It was Bob Dylan that sang oh so eloquently in 1964, ‘the times, they are a-changin’.

Recent weeks and months have seen major sporting franchises begin to rethink their branding, boosted further in recent times by the rapid growth of the Black Lives Matter movement.

The Crusaders have already changed their logo and are in the middle of a larger review of the club’s image in light of the religious symbolism.

The Washington-based NFL franchise have already undertaken such a review and dropped the Native American branding from their team name, being known only as the Washington Football Team for the time being.

Now, the spotlight has fallen on Exeter Chiefs after campaigns by the fan-led pressure group Exeter Chiefs 4 Change.

The club has now announced that while it will not be altering the branding of the club, with the club’s statement indicating the board considered the imagery to be “highly respectful”, it will be dropping the club’s mascot, Big Chief, from this point onwards.

Is this far enough? Should the Chiefs be considering a large-scale rebrand? Or is the board justified in its protection of the name?

The Flanker’s resident Exeter Chiefs fan, Jack Colwill, explores the issue from a supporters perspective and gives his verdict on the problem.

What is the history of the Chiefs’ branding?

The club’s statement on the issue says the following on the issue of the brand’s origins:

Content provided to the board indicated that the name Chiefs dated back into the early 1900s and had a long history with people in the Devon area.

The club’s branding is well-entrenched among the club’s loyal and passionate fanbase. The Tomahawk Chop cry is one of the most recognisable sounds in Premiership rugby these days and it is not uncommon to see headdresses aplenty as you wander around the grounds of Sandy Park.

However, even back in August 2016 three and a half years before this review, a Native American expert called on the Chiefs to change their branding.

Dr Rachel Herrmann called the name and logo the club carries “offensive” and accused the club of “playing Indian”, saying it evoked ideas about "Britain's forgotten imperial American past".

Dr Herrmann, from the University of Southampton, told the BBC: "I think changing [Exeter's] name would be the ultimate step but I don't know whether that is likely to happen.

"I would at least like to see an engaged discussion between the team and Native American groups that could better explain why the name might be offensive."

Nothing came of this call at the time but the issue has now reared its head again with some vigour and I, like Dr Herrmann, feel the only logical conclusion to this battle is for the club to make the change.

However, the club has again not taken the step of changing the name, despite the high-profile campaign launched in favour of the move by Exeter Chiefs 4 Change.

The club’s response said: “The board took the view that the use of the Chiefs logo was in fact highly respectful. It was noted over the years we have had players and coaches from around the world with a wide range of nationalities and cultures.

“At no time have any players, coaches or their families said anything but positive comments about the branding or culture that exists at the club.”

The problem with that statement, from my perspective, is that myriad cultures around the world who are not affected by the Chiefs’ representation probably would not object.

As we have rightly learned quickly through the last few months, these movements are not about the people they are not about.

The situation as it stands

I would like to first point out that in terms of the club branding, it is not as obliquely in need of fixing as the Washington Football Team, as they are now known.

Exeter’s branding does not employ a word that could be taken as a direct racial slur and is not as explicitly offensive, as that NFL franchise formerly did.

However, that does by no means equate to it not being offensive.

I feel one thing needs to be made clear pretty much straight away - there is no way any decision on this is going to please everyone. The issue is far too complex for that.

What I do feel, though, is that there is one path that leads to some fans being irritated but ultimately moving on and accepting the decision, whereas the other leads potentially to a prolonged and ugly battle that could see supporters and others divorce the club permanently.

I am fully in support of the retirement of Big Chief - it doesn’t take a lot in this climate to see that the caricaturist nature of the mascot is way out of keeping with the moderate image the club has tried to protect.

It has no place in these times. However, that only solves part of the problem at this stage.

The fact that this is not the first time the branding of the club has been questioned shows us there is a larger problem at play here, and it is one that needs to be put to bed.

There is no doubting that there is a significant part of the Exeter fanbase that does not feel comfortable with the branding and for whom it has become a serious bone of contention.

While part of the problem has been addressed, the immediate reaction tells you it has not been enough to satisfy a vocal proportion of the club’s fans and peers.

Judging by their response to the club’s statement, they are not going to go quiet and this debate will rumble on, during which the issue will only continue to build until it is something that is beyond the control of those with the power to make these decisions.

Politics throughout history has told us that decisions made too late can often be the worst as public opinion has already shifted against the decision maker and this is the conundrum Exeter face with this particular crossroads.

It comes down, to my mind, to a simple question put to the club’s hierarchy - are you prepared to potentially fight a public PR war that might damage what until now has been an almost flawless image for the club?

Or, is it better to draw a line under the business, acknowledge the changing of the winds and make a change that will put the issue to bed?

The longer this stand-off drags on, the worse it all gets.

So the final answer on rebranding - yes or no?

Ultimately, I feel we are in a moment in time in which people need to stop looking back and start looking forward.

By this I do in no way mean that we should be ignoring the realities and, in many cases, mistakes of the past. Far from it. What I mean is we need to start using them to inform our future.

We can control what we do here and now, rather than what happened in years past, and as a result I think we owe it to the people that feel misrepresented by the branding around the club to acknowledge their discomfort with the name.

Obviously we do not know the details of the communications the club have received from people who would feel directly represented by the Chiefs moniker, but in the spirit of repairing the mistakes of the past I feel a rebrand is probably the logical choice and the right one.

While I do not believe there is any intended, or necessarily unintended, malice behind the Chiefs brand whatsoever, I think if people directly affected by it are uncomfortable then that should be taken seriously.

The longer the club puts off the decision, the more the opposition movement will grow and ultimately more and more damage will be done to the club and its fanbase in the long term.

Would I miss the Tomahawk Chop ringing around Sandy Park if it were to disappear? Oh yes.

Would it feel a little jarring having to call my team by a different name? Yes it probably would.

But at the end of the day, would it change the love I have for the club I have supported since I was ten years old and followed from the Championship to becoming champions? Not a jot.

That’s why I stand in favour of a rebrand - becuse rebranding will not see the club, its fans and the wider world harmed, whereas keeping the name in the face of reasonable protest just might.