on has also to be Always Stalwart, to avoid the disappointments and ride ones horse through the letdowns

and other strange goings on. Im done. Any old Mod. please lock this thread to shut me up, if you want, although I don't think I have any moor. Moor.? Oh yes Turf Moor which is in Deepdale

which is Manchester proper. Good night.

[sharky]

What about the Shepherds Bushrangers (Australian version of Shepherds Bush Rangers)

[ingham]

I don't see that Manchester United or Liverpool have whatever degree of recognition they enjoy globally because they include the names of towns in their designation, 57.

That hardly explains why they are so successful. Surely they and Arsenal enjoy the reputations they do precisely because of their historic triumphs on the pitch, which are not in any way due to the marketability of the name of the town where they play.

What the losers all lack is not a superior brand, but a superior team, determined by the quality of their football and the extent of their success in competitions.

If the most successful Clubs weren't among the biggest earners, and the losers and the smaller Clubs were wealthier because their commercial operations and branding marketed them more effectively, it might hold water from the point of view of those whose only interest in the Club is how much money they can make out of it.

But why would the Club's supporters care? What would be the point of being in the conference with the biggest sales of shirts worldwide? And do the biggest stars
fail to sign for QPR because we're not called London? Why do they go to Clubs which aren't even IN London if that is the case?

[marshbowles10]

This has become an interesting thread with sensible shouts from both parties.

The World has changed in football. In 1974 the maximum attendance at Loftus Road was around 35,000. 35,000 people saw the game live. If you weren't there you never saw it live. You may have seen highlights on Match of the Day…..but only in this country.

Can you imagine the global pull of that team of the 70's playing great attacking football and scoring goals for fun? Can you imagine how much a Stan Bowles would have been worth? Poor old Stan he could have purchased a bookie!

With Sky and all its other affiliations and companies plus the internet streaming, a game that had the significance of attracting 35,000 to Loftus Road in the 70's would today attract a global audience in the hundred of millions.

I love this football Club and believe the name is a fundamental rock upon which traditional football should be built. Leveraging London seemed to me to be something that could only benefit the off pitch commercial activities of the Club which surely is a benefit to all of us?

The less as a % of income we have to pay players, it seems the better. I didn't want to see a Briatore fly by night character with his vision for a 'boutique brand project' turn us into 'London Park Rangers' or 'London Carnaby Street Cockneys'.

So for me Queens Park Rangers (London) worked. It provided the extra tool for the clever marketing department to use…..without destroying the unique name of our fantastic football club.

[sharky]

Most of us are looking at this topic through "old" eyes. We need to look through the next generation of fans eyes.

The Australian cricket T20 teams have colours and names that appeal to a new generation of fans. Our Perth team is the Perth Scorchers, and teams beaten are scorched. Our rugby union team is the Western Force, and beaten opponents have felt the force.

Queens Park Rangers (London) and the like won't work for the new generation you need something more snappy. I tongue in cheek suggested Shepherds Bushrangers, but if you were to make a new name to attract new fans and keep some tradition with London as well, West London Rangers, West London Hoops or London Rs could work. More radically, West Twelvers, London Hoopla or London Strikers would be options.

[jbol]

Reminds me of a news story from a few years back:

Council leader tells Aston Villa: Call yourself Birmingham
Nov 28, 2008 12:00
By Birmingham Mail

ASTON Villa should include ‘Birmingham’ in the club’s name to boost international recognition of the city.
That is the bizarre wish of city council leader Mike Whitby.
He feels that the suburban-sounding Villa does not do justice to Britain’s second city.
He is urging a name change, possibly to ‘Aston Villa Birmingham’, and plans to raise the matter with club chairman Randy Lerner.

www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/council-leader-tells-aston-villa-73665

[peterg]

I expect the supporters of Newton Heath had similar discussions before they became Manchester United

[ingham]

All supporters look at these issues from the basic standpoint they all share - what is good for QPR. If we disagree about this manager or that, it isn't because negative supporters prefer bad managers, and positive supporters want good ones.

But there is a world of difference between knowing what you want and having the ability to achieve it.

We are able to almost effortlessly outperform non-league and former non-league clubs (I exclude the Cups ) because of the stability conferred on us by our size relative to that of the smaller clubs. But it cuts both ways. The benefits conferred on QPR by playing against much bigger Clubs DEPEND on those Clubs BEING much bigger.

The football world isn't very much interested in watching us play Clubs smaller than QPR.

But the stability that enables us to compete more effectively than most of the lower league sides is nullified if smaller Clubs can simply change all that at the stroke of a pen.

With a niftier name change. A more fashionable logo. A more globally marketable shirt design.

The logic seems poisonous. The people responsible are never to blame. It is never, ultimately, their inability to transform the Club's fortunes on the pitch which matters, but QPR. The Club is all wrong. Wrong name, wrong location, wrong colours.

What if we become QPR (London) but results aren't good, finances aren't great, support doesn't hold up? Jettison the QPR? Or the London? QPR (Europe), QPR (World)? Should we do all the things we should have been doing for the last 25 years, but never have, because the Board was more interested in groundsharing, merging, moving.

It is worth bearing in mind that the TV (and in-the-ground) audiences we get in the Premiership are not because OUR name is such a draw, but because the OTHER Clubs' names are.

Improve the performances and everything else follows. I can't think of a more ridiculous name for a band than the Beatles, but nobody cares. The name is marketable because of the value people put on their recordings.

Make the name we HAVE legendary for its football, and marketing revenue will go up. It will also circumvent the other problem. That QPR supporters support QPR. London FC is, I suspect, for many of them, de facto not QPR.

It is tempting to think Rs supporters might identify with the new name on the basis that the Club is 'really' QPR. But if the QPR identity isn't persuasive enough to use, how can it be persuasive enough to keep the existing support. The concept of 'goodwill' in the business sense would appeal to the people running the Club and they would insist that London FC was really QPR precisely to keep its existing support.

But that would be ridiculous. That the very identity what was to be discarded because it didn't attract sufficient support or revenue should be the basis for getting even a minimum level of support for the new entity. Like Arsenal, we KNOW we have our present level of support.

I know marshbowlesy is (cunningly) not suggesting out and out London FC, and this is just a topic for discussion. But I confess that I think that adding it - especially in brackets - seems unconvincing and more or less apologetic. As if we're unsure whether QPR is worth anything. Or, for that matter, if the London part makes any difference.

QPR certainly does, since the true magic of the Club is that it attracts support when the Club is NOT successful. Unfortunately, the same applies to the big Clubs.

If we face up to how difficult it REALLY is to make the transformations we are routinely told are bound to happen merely because someone who bought shares says so, that level of self-awareness might make us dangerous enough to actually achieve it.

[Ashdown_Ranger]

All this is hypothetical, taken from Venables' book about a time in our history several decades back.

Don't think anyone is suggesting we change the QPR name.

[sharky]

Sept 10, 2014 12:44:29 GMT Ashdown_Ranger said:

All this is hypothetical, taken from Venables' book about a time in our history several decades back.

Don't think anyone is suggesting we change the QPR name.

Lots want a change. They want the apostrophe back

[terryb]

I want our name back.

We are Queens Park Rangers. Not QPR!

[Ashdown_Ranger]

Or if Steven Fry dropped Norwich and bought into QPR, we could change to Old Queen's Park Rangers... very apposite for Rainbow Bootlace Day.

[ingham]

Pope's Park Rangers? Did the earth just move, or only Paisley turning in his grave?

I think you're opening a can of worms there mate .

[sharky]

I'm a long time supporter of QPR. The home supporters of Perth Glory meet in the "Shed". Will they call a new stand at New Queens Park, "Sharky's Shed" after me?!

[canadaranger]

Sept 8, 2014 9:26:53 GMT powerpump said:

And we can remind ourselves that Terry was also instrumental in bringing the artificial pitch to our ground, which lets face it was not ultimately a success.

bounce...

[Macmoish]

Bump...

(especially as we denigrate Hull for trying to change their name...and of course, far, far worse: Wimbledon/MK Dons for what was done there)