Seattle NBA Brand Discussion

[Hoops McCann]

3 hours ago, worcat said:

I would have to disagree to some extent. As long as a team turned to the original city with the same moniker - keeping their records, they could still reference that they have won a title in the past. 

Yes. Go see a hockey game in Ottawa and look up

[worcat]

17 minutes ago, Hoops McCann said:

Yes. Go see a hockey game in Ottawa and look up

I'd love to but $$ - please enlighten me with what you are referring to?

 

*After research, I'm trying to figure out what exactly you are talking about. Is this the Senators pre and post 1992–93? I don't know much about your franchise and its history. Does it follow my previous 1, 2, or 3 situation? Other? I'm guessing they (Ottawa) does not have banners for the previous NHL success? 

 

"The NHL presented the Senators with a "certificate of reinstatement" commemorating Ottawa's return to the league, and the current Senators honour the original franchise's 11 Stanley Cups. However, records for the two teams are kept separately. "

 

If that's the case, then maybe I need more info. Is this handed down from the NHL? Is it because of current Senators ownership? Context please to help the discussion.

[IceCap]

15 hours ago, worcat said:

Food for thought.

Sorry, no. Not buying any of it. I follow the only scenario that matters. Reality. Teams move, the records should follow them. The teams, not cities or fans, set those records. 

[IceCap]

13 hours ago, worcat said:

I'd love to but $$ - please enlighten me with what you are referring to?

 

*After research, I'm trying to figure out what exactly you are talking about. Is this the Senators pre and post 1992–93? I don't know much about your franchise and its history. Does it follow my previous 1, 2, or 3 situation? Other? I'm guessing they (Ottawa) does not have banners for the previous NHL success? 

 

"The NHL presented the Senators with a "certificate of reinstatement" commemorating Ottawa's return to the league, and the current Senators honour the original franchise's 11 Stanley Cups. However, records for the two teams are kept separately. "

 

If that's the case, then maybe I need more info. Is this handed down from the NHL? Is it because of current Senators ownership? Context please to help the discussion.

What more info is needed? The current Senators team has petitioned the league to have their records and the records of the original Senators merged. The league turned them down. 

The NHL decides these matters.  

[mike2sana]

Its about "Actually Vs. Technically"

 

It sad to say but I think it boils down to who "Legally" owns what.

I'm not saying it is right, I personally think there is something fundamentally wrong with owning another team/company's history to sell a false story. However, I know the world we live in is controlled by signs, symbols, capitalism, and brands which are easily sold and traded around to push/sell an idea to a fanbase, a city, and most importantly potential consumers. 

 

Here's a hypothetical example of how it works:

Say Planters Peanuts changes their name to Farmers Choice Peanuts, ten years later a separate company wants to buy the planters name, logo, history, and all things associated with the original brand.

Farmers choice still exists, but now there is a planters 2.0 and farmers choice sold the I.P. and heritage they were holding onto for a decent chunk of change.

since planters 2.0 cashed out and legally bought the name, brand, and history of this company they technically own it.

On every bag of planters 2.0 theres a little graphic that says "since 1906" 

Is this true? NO, Its marketing! Brands do this all the time and some of our favorite teams ARE brands so why expect anything different.

Its the same brand "Technically" because it was bought out, but was it the same company that was founded in 1906 hell no! that probably just a registered trademark slogan that was bought from the previous company.

Some fans of the old brand will rejoice like PLANTERS IS BACK! AFTER TEN YEARS!

but the people who know the truth know the truth.

In the world we live in today memories are a commodity. 

Farmers choice would be the Planters the people "Actually" loved

 

With Seattle's case and the NBAs case there is a part of me that is happy that Seattle as a city has a way to hold onto its history, furthering the connection with its fans. Even though in my heart I know OKC is the organization that actually won the title.

 

 

 

[TBGKon]

This thread should not be 4 pages....

 

It's Supersonics or nothing at all.

[mike2sana]

11 minutes ago, AstroBull21 said:

This thread should not be 4 pages....

 

It's Supersonics or nothing at all.

 

Pretty much the absolute truth

[worcat]

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Sorry, no. Not buying any of it. I follow the only scenario that matters. Reality. Teams move, the records should follow them. The teams, not cities or fans, set those records. 

I'm not disagreeing with that notion but simply explaining that to some people, there are different ways to interpret how fans feel when their team moves.

 

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

What more info is needed? The current Senators team has petitioned the league to have their records and the records of the original Senators merged. The league turned them down. 

The NHL decides these matters.  

Info that I was looking for was who was keeping them from getting their history back. Sorry I'm not a big follower of the all mighty Ottawa Senators SMH. In this case, the NHL is doing what the NHL does and deprives a fan base of their rightful history.

[smzimbabwe]

So if the Sacramento Kings move to Seattle, rename as the SuperSonics, are you saying they have more of a claim to the 1979 title than the Oklahoma City Thunder? Can they hang a banner for their 1951 championship? And (not basketball), why do the Washington Nationals have retired numbers for former Expos, if the Expos have ceased to exist?

[IceCap]

41 minutes ago, worcat said:

In this case, the NHL is doing what the NHL does and deprives a fan base of their rightful history.

Nope, they're not. The two Senators franchises were separate entities separated by fifty-eight (58!) years of inactivity. Suggesting that the current Sens are the original Sens is just ludicrous.

 

Now the current Sens team can honour and homage that earlier team. That's fine. Pretending that the current team is the old team is just that though. Pretend. 

 

43 minutes ago, worcat said:

Sorry I'm not a big follower of the all mighty Ottawa Senators SMH.

The original team was one of the game's earliest dynasties. Might wanna look into them if you have an interest in hockey history. 

 

 

[worcat]

35 minutes ago, smzimbabwe said:

So if the Sacramento Kings move to Seattle, rename as the SuperSonics, are you saying they have more of a claim to the 1979 title than the Oklahoma City Thunder? Can they hang a banner for their 1951 championship? 

No, since OKC owns the SuperSonics moniker and history.

 

35 minutes ago, smzimbabwe said:

why do the Washington Nationals have retired numbers for former Expos, if the Expos have ceased to exist?

Because the Nationals choose to honor the former players of Montreal. What's so difficult to understand?

35 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Nope, they're not. The two Senators franchises were separate entities separated by fifty-eight (58!) years of inactivity. Suggesting that the current Sens are the original Sens is just ludicrous.

 

Now the current Sens team can honour and homage that earlier team. That's fine. Pretending that the current team is the old team is just that though. Pretend. 

In this case, then the NHL shouldn't have allowed Ottawa to name their expansion team the Senators if they didn't want the city or fans to want to bridge the gap between both franchises with the same name. Again, I don't know all the details with what the Senators can and can't acknowledge. Does another team own the original Senators stats or are they just defunct by the NHL? If Ottawa wants to honor the original team, then by all means, go for it. 

39 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

The original team was one of the game's earliest dynasties. Might wanna look into them if you have an interest in hockey history. 

It's enjoyable to read into teams history but being thorough in over 100 years of the league and knowledge of every teams long detailed history, it's really not possible unless that was my actual full time job.

[IceCap]

7 minutes ago, worcat said:

Does another team own the original Senators stats or are they just defunct by the NHL?

No, the team moved to St. Louis and spent the 1934-35 season as the Eagles before folding. They original franchise hasn't been active since.

 

10 minutes ago, worcat said:

In this case, then the NHL shouldn't have allowed Ottawa to name their expansion team the Senators if they didn't want the city or fans to want to bridge the gap between both franchises with the same name.

The current team in Winnipeg is the Jets, but the NHL recognises them as the old Thrashers. The original Jets' records belong to the Coyotes, despite the new team sharing the name.

The NHL tends to be vert straightforward with franchise records. They stay with the team even if they move, and they don't move history and records around like the NFL and NBA do.

[worcat]

15 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

No, the team moved to St. Louis and spent the 1934-35 season as the Eagles before folding. They original franchise hasn't been active since.

 

The current team in Winnipeg is the Jets, but the NHL recognises them as the old Thrashers. The original Jets' records belong to the Coyotes, despite the new team sharing the name.

The NHL tends to be vert straightforward with franchise records. They stay with the team even if they move, and they don't move history and records around like the NFL and NBA do.

I knew everything you just posted already. Only thing I wasn't sure of was what the final outcome was after the Senators Eagles folded after their only year in St. Louis. 

[TaylorMade]

3 hours ago, worcat said:

No, since OKC owns the SuperSonics moniker and history.

 

They own the history but not the name.

 

Quote

That agreement also allowed Seattle to retain the rights to the Sonics’ name, logo and team colors.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/final-settlement-reached-for-sonics-move/

[Utilis]

I'm pretty sure that the trademarks on the Sonics' various logos are still owned by the Thunder.

[DustDevil61]

6 hours ago, smzimbabwe said:

So if the Sacramento Kings move to Seattle, rename as the SuperSonics, are you saying they have more of a claim to the 1979 title than the Oklahoma City Thunder? Can they hang a banner for their 1951 championship? And (not basketball), why do the Washington Nationals have retired numbers for former Expos, if the Expos have ceased to exist?

 

Unfortunately for Seattle (and possibly Sacramento, given Vivek Ranadive's ownership) but fortunately for this debate, the proposed 2013 sale to Chris Hansen and subsequent relocation to Seattle was shot down.

 

Again, I'm a Utah Jazz fan, so I'm very familiar with records/retired numbers staying with the team and I still think it's the lesser of two evils compared with Cleveland Deal-type situations. That said, I'm also OK with the "team legacy" (i.e., team name, colors, records, titles, etc.) staying in the city and being adopted by a new franchise, right up to "old franchise=current franchise" (think Cleveland Browns, Charlotte Hornets, and in the future Seattle Supersonics...ugh). Lenny Wilkins, Gary Payton, and Sean Kemp played for a team named the Seattle Supersonics, but not the original Sonics franchise that now plays under the Thunder moniker in Oklahoma City.

 

It wouldn't bother me when (not if IMO) a new franchise named the Seattle Supersonics begins play that they'd inherit the 1979 title, retired numbers, records, banners, etc. along with the Sonics "legacy" because I think all those things are part of a city's sports history. Did a different team accomplish all those feats? Yes. Was that team a different franchise? Most certainly. But all those accomplishments were done in the same city and under the same team name and colors. I guess I consider team names/colors/records as a title that can be handed down [like monarchy, Caesar, USS Enterprise (not that one!), HMS Swift, Donkey Kong, or live animal mascots like UGA] so long as the franchises are distinguished from one another (which is why I always emphasize Browns v1.0 and v2.0 or Hornets v1.0 and Hornets v2.0).

 

But it's that blatant lack of distinguishing one franchise/organization with the same title from another that gets me, where the official word from the NFL is that today's Cleveland Browns is the same Cleveland Browns organization that Jim Brown, Otto Graham, and Bernie Kosar played for but "went dormant" from 1996 through 1998 and was "reactivated" in 1999, while the Ravens are a whole new franchise that started play in 1996.

 

But even that's pretty easy to follow (disingenuous, yes, but easy) compared to the Hornicans and Bobnets. Is the NBA's official word on the Hornets history that the Hornets moved to New Orleans, then moved back to Charlotte, with the expansion Pelicans taking their place in New Orleans with virtually the same personnel and Charlotte having a completely different staff and oh no I think I've gone cross-eyed. Are the Charlotte Bobcats technically a defunct franchise? Who knows. Whether you agree records should be kept with the franchises or locations, this situation would be far more simplified by, at the very least, stopping to pretend that the two (three?) Hornets organizations (Charlotte v1.0, New Orleans, and Charlotte v2.0) are the same.

 

It won't happen in the foreseeable future, but this playing fast and loose with history by the NBA is one thing that would terrify me if the Jazz were to ever leave Utah. The Jazz name would likely return to New Orleans and Utah Jazz moniker would be banished to the same nebulous nether realm as that of the Charlotte Bobcats. What team would Adrian Dantley, John Stockton, Karl Malone, Andrei Kirilenko, and Rudy Gobert have played for then?

 

Maybe it's best to stick keep records/titles/banners/etc. with the franchise, but this could be the most reasonable loophole around it. But I think leagues need to clamp down on these kinds of things and emphasize franchise/organizational continuity.

 

Anyways, I could go on for hours on this (I kinda already have).

[RichO]

8 hours ago, DustDevil61 said:

 

Unfortunately for Seattle (and possibly Sacramento, given Vivek Ranadive's ownership) but fortunately for this debate, the proposed 2013 sale to Chris Hansen and subsequent relocation to Seattle was shot down.

 

Again, I'm a Utah Jazz fan, so I'm very familiar with records/retired numbers staying with the team and I still think it's the lesser of two evils compared with Cleveland Deal-type situations. That said, I'm also OK with the "team legacy" (i.e., team name, colors, records, titles, etc.) staying in the city and being adopted by a new franchise, right up to "old franchise=current franchise" (think Cleveland Browns, Charlotte Hornets, and in the future Seattle Supersonics...ugh). Lenny Wilkins, Gary Payton, and Sean Kemp played for a team named the Seattle Supersonics, but not the original Sonics franchise that now plays under the Thunder moniker in Oklahoma City.

 

It wouldn't bother me when (not if IMO) a new franchise named the Seattle Supersonics begins play that they'd inherit the 1979 title, retired numbers, records, banners, etc. along with the Sonics "legacy" because I think all those things are part of a city's sports history. Did a different team accomplish all those feats? Yes. Was that team a different franchise? Most certainly. But all those accomplishments were done in the same city and under the same team name and colors. I guess I consider team names/colors/records as a title that can be handed down [like monarchy, Caesar, USS Enterprise (not that one!), HMS Swift, Donkey Kong, or live animal mascots like UGA] so long as the franchises are distinguished from one another (which is why I always emphasize Browns v1.0 and v2.0 or Hornets v1.0 and Hornets v2.0).

 

But it's that blatant lack of distinguishing one franchise/organization with the same title from another that gets me, where the official word from the NFL is that today's Cleveland Browns is the same Cleveland Browns organization that Jim Brown, Otto Graham, and Bernie Kosar played for but "went dormant" from 1996 through 1998 and was "reactivated" in 1999, while the Ravens are a whole new franchise that started play in 1996.

 

But even that's pretty easy to follow (disingenuous, yes, but easy) compared to the Hornicans and Bobnets. Is the NBA's official word on the Hornets history that the Hornets moved to New Orleans, then moved back to Charlotte, with the expansion Pelicans taking their place in New Orleans with virtually the same personnel and Charlotte having a completely different staff and oh no I think I've gone cross-eyed. Are the Charlotte Bobcats technically a defunct franchise? Who knows. Whether you agree records should be kept with the franchises or locations, this situation would be far more simplified by, at the very least, stopping to pretend that the two (three?) Hornets organizations (Charlotte v1.0, New Orleans, and Charlotte v2.0) are the same.

 

It won't happen in the foreseeable future, but this playing fast and loose with history by the NBA is one thing that would terrify me if the Jazz were to ever leave Utah. The Jazz name would likely return to New Orleans and Utah Jazz moniker would be banished to the same nebulous nether realm as that of the Charlotte Bobcats. What team would Adrian Dantley, John Stockton, Karl Malone, Andrei Kirilenko, and Rudy Gobert have played for then?

 

Maybe it's best to stick keep records/titles/banners/etc. with the franchise, but this could be the most reasonable loophole around it. But I think leagues need to clamp down on these kinds of things and emphasize franchise/organizational continuity.

 

Anyways, I could go on for hours on this (I kinda already have).

 

This seems like the most reasonable way to handle these things. A team existed, that team moved. Sometimes names change, sometimes not, all that's fine. The team/league can decide how to handle the history of the relocating team carrying forward to a new city. A new team moves into or expands into the abandoned city, they can decide if they want to honor the prior history there (name, colors, retired numbers, banners for the old franchise's championships, whatever). Weird franken-histories and manufactured legal constructs don't change what's observable- teams moved. Hornets 1 moved. The Bobcats were created, then re-named themselves the Hornets. If they want to honor Larry Johnson, Alonzo Mourning, Kelly Tripucka, or the Carolina Cougars, cool, just be clear that it's a tribute.

[TaylorMade]

10 hours ago, Utilis said:

I'm pretty sure that the trademarks on the Sonics' various logos are still owned by the Thunder.

 

I guess you are technically correct. They own them with the caveat that if Seattle gets a new team they must turn them over in their entirety. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

36 minutes ago, RichO said:

Weird franken-histories and manufactured legal constructs don't change what's observable- teams moved. Hornets 1 moved. The Bobcats were created, then re-named themselves the Hornets. If they want to honor Larry Johnson, Alonzo Mourning, Kelly Tripucka, or the Carolina Cougars, cool, just be clear that it's a tribute.

 

Right.  When the Hornets arrived in New Orleans, one of the first things they did was to retire the number 7 in honour of Pete Maravich; and the number remains retired by the Pelicans.  This, however, does not mean that the Hornets/Pelicans claim the history of the New Orleans Jazz.

The frustrating thing about all this is that the correct way to do it is not a mystery.  It was done a long time ago by the two Washington Senators teams, and recently by the two Winnipeg Jets teams: in each case, the two teams belong to two separate franchise histories, even though both versions appeal to the same fans.  Bloody simple.  This was the only acceptable solution for Browns and Hornets; having new teams with those names absolutely did not require playing "let's pretend" with the facts of history.  And likewise for any future iterations of the SuperSonics, Expos, Whalers, or whatever else. 

When the Browns opened the door to this nonsense, it was scandalous.  But the shocking thing is how normalised this treatment has become, so much so that people now expect it, and some will actually advocate the adulterating of history as though it represents a morally upstanding act.  

Here I will preemptively declare invalid the dismissive responses along the lines of "it's only sports, dude; chill out".  The willingness to misrepresent the facts of history is a manifestation of a serious problem.  There is no way to avoid the observation that this disrespect for historical fact coincides with a frightening trend in many circles of society to disregard all manner of facts that are objectively provable.  This ugly trend of changing history started with the Browns as an ad hoc measure designed to undercut a potential lawsuit; but now as a conscious strategy, it is fully a creature of the toxic "post-truth" phenomenon.

[hawk36]

If I bought the old Carnegie Deli in New York, and opened a new deli in Seattle called it the Carnegie Deli, you are saying that the Seattle one would be the real one since I own the rights to the name? Seems crazy to me but I know there are probably 50% of you that think that's perfectly reasonable. Different people, different ideas of reality, makes life interesting.