Jump to content

Buffalo bills


rtrich11

Recommended Posts

The Kings would be good for Memphis, or, one that i really like, the HOUND-DOGS!

eh?

i don't like the grizzlies keeping the nickname, for that simple fact that it just doesn't fit with the city, and i still get confused and messed up when i see a jersey with "Grizzlies" on it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno how I feel about the whole what to do with the nickname when a team re-locates thing!

For instance the Cleveland Browns thing! The team moves to Baltimore. Fine okay thats cool (unless you are from Cleveland) and changes names (fine, the Browns name belongs to the city of Cleveland after all!) Then a new Cleveland Browns team is founded, suddenly all the history of the now Ravens franchise is assumed by this expansion franchise! Very strange!

Having said that Utah Jazz???????? LA Lakers??????????

Mind you I don't suppose you get many Lions in Detroit, or Jaguars in Jacksonville!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The team moves to Baltimore. Fine okay thats cool (unless you are from Cleveland) and changes names (fine, the Browns name belongs to the city of Cleveland after all!) Then a new Cleveland Browns team is founded, suddenly all the history of the now Ravens franchise is assumed by this expansion franchise! Very strange!

It was understood by Art Modell (aka Satan) that if he moved the team, all colors, logos, records, ANYTHING havingto do withthe cleveland browns, stayed in cleveland.. so other than havin players, Baltimore was basically an Expantion francise, no records or anything... (although TV analysts tended to carry over the records anyway.. which pissed me off)

Official... it is look at like this.. Baltimore got an Expantion franchise, and Cleveland took a 3 year hiatus, with all records and rights returning to them in 1999....

It was an odd situation, but worth if for the fans of Cleveland, who never deserved to be raped the way they were...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The team moves to Baltimore. Fine okay thats cool (unless you are from Cleveland) and changes names (fine, the Browns name belongs to the city of Cleveland after all!) Then a new Cleveland Browns team is founded, suddenly all the history of the now Ravens franchise is assumed by this expansion franchise! Very strange!

It was understood by Art Modell (aka Satan) that if he moved the team, all colors, logos, records, ANYTHING havingto do withthe cleveland browns, stayed in cleveland.. so other than havin players, Baltimore was basically an Expantion francise, no records or anything... (although TV analysts tended to carry over the records anyway.. which pissed me off)

Official... it is look at like this.. Baltimore got an Expantion franchise, and Cleveland took a 3 year hiatus, with all records and rights returning to them in 1999....

It was an odd situation, but worth if for the fans of Cleveland, who never deserved to be raped the way they were...

All true

If anyone should be familiar with this concept, it should be the folks in Baltimore.  The first Colts franchise folded outright in 1950.  Two years later, an expansion team called the Dallas Texans was born, failed miserably, and moved to Baltimore to become the second incarnation of the Colts.  If I am not mistaken, the Colts' team history includes everything from today's Indianapolis team all the way back to the first franchise's roots in the AAFC of the 1940's (the same league from whence the Cleveland Browns came).  So there should be no reason why the Ravens should lay any claim to records and events established by the original Cleveland Browns.  

And isn't it interesting that had neither Baltimore major league team been renamed there would be a Baltimore Browns in football and baseball?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with a Memphis-based pro sports expansion team adopting a team name and/or logo that pays homage to Elvis (i.e. Memphis HoundDogs, Memphis Kings, etc.), is that Elvis Presley Enterprises is going to put up a fight to claim a percentage of any profits generated by the sale of licensed merchandise, etc.

The NFL found this out during the expansion process that ultimately awarded teams to Charlotte and Jacksonville. NFL Properties had begun generating provisional identities for the various candidate cities and their top choice for Memphis was the Hound Dogs. Well, Elvis Presley Enterprises let it be known - in no uncertain terms - that they would expect some sort of compensation for use of said name. They felt that there was just too much of a coincidence between a team being placed in Memphis that was named the Hound Dogs... and the fact that one of Elvis' biggest hits featured the term "Hound Dog"... and the fact that Elvis had been a long-time Memphis resident. Given how powerful a licensing body Elvis Presley Enterprises is, there is a serious doubt as to whether or not the NFL would have followed through on the Hound Dogs name had Memphis been approved for a franchise. I mean, why would the NFL want to share merchandising revenue with an outside party?

Interesting side story: I've actually experienced the Elvis Presley Enterprises licensing control at work. I provided an Elvis voice-over for a radio commercial. In order for the commercial client to be free from future litigation they had to get EPE approval for every facet of the commercial... including my voice-over. I am now an officially-approved Elvis Presley voice-over artist.

Brian in Boston

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian, you blew a golden opportunity by not closing your prior comment with "Thank you, thankyouverymuch."

:D

And would EPE really have a claim over "Hound Dogs" when it's a known fact that the King's version was a remake (a few times over) of a song that had been around since the 30's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the problem with the whole franchise thing that you americans have in sports!!!! Its all very confusing sometimes. And the people who really lose are the fans!

Yeah, this never happens anywhere else.  Like Fitzroy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yhollander...

I think that EPE's claim would have less to do with any rights to the song (after all, as you pointed out, Elvis' recording was a remake) than to the entire line of reasoning I laid out.

Lets face facts: we all know why NFL Properties thought that it would be a clever idea to name a Memphis-based team the Hound Dogs. It wasn't meant as a tribute to the song on its own. It wasn't meant as a nod to all of the residents of the TAM region (Tennessee-Arkansas-Mississippi) who happen to own "hound dogs". The identity resonates in the Memphis area because a "favorite-son", high-profile, long-time  celebrity resident of the city recorded the arguably most well-known version of the song in question. That celebrity was Elvis Presley.

NFL Properties was making that connection when they came up with the name... and fans of the team would have been making that connection when they heard the name. Elvis Presley Enterprises was banking on the legal system recognizing the same thing if Memphis had been granted a team and the NFL had gone forward with that name. Would EPE have finally won the battle? Who knows? However, it had the potential to be a protracted battle. IMHO, the NFL would have probably opted for another name just to avoid the hassle. EPE is tenacious.

Brian in Boston

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian, you make very good points.  As a lawyer I can attest to the fact that most risk management decisions are made with regard to the COST of litigation, not necessarily the OUTCOME.  And with the NFL's horrible track record in court, I can see why they would have wanted to discourage that name.

I never liked it in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.