jimsimo

Report: Browns New Unis Taking a Traditional Turn

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

I don't love it, but I think it's the new normal.  For however "clean" the Cleveland Deal was, does anyone that supports it turn around and not support the Charlotte/New Orleans Deal?  It's definitely not as clean but it's essentially the same result.


I don’t support the Charlotte Hornets deal because it’s not essentially the same result. That’s the actual revisionism that the Browns deal gets accused of when the Browns deal all rolled out in real time as the games were being played. People trying to blame the Browns for how the nba handled their own business is abjectly silly to me. 
 

I do think there’s some Mandela Effect stuff in play with the Browns where people thought the hornets thing is also what happened with the Cleveland deal and then never adjusted their stance on it once their perception became clearer. There’s some extra mustard attached to the Cleveland deal despite how clean it really is in truth.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, McCarthy said:


I don’t support the Charlotte Hornets deal because it’s not essentially the same result. That’s the actual revisionism that the Browns deal gets accused of when the Browns deal all rolled out in real time as the games were being played. People trying to blame the Browns for how the nba handled their own business is abjectly silly to me. 
 

I do think there’s some Mandela Effect stuff in play with the Browns where people thought the hornets thing is also what happened with the Cleveland deal and then never adjusted their stance on it once their perception became clearer. There’s some extra mustard attached to the Cleveland deal despite how clean it really is in truth.  

I'll put it it this way...if the Cleveland Deal doesn't happen, I don't think the Charlotte Deal happens, either.  You can say that blaming the Browns is like blaming Henry Ford for the minivan, but I think this was a turning point in the idea that history "belongs to the city." I see the difference between the two "deals" but I don't think they are entirely unrelated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cleveland Browns are a professional football team DESIGNATED BY THE NFL that plays in the city of Cleveland, it is a business that purports to REPRESENT THE CITY OF CLEVELAND UNDER THE NFL BANNER. If someone doesn't consider them the "same" as the earlier incarnation because of the existence of an NFL team that plays in the city of Baltimore, that person just has way too much time on their hands.

 

Once the original team left Cleveland, it ceased being the Browns. The history which took place IN THAT CITY should be held by the NFL team which represents THAT city.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, colortv said:

The Cleveland Browns are a professional football team DESIGNATED BY THE NFL that plays in the city of Cleveland, it is a business that purports to REPRESENT THE CITY OF CLEVELAND UNDER THE NFL BANNER. If someone doesn't consider them the "same" as the earlier incarnation because of the existence of an NFL team that plays in the city of Baltimore, that person just has way too much time on their hands.

 

Once the original team left Cleveland, it ceased being the Browns. The history which took place IN THAT CITY should be held by the NFL team which represents THAT city.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, colortv said:

The Cleveland Browns are a professional football team DESIGNATED BY THE NFL that plays in the city of Cleveland, it is a business that purports to REPRESENT THE CITY OF CLEVELAND UNDER THE NFL BANNER. If someone doesn't consider them the "same" as the earlier incarnation because of the existence of an NFL team that plays in the city of Baltimore, that person just has way too much time on their hands.

 

Once the original team left Cleveland, it ceased being the Browns. The history which took place IN THAT CITY should be held by the NFL team which represents THAT city.

 

 

Actually it didn’t take me all that much time to see the Colts and Oilers move and then see the Browns “suspend operations.”

 

I think we all agree with and understand your first sentence.  But the last sentence?  I’ll stick with the way history was recorded for the previous hundred years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I do admit that I didn’t know about the history part of the Deal until sometime that I pick it up on this board (probably like 2005).  I guess it was because it never occurred to me that it would be handled that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cleveland and Charlotte deals aren't really very comparable.  The Cleveland deal played out relatively real time, so the Ravens started from scratch as being recognized by the league as a legally-new team, despite what actually happened.  If you don't buy that the Ravens are an expansion team then that's fine, but the bottom line is that the paperwork says they are, and it says that the Browns are the old Browns.  I get all the disagreements, but at least the technicalities work out.

 

With Charlotte, they retroactively changed history.  They literally took records from one franchise and transferred them over to another, many years after the fact.  It was like one day the Pellicans had decades of history, then all of a sudden they were a new team, while the Bobcats were retroactively explained as the Hornets, but that the Hornets just changed their name to Bobcats for a few years.  That hurts my head, and insults my intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

I’ll stick with the way history was recorded for the previous hundred years.


Yes.  And history records that Modell took his corporation, personnel, assets, and liabilities out of town and left the intellectual property and records behind in trust for another corporate entity to continue.  Because that’s what happened. 

 

History also records that the Boston Celtics did the same thing in the summer of ‘78, too.  Because that’s also what happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 


Yes.  And history records that Modell took his corporation, personnel, assets, and liabilities out of town and left the intellectual property and records behind in trust for another corporate entity to continue.  Because that’s what happened. 

 

History also records that the Boston Celtics did the same thing in the summer of ‘78, too.  Because that’s also what happened. 


Oh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NicDB said:


Oh?


Sorry, the story is now buried a couple pages back. 
 

 

Long story short, the owner of the Buffalo Braves traded franchises with the owner of the Boston Celtics.  Everything that belonged to the Celtics was moved to California. Everything, that is, except the name, logo, and records, which were left in Boston for a new corporate organization to pick up. Creditors of the Boston Celtics before the summer of 1978 got their payments from the San Diego Clippers.

 

So anyone who claims that the “new” Browns aren’t the original Browns also has to apply the same logic to the Celtics, and claim that Bill Russell and Larry Bird played for two separate teams.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

So anyone who claims that the “new” Browns aren’t the original Browns also has to apply the same logic to the Celtics, and claim that Bill Russell and Larry Bird played for two separate teams.

 

On 1/12/2020 at 12:22 AM, Ice_Cap said:

So the the Celtics were founded in 1978 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I recognize that you are the one person who is actually arguing that. 
 

And I salute you for it. The position is absurd, but at least it’s intellectually consistent.  Consistently absurd, even. 😛 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

1 hour ago, OnWis97 said:

Actually, I do admit that I didn’t know about the history part of the Deal until sometime that I pick it up on this board (probably like 2005).  I guess it was because it never occurred to me that it would be handled that way.

 

This is what I'm saying about the Mandela Effect. People thought the Browns were a fresh new team in 1999, then when they heard they were granted their history when they started again in 1999 they thought it was a stupid rewriting of history without realizing that's not what happened. How it actually played out was known to everyone that mattered. Then when people learned it was actually pretty cut and dry they couldn't adjust their stance so now we have people here arguing that Bill Russell played for the LA Clippers so their argument is consistent. 

 

I think people just need to admit the Cleveland deal wasn't the perverted violation of historical record keeping they so want it to be. 

 

11 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Long story short, the owner of the Buffalo Braves traded franchises with the owner of the Boston Celtics.  Everything that belonged to the Celtics was moved to California.  Everything except the name, logo, that is, and a new corporate organization stepped in to pick those up. Creditors of the Boston Celtics before the summer of 1978 got their payments from the San Diego Clippers.

 

So anyone who claims that the “new” Browns aren’t the original Browns also has to apply the same logic to the Celtics, and claim that Bill Russell and Larry Bird played for two separate teams.

 

 

I don't know how I've never heard of this, but it's beautiful and perfect. I've never felt so vindicated. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

And I salute you for it. The position is absurd, but at least it’s intellectually consistent. 😛 

 

Ferdy tried to link it to "anti-intellectualism" and "post-truth disregard for facts." That's a bit more absurd.

 

Can we just agree that what the Ottawa Senators have done is truly absurd and dishonest?

 

cut.jpeg

 

The history demonstrates that the two teams aren't the same, so why use the modern logos on the defunct team's banners?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

Yes, I recognize that you are the one person who is actually arguing that. 
 

And I salute you for it. The position is absurd, but at least it’s intellectually consistent.  Consistently absurd, even. 😛 

 

🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, SFGiants58 said:

 

Ferdy tried to link it to "anti-intellectualism" and "post-truth disregard for facts." That's a bit more absurd.

 

Can we just agree that what the Ottawa Senators have done is truly absurd and dishonest?

 

cut.jpeg

 

The history demonstrates that the two teams aren't the same, so why use the modern logos on the defunct team's banners?

A franchise that has little to show for it trying to fill up the arena with some sense of history. 

 

Yes I'm fully aware as a Canucks fan I shouldn't be taking shots. I'm not, I'm just calling it like it is. Besides, there is no Millionaires banner in Rogers Arena.

 

As far as the topic at hand goes, sports history can get kind of squirrelly regardless. I have no issue with saying the Baltimore Ravens are simply a new franchise that bought the players from Cleveland. I think it works for Baltimore, and it works for Cleveland. If you really try to go down the rabbithole on a topic like this you'll just end up in a Ships of Theseus scenario with no concrete answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

 

🙄


oh, come now.  The 😛 means I’m teasing you, just a little.

 

But you have to admit that “the Celtics were founded in 1978!” is a distinctly unpopular opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

Can we just agree that what the Ottawa Senators have done is truly absurd and dishonest?

 

Sure. 
 

if the Senators want to honor their predecessors, or even just their city’s history, I’m all for that.  But using the modern logo implies a real connection, which is as dishonest in its own way as the new Hornets pretending that they're the old ones.  Or, indeed, as revisionist as claiming that the Browns aren’t really the Browns.

 

I don’t deny that some teams have learned the wrong lesson from the Browns’ franchise swap.  That doesn’t make the original action wrong, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

if the Senators want to honor their predecessors, or even just their city’s history, I’m all for that.  But using the modern logo implies a real connection, which is as dishonest in its own way as the new Hornets pretending that they're the old ones.  Or, indeed, as revisionist as claiming that the Browns aren’t really the Browns.

The Senators have asked the NHL to merge their record books with the original Senators at least twice. And have been told to pound sand each time. 

The NHL is often too stupid to get out of its own way at times, but they do things correctly when it comes to recognizing the history of their sport. 

 

5 hours ago, Gothamite said:


oh, come now.  The 😛 means I’m teasing you, just a little.

 

But you have to admit that “the Celtics were founded in 1978!” is a distinctly unpopular opinion.

I mean there are plenty of cases throughout history where I wish something other than what happened happened. Doesn't mean I get to change the history books to make myself feel better. Hell, there's a reason I call stuff like this Orwellian. 

 

So if Larry Bird didn't play for the same team as Bill Russell? Then he didn't play for the same team as Bill Russell.

Just like Nick Chub doesn't play for the same team Jim Brown played for. 

 

And really, what I don't appreciate is the continued insistence some people have in debating this with me when I said I was done. And then to be mocked when I, in as passive a manner as possible, actually bother to respond. 

 

So yeah. Unless someone REALLY wants to do a thing where we talk past each other about whether franchise certificates mean anything? I'm done. Like I was when people ignored me saying that the first time 🙄

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because other people want to keep talking about the topic, that doesn’t mean you have to participate. ;) 
 


I’m sorry I joshed you about it.  I won’t again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.