Should the Crusaders change their name?



  • Anyone able to name any NZ-born Hindus, Jains or Buddhists playing top level Rugby?



  • I suspect it has nothing to do with clickbaits and everything to do with GP’s own secular self-righteous Woke religion of tolerance and inclusivity for everybody that believes the same thing they do. I’m sure he believes everything he typed. It’s a cult, but they can’t see it for what it is, they cloak it in “progressivism.”

    Ordinarily I like Gregor, but he should stick to rugby and leave the culture alone, that commentary is well-intentioned but embarrassing.



  • And who’s to say new Kiwis who pracitice their Muslim faith would want to play rugby even if the Christian “culture” was eliminated or hidden from the game? There’s still plenty of agnostics and atheists who play rugby, and presumably many Muslims wouldn’t want to play with them either.



  • What are atheist "writings"?



  • @sparky said in Should the Crusaders change their name?:

    Anyone able to name any NZ-born Hindus, Jains or Buddhists ?

    FIFY





  • @booboo said in Should the Crusaders change their name?:

    @sparky said in Should the Crusaders change their name?:

    Anyone able to name any NZ-born Hindus, Jains or Buddhists ?

    FIFY

    Well that destroys that trite narrative....



  • @sparky said in Should the Crusaders change their name?:

    Anyone able to name any NZ-born Hindus, Jains or Buddhists playing top level Rugby?

    I’ve always wondered the same thing about Zoroastrians. And Scientologists. Branch Davidians, too.



  • Assuming "Muslims" being outraged by the name Crusader is kind of funny I would have thought.
    Dictionary definition of stereotype: to believe unfairly that all people or things with a particular characteristic are the same.
    Had a Muslim student from Malaysia 2 years ago. He loved rugby and his favorite team was the Crusaders. Now put yourself in the shoes of say a Kiwi living in a Muslim country and one of the soccer teams had horse soldiers at halftime named Saracens (?) or something. Would you give a rats arse?
    On a side note, will the Saracens rugby team have to change its name or does it have another meaning?



  • @booboo said in Should the Crusaders change their name?:

    @sparky said in Should the Crusaders change their name?:

    Anyone able to name any NZ-born Hindus, Jains or Buddhists ?

    FIFY

    I have family who are Buddhist and have worked with a few Hindu. My sisters middle name is Jayne.





  • New Zealand Rugby chairman Brent Impey has confirmed the Crusaders will not be changing their name in 2020.
    
    The Crusaders had been weighing up a name change since the Christchurch terrorist attack in March, but Impey today told Jim Kayes on Radio Sport that nothing would be changing next season.
    
    "The reality is that adidas have got to make jerseys, there's merchandising and that sort of stuff," Impey told Radio Sport. "You can't just change the name of a professional team when there are existing contracts.
    
    "So definitely not. There's no intention and never has been any intention that the Crusaders name would change in 2020."
    
    Impey said a process was still in place to determine if the name would be changed long term.
    
    "The process regarding the Crusaders name is setup, there's a sub-committee of the New Zealand board working with the Crusaders board, to see which of the two options will be chosen - either a rebranded Crusaders name or a new name. There's a process underway to do that, we don't need to rush it.
    
    "But they will be the Crusaders in 2020."
    


  • Banned

    Commonsense prevails, at least for now. Those advocating for the change should give themselves a well-deserved uppercut.



  • BNZ Crusaders and New Zealand Rugby Media Statement
    Published: 08 June 2019

    BNZ Crusaders to retain name in 2019 and 2020;
    Logo will drop knight and sword image from apparel and marketing in 2020;
    Full Brand Review to take place this year to decide future brand for 2021 and beyond.
     
    
    BNZ Crusaders and New Zealand Rugby (NZR) have received the results of the independent research that they commissioned into the Crusaders name and brand.
    
    
    Research First was commissioned to look into the views of various stakeholders and the general public about the Crusaders brand, and to provide recommendations based on that research.  Allen+Clark also provided research looking into the experiences of sporting bodies internationally that have considered or undertaken a name change.
    
    BNZ Crusaders CEO Colin Mansbridge said the research findings will inform the next steps in the process: “We are grateful for the thorough analysis undertaken by Research First and Allen+Clark, as well as those who have taken the time to provide their valuable feedback. 
    
    “What is clear from the research is that there are divided views on the name itself, but that people on both sides of the divide are incredibly passionate about this club and what it represents to them. A brand is much more than a name or a logo and this research has shown us that it is the values and legacy of this club that really endears us to our fans, so that needs to be the starting point of any discussion about the best way forward.
    
    “Today we are committing to undertaking a thorough brand review, that will cover all elements of the brand, from the organisation and team’s values and vision through to the logo and team name,” Mr Mansbridge said.
    
    The brand review will commence shortly and any changes recommended by that review will be announced by the end of 2019 and come into effect in the 2021 season. In the meantime, the Crusaders name will be retained for the remainder of the 2019 and 2020 seasons, but an interim change to the logo will come into effect for next season, with the removal of the knight and sword image.
    
    NZR CEO Steve Tew said the removal of medieval theming was an appropriate step for now, but any further consideration of the brand needs to be broader than a response to one event:  “Even prior to 15 March, the Crusaders had signalled their intention to complete a brand review. While the events of 15 March have accelerated and escalated that brand review, we do not want this to be solely a response to that tragic event.
    
    “Both Research First and Allen+Clark have recommended taking our time to do this right. Research First pointed out that any change to this brand must be focussed on the future and not seen as a knee-jerk reaction to a single event. The Allen+Clark research highlighted that the practical execution of a name or brand change takes significant time.  So even if we wanted to, no significant change would be feasible prior to the next Super Rugby season when you take into account obligations to commercial contracts that are linked to the existing brand, merchandise, and lead times on apparel,” Mr Tew said. “We have therefore concluded that we are better to pause our thinking on the team name at this point and instead allow that to become one of the outcomes of a full brand review.”
    
    “We will go into the brand review with open minds,” said Mr Mansbridge, “but no matter what the outcome of that exercise is, one thing that we will never seek to change or erase is our history.  This club has a very proud history and celebrating that is always going to be an important part of our brand story.  We will continue to honour our past as we look to the future and what that may hold.” 
    
    ENDS
    
    
    MEDIA Q&A
    
    Why don’t you make a decision now rather than undertaking a brand review?
    The research from both Research First and Allen+Clark recommended taking more time, for various reasons. This is a very difficult decision given the emotional, psychological and financial investments in this brand.  We need to take our time to fully engage our key stakeholders and ensure that any decisions are based on what is the right thing to do for the future, rather than any change (or no-change) being forever linked to a tragic event in the past.  It is also not practically possible to implement significant change any earlier than the 2021 season, so we are committed to taking the time to do this right.
    
    Why are you committing to the 2021 season for any further changes?
    If our Brand Review does result in any further changes to the team name or logo, we need to allow enough time for our organisation, our commercial partners, our supporters and other stakeholders to take these changes on board.  2021 also marks the expiry of the Crusaders’ current licence agreement with NZR, as well as the first year of the changed format of the Investec Super Rugby competition.
    
    What happens if fans still want to wear their Crusaders jerseys, and take their banners and flags to future matches after the logo is changed next season?
    None of the current considerations are seeking to undo any part of our proud history, so we will not be asking any fans to stop using their existing merchandise and nor are we going to be asking existing sponsors to make any changes in 2020 to the material and merchandise that they may already have.  We will announce the outcome of our Brand Review at the end of this year so that if there are any further changes there is enough time to bed these in before the 2021 season.
    
    Have you met with representatives of the Muslim community?
    We have met with senior representatives of the local Muslim community to pay our respects and show our support. We have agreed that, given what this community has been through, we will not be burdening them with any responsibility around our brand review.  We believe it is important for us to be very clear that all decisions are entirely those of the BNZ Crusaders and New Zealand Rugby.
    
    Who was surveyed by Research First?
    Research First conducted a series of polls, surveys, focus groups and in-depth interviews between mid-April and mid-May.  There were various survey cohorts ranging from sponsors, current staff and players, Crusaders alumni, fans and general public.  This was a combination of qualitative and quantitative research.
    


  • @Stargazer Was anyone still agitating over there about this? Normally the Twitter hordes have moved on to something else. They simply should have let this die a natural death.



  • @antipodean Not sure whether to take your post seriously, but I'll answer it anyway. If you commit to something (like a brand review) and initiate an investigation (like that of Research First and Allen+Clark) of a possible name change, then obviously you'll get a lot of questions at some point about how you have met your commitments and what the outcomes of that investigation are. If - at that point - it appears that you haven't done anything (hoping the issue would die, like you are suggesting), then shit will really hit the fan. Especially because a lot of the "agitating" was not initiated by people on twitter or Facebook, but by the media. And as you know, media love their clickbait, so they definitely won't let go.



  • @Stargazer said in Should the Crusaders change their name?:

    @antipodean Not sure whether to take your post seriously, but I'll answer it anyway. If you commit to something (like a brand review) and initiate an investigation (like that of Research First and Allen+Clark) of a possible name change, then obviously you'll get a lot of questions at some point about how you have met your commitments and what the outcomes of that investigation are.

    Since I have to spell it out. Inferred in my post was they didn't engage anyone to conduct a review.

    If - at that point - it appears that you haven't done anything (hoping the issue would die, like you are suggesting), then shit will really hit the fan. Especially because a lot of the "agitating" was not initiated by people on twitter or Facebook, but by the media. And as you know, media love their clickbait, so they definitely won't let go.

    The media is responsive to Twitter etc., not the other way round.



  • @antipodean said in Should the Crusaders change their name?:

    @Stargazer said in Should the Crusaders change their name?:

    @antipodean Not sure whether to take your post seriously, but I'll answer it anyway. If you commit to something (like a brand review) and initiate an investigation (like that of Research First and Allen+Clark) of a possible name change, then obviously you'll get a lot of questions at some point about how you have met your commitments and what the outcomes of that investigation are.

    Since I have to spell it out. Inferred in my post was they didn't engage anyone to conduct a review.

    Well, they had already initiated the review*, so your conclusion was wrong. Whether they should have initiated that review, is a moot point.

    If - at that point - it appears that you haven't done anything (hoping the issue would die, like you are suggesting), then shit will really hit the fan. Especially because a lot of the "agitating" was not initiated by people on twitter or Facebook, but by the media. And as you know, media love their clickbait, so they definitely won't let go.

    The media is responsive to Twitter etc., not the other way round.

    In this case, it started with an article from Ross Karl, in a totally misplaced reaction to the terror attack in Chch.



  • @Stargazer said in Should the Crusaders change their name?:

    @antipodean said in Should the Crusaders change their name?:

    @Stargazer said in Should the Crusaders change their name?:

    @antipodean Not sure whether to take your post seriously, but I'll answer it anyway. If you commit to something (like a brand review) and initiate an investigation (like that of Research First and Allen+Clark) of a possible name change, then obviously you'll get a lot of questions at some point about how you have met your commitments and what the outcomes of that investigation are.

    Since I have to spell it out. Inferred in my post was they didn't engage anyone to conduct a review.

    Well, they had already initiated the review*, so your conclusion was wrong. Whether they should have initiated that review, is a moot point.

    My point is to initiating the review, so it's not moot.

    If - at that point - it appears that you haven't done anything (hoping the issue would die, like you are suggesting), then shit will really hit the fan. Especially because a lot of the "agitating" was not initiated by people on twitter or Facebook, but by the media. And as you know, media love their clickbait, so they definitely won't let go.

    The media is responsive to Twitter etc., not the other way round.

    In this case, it started with an article from Ross Karl, in a totally misplaced reaction to the terror attack in Chch.

    Was that before his article? Or because it hadn't been raised before?


  • Banned

    "None of the current considerations are seeking to undo any part of our proud history..."

    No, apart from the name and logo they're not seeking to change anything. What a ridiculous joke.


Log in to reply