Cleveland Browns

[DrBear]

WHY COULDN'T THEY HAVE SIMPLY ASKED THE NFL FOR MORE TIME?

BECAUSE WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME!

(sorry, possessed by Jack Bauer for a second)

[02Rover]

Modell took the team away because Cleveland is a :censored:hole, plain and simple. I'm surprised the Indians and Cavs didn't move either. Clevelanders should consider themselves lucky to have a team at all.

**LOL** Spoken like a man whose teams routinely take a beating at the hands of Clevleand/ Ohio teams.

- Michigan is utterly owned by the Buckeyes these days.

- Pistons trashed by Lebron and the Cavs.

- Tigers 06 AL Pennant burned and tossed in the trash by the 07 Indians.

Just be glad the Lions only face the Browns in the preseason, otherwise we would own you there, too.

I also love a Detroit guy calling Cleveland trash. **LOL**

Victory is sweet, Cleveland Indians, 2007 AL Central Champions!!

I'm waiting for an answer....

I'll ask one last time. WHY COULDN'T THEY HAVE SIMPLY ASKED THE NFL FOR MORE TIME?

Waiting for an answer?? To what, your inane question?? Look, your stance and attitudes about this situation and the Browns, in general, has been well established. To furthur converse with you is pointless cause you have you agenda and only want to push that and arent interested in any real fact finding dialog.

Now, to answer that stupid question, they werent going to ask for another year. Over half a billion dollars were invested in gaining that franchise. The NFL promised in 3 years and the public expected 3 years. There was money that was to be made that year and pushing back another year just wasnt an option. It would have been a PR nighmare and Lerner, looking to return on his investment, would have taken a beating on his bottom line by forgoeing a full years of revenues.

The NFL dragged their feet and screwed everyone over by waiting to long to grant the franchise.

I read today that the Jacksonville Jags closed a portion of their stadium and still cant sell out games. This is furthur evidence that Tags and the NFL botched this whole thing. Jacksonville isnt an NFL city. They should have never, ever been given a franchise to beigin with. Those expansion franchises should have gone to Baltimore and St Louis, those were the best candidates and by granting them to Charlotte and Jax, the leageu begged for those citys to steal franchises from other towns, which is exactly what both did. To see Jax failing just a few years down the road only emphasizes this point that Tags botched the whole thing, start to finish.

[rams80]

I'll ask one last time. WHY COULDN'T THEY HAVE SIMPLY ASKED THE NFL FOR MORE TIME?

Waiting for an answer?? To what, your inane question?? Look, your stance and attitudes about this situation and the Browns, in general, has been well established. To furthur converse with you is pointless cause you have you agenda and only want to push that and arent interested in any real fact finding dialog.

You want the honest truth? The stuff that you have submitted as factual and that has been backed up with proof, I already knew. The only stuff I'm not sure of was that of Cleveland being used as a patsy by the NFL for a couple of years to extract stadium financing. However, you have yet to provide independent, neutral journalistic sources on this. Cleveland journalists, and Art Modell are too close to the story to be unbiased.

Now, to answer that stupid question, they werent going to ask for another year. Over half a billion dollars were invested in gaining that franchise. The NFL promised in 3 years and the public expected 3 years. There was money that was to be made that year and pushing back another year just wasnt an option. It would have been a PR nighmare and Lerner, looking to return on his investment, would have taken a beating on his bottom line by forgoeing a full years of revenues.

So the short-term PR nightmare outweighs the long-term benefits to the franchise? Even with your dedicated fanbase, the massive revenue sharing that comes from owning a NFL franchise, and the ridiculous tv money? What it sounds to me is that greed (from the fans for having a team NOW! NOW! NOW!, from Al Lerner because he wanted his cut of the revenue sharing, tv money, and fan investment.) As a practical matter, the NFL is not going to award an expansion team until public financing for the stadium is in place, and probably until ground is broken. (Remember how close MLB came to looking really foolish and stupid when the Washington City Council almost backed out of a financing deal for the new stadium a couple of years back.)

The NFL dragged their feet and screwed everyone over by waiting to long to grant the franchise.

See above.

I read today that the Jacksonville Jags closed a portion of their stadium and still cant sell out games. This is furthur evidence that Tags and the NFL botched this whole thing. Jacksonville isnt an NFL city. They should have never, ever been given a franchise to beigin with. Those expansion franchises should have gone to Baltimore and St Louis, those were the best candidates and by granting them to Charlotte and Jax, the leageu begged for those citys to steal franchises from other towns, which is exactly what both did. To see Jax failing just a few years down the road only emphasizes this point that Tags botched the whole thing, start to finish.

You want the truth? The original plan for the 1995 expansion was to have one "new" market and one "reclamation" market. Both would have been announced at the same time. Under that initial plan, Charlotte (which has been a success from everything I've seen) would be the new team, and St. Louis (which had had the best bid of the markets, including financing plans for a stadium that would be set to open in 1995; Baltimore didn't finish a stadium until 1998, which means they didn't start until they got the Browns). Unfortunately for this plan, the St. Louis ownership group literally fell apart at pretty much the 11th hour. As a consequence, only Charlotte was announced, and the other competing cities scrambled to redo their bids. Jacksonville made the best of this second chance, and was announced as the NFL's 30th team. Tags didn't botch it, St. Louis did. Yes Jacksonville ultimately looks to be a failure, but the other four applicant cities botched it up worse, and the NFL went with it's best choice at the time.

As a result of the failure, St. Louis had a $280 million stadium under construction without a team. At first it looked like St. Louis businessman James Orthwein, who owned the Patriots, would move them there. (And boy has that caused me to wonder/have nightmares). Robert Kraft, though would not let him break the lease, so Orthwein put the team up for sale and Kraft outbid every one. Then when it became apparent that Anaheim would not be forthcoming with funding for a new stadium for the Rams and attendance was falling, Georgia Frontiere decided to move team to St. Louis, which would be ready to go midway through the 1995 season. (Interesting, the NFL didn't ok the move at first, but only ok'ed it after the Rams agreed to share some of their PSL revenue.)

[02Rover]

I'll ask one last time. WHY COULDN'T THEY HAVE SIMPLY ASKED THE NFL FOR MORE TIME?

Waiting for an answer?? To what, your inane question?? Look, your stance and attitudes about this situation and the Browns, in general, has been well established. To furthur converse with you is pointless cause you have you agenda and only want to push that and arent interested in any real fact finding dialog.

You want the honest truth? The stuff that you have submitted as factual and that has been backed up with proof, I already knew. The only stuff I'm not sure of was that of Cleveland being used as a patsy by the NFL for a couple of years to extract stadium financing. However, you have yet to provide independent, neutral journalistic sources on this. Cleveland journalists, and Art Modell are too close to the story to be unbiased.

Now, to answer that stupid question, they werent going to ask for another year. Over half a billion dollars were invested in gaining that franchise. The NFL promised in 3 years and the public expected 3 years. There was money that was to be made that year and pushing back another year just wasnt an option. It would have been a PR nighmare and Lerner, looking to return on his investment, would have taken a beating on his bottom line by forgoeing a full years of revenues.

So the short-term PR nightmare outweighs the long-term benefits to the franchise? Even with your dedicated fanbase, the massive revenue sharing that comes from owning a NFL franchise, and the ridiculous tv money? What it sounds to me is that greed (from the fans for having a team NOW! NOW! NOW!, from Al Lerner because he wanted his cut of the revenue sharing, tv money, and fan investment.) As a practical matter, the NFL is not going to award an expansion team until public financing for the stadium is in place, and probably until ground is broken. (Remember how close MLB came to looking really foolish and stupid when the Washington City Council almost backed out of a financing deal for the new stadium a couple of years back.)

The NFL dragged their feet and screwed everyone over by waiting to long to grant the franchise.

See above.

I read today that the Jacksonville Jags closed a portion of their stadium and still cant sell out games. This is furthur evidence that Tags and the NFL botched this whole thing. Jacksonville isnt an NFL city. They should have never, ever been given a franchise to beigin with. Those expansion franchises should have gone to Baltimore and St Louis, those were the best candidates and by granting them to Charlotte and Jax, the leageu begged for those citys to steal franchises from other towns, which is exactly what both did. To see Jax failing just a few years down the road only emphasizes this point that Tags botched the whole thing, start to finish.

You want the truth? The original plan for the 1995 expansion was to have one "new" market and one "reclamation" market. Both would have been announced at the same time. Under that initial plan, Charlotte (which has been a success from everything I've seen) would be the new team, and St. Louis (which had had the best bid of the markets, including financing plans for a stadium that would be set to open in 1995; Baltimore didn't finish a stadium until 1998, which means they didn't start until they got the Browns). Unfortunately for this plan, the St. Louis ownership group literally fell apart at pretty much the 11th hour. As a consequence, only Charlotte was announced, and the other competing cities scrambled to redo their bids. Jacksonville made the best of this second chance, and was announced as the NFL's 30th team. Tags didn't botch it, St. Louis did. Yes Jacksonville ultimately looks to be a failure, but the other four applicant cities botched it up worse, and the NFL went with it's best choice at the time.

As a result of the failure, St. Louis had a $280 million stadium under construction without a team. At first it looked like St. Louis businessman James Orthwein, who owned the Patriots, would move them there. (And boy has that caused me to wonder/have nightmares). Robert Kraft, though would not let him break the lease, so Orthwein put the team up for sale and Kraft outbid every one. Then when it became apparent that Anaheim would not be forthcoming with funding for a new stadium for the Rams and attendance was falling, Georgia Frontiere decided to move team to St. Louis, which would be ready to go midway through the 1995 season. (Interesting, the NFL didn't ok the move at first, but only ok'ed it after the Rams agreed to share some of their PSL revenue.)

Thanks for the "truth", as you see it. Coming from a Rams fan in "who knows where" who was "who knows how coherent" during the whole mess as it happened, you providing us Browns fans and life long Cleveland residents with "truth" on the subject is a real treat for us. Oh, gee, thank you so much for your generosity.....

As for the Browns stadium plans, if you knew any "truth", you would know that the voters approved the revamping of the old stadium EXACTLY ONE DAY after Modell stood on the podium in Baltimore and announced the move. The issue was on the ballots and was approved that very day after the announcement. Once the deal was cut with the league, that was altered to be a new stadium on the same site, not a refurbished old place. The financing and ground breaking was in place long before September 1998, but you would have already known that since you are such a "truth" giver to us, right???

As for the proof of other teams using the Cleveland vacancy as an alternative, go do you own research. Surely a "truth" finder such as yourself wouldnt have much trouble finding those facts. We here in Cleveland knwo what went on, we lived thru it. We dont need to dig thru 10-12 year old news paper articles online to prove it to ourselves.

[Buckeyepete]

I'll ask one last time. WHY COULDN'T THEY HAVE SIMPLY ASKED THE NFL FOR MORE TIME?

Waiting for an answer?? To what, your inane question?? Look, your stance and attitudes about this situation and the Browns, in general, has been well established. To furthur converse with you is pointless cause you have you agenda and only want to push that and arent interested in any real fact finding dialog.

You want the honest truth? The stuff that you have submitted as factual and that has been backed up with proof, I already knew. The only stuff I'm not sure of was that of Cleveland being used as a patsy by the NFL for a couple of years to extract stadium financing. However, you have yet to provide independent, neutral journalistic sources on this. Cleveland journalists, and Art Modell are too close to the story to be unbiased.

Now, to answer that stupid question, they werent going to ask for another year. Over half a billion dollars were invested in gaining that franchise. The NFL promised in 3 years and the public expected 3 years. There was money that was to be made that year and pushing back another year just wasnt an option. It would have been a PR nighmare and Lerner, looking to return on his investment, would have taken a beating on his bottom line by forgoeing a full years of revenues.

So the short-term PR nightmare outweighs the long-term benefits to the franchise? Even with your dedicated fanbase, the massive revenue sharing that comes from owning a NFL franchise, and the ridiculous tv money? What it sounds to me is that greed (from the fans for having a team NOW! NOW! NOW!, from Al Lerner because he wanted his cut of the revenue sharing, tv money, and fan investment.) As a practical matter, the NFL is not going to award an expansion team until public financing for the stadium is in place, and probably until ground is broken. (Remember how close MLB came to looking really foolish and stupid when the Washington City Council almost backed out of a financing deal for the new stadium a couple of years back.)

The NFL dragged their feet and screwed everyone over by waiting to long to grant the franchise.

See above.

I read today that the Jacksonville Jags closed a portion of their stadium and still cant sell out games. This is furthur evidence that Tags and the NFL botched this whole thing. Jacksonville isnt an NFL city. They should have never, ever been given a franchise to beigin with. Those expansion franchises should have gone to Baltimore and St Louis, those were the best candidates and by granting them to Charlotte and Jax, the leageu begged for those citys to steal franchises from other towns, which is exactly what both did. To see Jax failing just a few years down the road only emphasizes this point that Tags botched the whole thing, start to finish.

You want the truth? The original plan for the 1995 expansion was to have one "new" market and one "reclamation" market. Both would have been announced at the same time. Under that initial plan, Charlotte (which has been a success from everything I've seen) would be the new team, and St. Louis (which had had the best bid of the markets, including financing plans for a stadium that would be set to open in 1995; Baltimore didn't finish a stadium until 1998, which means they didn't start until they got the Browns). Unfortunately for this plan, the St. Louis ownership group literally fell apart at pretty much the 11th hour. As a consequence, only Charlotte was announced, and the other competing cities scrambled to redo their bids. Jacksonville made the best of this second chance, and was announced as the NFL's 30th team. Tags didn't botch it, St. Louis did. Yes Jacksonville ultimately looks to be a failure, but the other four applicant cities botched it up worse, and the NFL went with it's best choice at the time.

As a result of the failure, St. Louis had a $280 million stadium under construction without a team. At first it looked like St. Louis businessman James Orthwein, who owned the Patriots, would move them there. (And boy has that caused me to wonder/have nightmares). Robert Kraft, though would not let him break the lease, so Orthwein put the team up for sale and Kraft outbid every one. Then when it became apparent that Anaheim would not be forthcoming with funding for a new stadium for the Rams and attendance was falling, Georgia Frontiere decided to move team to St. Louis, which would be ready to go midway through the 1995 season. (Interesting, the NFL didn't ok the move at first, but only ok'ed it after the Rams agreed to share some of their PSL revenue.)

Please provide independent, neutral journalistic sources. We don't want any from St. Louis journalists, too biased.

[Gothamite]

We here in Cleveland knwo what went on, we lived thru it. We dont need to dig thru 10-12 year old news paper articles online to prove it to ourselves.

Fair enough.

But then you can't claim it as fact.

Independently verifiable evidence, not personal recollection, is the only thing that really matters if you want your argument to be convincing.

[rams80]

Please provide independent, neutral journalistic sources. We don't want any from St. Louis journalists, too biased.

The reason I'm rejecting the Cleveland media as a source is that the entire process by which the Browns moved was a very emotional one for all parties, and I question whether they can maintain their objectivity.

The St. Louis media, on the other hand, has to my knowledge never expressed that amount of emotion over the Rams that would call their objectivity into question. If the Cardinals were to ever move, then yes, they would be out as a source, but the point is that they don't care enough about the Rams to feel any real sense of attachment to them. They like having the NFL as a status symbol, but I don't sense a large outcry coming if/when the Rams leave.

[02Rover]

We here in Cleveland knwo what went on, we lived thru it. We dont need to dig thru 10-12 year old news paper articles online to prove it to ourselves.

Fair enough.

But then you can't claim it as fact.

Independently verifiable evidence, not personal recollection, is the only thing that really matters if you want your argument to be convincing.

I dont know what to tell ya. Believe it or not. Its up to you. This isnt a jury trial looking for evidence. This is/was a conversation about a string of events that went on. I was here, very close to the situation. I know what went on. Some of you werent here or dont have the vivid recollections of the events as I, and other Clevelanders, do.

Im not trying to build a case and present undeniable evidence. I just telling you what happened. Believe it or not.

Peace.

[Gothamite]

No problem, but if you're going to complain when your recollection is challenged, then you don't really have a leg to stand on.

As someone who doesn't have a stake in this, you're losing the argument to him. Which might not be a problem for you. That's okay.

[02Rover]

No problem, but if you're going to complain when your recollection is challenged, then you don't really have a leg to stand on.

As someone who doesn't have a stake in this, you're losing the argument to him. Which might not be a problem for you. That's okay.

Well, I dont see it that way. What can I say? Where is all the evidence that every stadium built in the NFL after the Browns left in 96 WAS NOT a direct reflection of the Cleveland opening??

If I dont see evidence, I guess than Im winning the argument, right??

Again, what can I tell ya.....

[rams80]

Let's see....2-3 year window.

Baltimore....was *technically*, as was Cleveland Browns Stadium

FedEx in Washington wasn't

The Linc in Philly is too recent

Chargers trying to replace Quallcomm is too recent.

The Bears used Gary, IN to extort funds for the Soldier Field renovation.

The Patriots used Hartford, CT to leverage funds for Gillette.

I doubt the Broncos threatened to move from Denver when it came time to replace Mile High.

I doubt the Fords (Lions) used Cleveland to get money for Ford Field

The Packers' community ownership precludes moving.

I doubt Paul Allen threatened to move the Seahawks to Cleveland.

There is a small chance San Francisco used Cleveland in the mid-90s.

I won't completely rule out the Glazers using the opening to prize public funds for "The New Sombrero"

Minnesota may have...I'm not sure on the timeline of their agitation for a Metrodome replacement.

Cincinnati may have used Cleveland to prize that sales tax vote for Paul Brown Stadium

Houston might have used Cleveland, but they strike me as being pretty hell-bent on Nashville.

EDIT-Actually, the whole saga of the Oilers hurts your argument in a way. It would have been quite convenient to the NFL to strongly insist that Bud Adams move to Cleveland.

[JQK]

Let's see....2-3 year window.

Baltimore....was *technically*, as was Cleveland Browns Stadium

FedEx in Washington wasn't

The Linc in Philly is too recent

Chargers trying to replace Quallcomm is too recent.

The Bears used Gary, IN to extort funds for the Soldier Field renovation.

The Patriots used Hartford, CT to leverage funds for Gillette.

I doubt the Broncos threatened to move from Denver when it came time to replace Mile High.

I doubt the Fords (Lions) used Cleveland to get money for Ford Field

The Packers' community ownership precludes moving.

I doubt Paul Allen threatened to move the Seahawks to Cleveland.

There is a small chance San Francisco used Cleveland in the mid-90s.

I won't completely rule out the Glazers using the opening to prize public funds for "The New Sombrero"

Minnesota may have...I'm not sure on the timeline of their agitation for a Metrodome replacement.

Cincinnati may have used Cleveland to prize that sales tax vote for Paul Brown Stadium

Houston might have used Cleveland, but they strike me as being pretty hell-bent on Nashville.

EDIT-Actually, the whole saga of the Oilers hurts your argument in a way. It would have been quite convenient to the NFL to strongly insist that Bud Adams move to Cleveland.

Minnesota used San Antonio as leverage.

[rams80]

Minnesota used San Antonio as leverage.

I knew that, I didn't know if they used other markets as well.

[02Rover]

Let's see....2-3 year window.

Baltimore....was *technically*, as was Cleveland Browns Stadium

FedEx in Washington wasn't

The Linc in Philly is too recent

Chargers trying to replace Quallcomm is too recent.

The Bears used Gary, IN to extort funds for the Soldier Field renovation.

The Patriots used Hartford, CT to leverage funds for Gillette.

I doubt the Broncos threatened to move from Denver when it came time to replace Mile High.

I doubt the Fords (Lions) used Cleveland to get money for Ford Field

The Packers' community ownership precludes moving.

I doubt Paul Allen threatened to move the Seahawks to Cleveland.

There is a small chance San Francisco used Cleveland in the mid-90s.

I won't completely rule out the Glazers using the opening to prize public funds for "The New Sombrero"

Minnesota may have...I'm not sure on the timeline of their agitation for a Metrodome replacement.

Cincinnati may have used Cleveland to prize that sales tax vote for Paul Brown Stadium

Houston might have used Cleveland, but they strike me as being pretty hell-bent on Nashville.

EDIT-Actually, the whole saga of the Oilers hurts your argument in a way. It would have been quite convenient to the NFL to strongly insist that Bud Adams move to Cleveland.

What no proof??? No links to sources other than local newspapers or news sources OR YOU?? That is what you are asking of me, correct?? Where's yours?

Modell, rightly or wrongly, took credit for several new stadiums that were built. Im just telling you what he said. Just cause a stadium was built after 1999 doesnt mean the whole culture that changed wasnt to blame for their new buildings, as well. "...well, if an established franchise like the Cleveland Browns can move, we better not take any chances with our franchise...." I believe that was partly what Modell was referring to.

Obviously, the rumor mill was flying during those days around here, but I know for a fact (whether you want to believe it or not) that Tampa, Cincy and now that you mentioned it, Seattle, were teams that were thrown around during that time period. How close things came to happening is a story that will likely never be told, but those three teams certainly were mentioned around that time period, especially Tampa.

No where in this thread did I claim anything other than teams and rumors were flying around. Not one team would ever come out and admit that they were going to move to Cleveland if you didnt build them a new place. Therefore, that proof you are looking for is just not there. If you and you cronies want to claim victory in this thing, whatever. Do what makes you happy. Im just telling you our side of it because there were some inaccuracies in what was being said by non-Cleveland posters.

Peace.

[Gothamite]

No problem, but if you're going to complain when your recollection is challenged, then you don't really have a leg to stand on.

As someone who doesn't have a stake in this, you're losing the argument to him. Which might not be a problem for you. That's okay.

Well, I dont see it that way. What can I say? Where is all the evidence that every stadium built in the NFL after the Browns left in 96 WAS NOT a direct reflection of the Cleveland opening??

If I dont see evidence, I guess than Im winning the argument, right??

Again, what can I tell ya.....

No, because one cannot prove a negative.

You made an affirmative claim, which you should easily be able to back up with facts. We have yet to see any.

Also can't help but notice that you have subtly changed the debate. It used to be "Cleveland got the worst deal in history" then it was "it was proven Art Modell had no right to move his team" now it's "teams used Cleveland as leverage." One has nothing to do with the other - the latter is almost certainly true, the first just as almost certainly false and the one in the middle demonstrably untrue.

You're right about one thing - Jacksonville has no business in the NFL. They have demonstrated that time and time again. The team ought to be moved to a city that actually wants it.

That does not change the fact that Cleveland got the best deal ever given a city in a relocation. A sweetheart deal that any number of other cities who also did not deserve to lose their team would have been grateful for.

[powersurge]

Grrrr... I'll do the Cliff's Notes version.

1. A symbol of a subsegment of the fan base rooting for the team should not represent the team itself, as it does not even represent the totality of the fan abse supporting the team.

2. The stadium where said subsegment was named no longer exists.

3. It's a rip off of a :censored:ty beer logo.

4. It's gimmicky, and it'd be like the Packers dumping the "G" for a chunk of cheese, the Raiders for large black holes, or the Eagles scribbling "700 Level RULEZZZZ!" over their wings. Commemorate the fan base (as a whole or otherwise) elsewhere, don't put that garbage on the team's uniform.

5. Without the team, the fan base doesn't exist.

6. The Browns have a perfectly good logo (Brownie the Elf). As mentioned above, Astrobull's spot-on.

All good points, mostly just opinions though...I guess I'll just give you my opinions and we can see where this one goes

1. Why can't the symbol of the fans represent the team itself? Who wrote that rule? Haven't there been many instances in the past where an official team name was eventually changed because fans were calling the team something else? How about the current Arizona D-Backs identity change? They listened to the fans who lovingly call the team the 'D-Backs' and put it on the uniforms. Opposing fans and newspapers used to call the Oakland A's the "Big White Elephants" and they eventually adopted the elephant logo. So why can't some of the most die hard fans in sport have an influence on the team logo? If there was a team that could and SHOULD do it, it would be the Browns. The fans are the reason the NFL gave the city a team again.

2. Doesn't matter if the old stadium doesn't exist, the memory/tradition still lives on. This argument makes no sense to me because its not like the Dawg Pound was so unique in the old stadium that it can't be transfered into the new one. I can see if a team like the Red Sox had the "Green Monster Boys" or something like that, and the team moved to a ballpark without a green monster (will never happen) and tried to carry on that tradition. THAT would not work.

3. Again, as someone said in a previous post, how different can a rendering of the front view of a bulldog face get? So whats next? They replace it with the full body of a bulldog and people begin commenting that its a ripoff of the Mack Truck logo? Its a moot point in my opinion.

4. No one is saying that they are going to put the logo on the team uniform...atleast not me. Hey the team name itself can be construde as 'Gimmicky'. Naming the team after the owner sounds as bad to me as when Donald Trump was reportedly looking to buy a football team in New Jersey and calling them the "Trumpers". The name "Browns" sounds normal because you grew up hearing it. You make a decent point about some of the other fanbases, but I will say that if the Packers decided to come up with somekind of secondary cheese logo to commemorate the fanbase it wouldn't be that odd IMO.

I will say this, the fact that the fanbase is identified by an animal that is used by many other sports teams in the country as a mascot for makes it a more accepted than having the "700 level whatever the hecks" or the "Cheeseheads". Thats is another reason why I don't have as much of a problem with the dawg logo.

5. This is a chicken and egg argument. I won't spend too much time on this, but I will say that the team orginally left and the fans remained. The NFL gave the fans back a team so I don't see much point arguing further about this point. Los Angeles lost TWO teams and many years later there still is no football in LA...so what does that say about Cleveland Football Fans?

6. This is where I tear my hair out....An ELF??!! C'mon guys are you serious? You'd rather have an elf logo that has just as much relevance to the team as a Model T Ford logo has to the Ford company right now. Talk about a huge disconnect with your fan base. Not a good idea. The logo might be cute...but it makes no sense...atleast not in this millenium.

Time to steer this back on topic and actually discuss the original premise of this thread, kids... you can debate the merits of Cleveland elsewhere. I'll respond in the order the points were posed.

1. Using the A's and D-Backs as an example of the "logo representing the fans of the team" misses by a mile. In the case of the D-Backs, the term "D-Backs" is an abbreviation of the nickname of the team, not of the fans. For your example to be a parallel, the team would have to call itself whatever the fans in Arizona call themselves, and rechristen themselves the "Arizona Snake Pit" or something along those lines. Ditto the A's; it was John McGraw of the NY Giants who branded the players big white elephants, and not as a term of affection. But much as Notre Dame adopted the slur "Fighting Irish" and turned into a badge of honor, Connie Mack used the elephant as a mascot to take a swipe at McGraw. The A's fans were NEVER called big, white elephants. The players on the team were. Again, the example fails to prove a point that a bulldog would be appropriate for the Browns, who've never gone by any dog-related nickname; again, it was a subsegment of the fan base of the team itself.

2. True, the Dawg Pound can be re-established anywhere the Browns play. But that STILL doesn't refute my point: all dog related imagery does not belong on the uniform of the Browns! If the Browns had ever, even ONCE, gone by a dog-related nickname, you could make a very weak case for legitimacy. But for the umpteenth time - any dog references reflect the fan base of the team, and not the tem itself! I can't say it more plainly than that. The team is NOT the Dawgs. Hell - even the fan base as a whole isn't the Dawgs. Never have been, never will.

3. [not germane to the point I've been making forever]

4. You'd never see a team as steeped in tradition as the Packers doing anything more than a commemorative patch for Cheeseheads. It just won't happen. I agree with your opening remark in this paragraph - that the logo doesn't belong on the team's uniforms. If the fans wanted to use Dawg Pound imagery for off-the-field apparel or other fan merchandise, then by all means, do so. But there is a band of people who think that putting a dog's head on the helmet and uniform that the team wears in games would be not only appropriate, but kewl as well. And that's where I draw the line.

There are many in Eagles Nation who wear gear that refers to the 700 Level, or Vet Stadium. I doubt it's sold by the Eagles, although given their penchant for selling almost everything under the sun, maybe they should. But no one is saying the 700 level belongs on the uniform any more than a fat guy in a dress should replace the Indian head in Washington.

5. [not germane... moving on]

6. Hey, the elf isn't the best thing since sliced bread, but it is light years better than a contrived nod to a portion of the fans. As the team's historic graphic depiction, it has far more right to be on the uniform than the dog ever will. Personally, I'd leave well enough alone. The Browns' best logo, in a paradoxical way, is to have no logo at all.

I think you are perseverating on this whole 'dog related nick name' way too much. Let me make it clear that an animal logo doesn't have to be DIRECTLY related to the team nickname. Again, this was what I was getting at with the A's reference that I was making. Another example is the Alabama Crimson Tide and their old elephant logo.

The real issue is whether or not you believe that the dog identity is appropriate because it identifies with the fans. Obviously you don't think it is, I do. I really don't see it as a huge stretch to have a dog logo identifying a team called the "Browns". Is it that odd and out of place? I think a huge point that you are missing here is the history of football in the area. Maybe then you'd understand that the dog identity might not necessarily originate from the fans, but maybe from a previous franchise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canton_Bulldogs

I can't confirm that this is the origin of the dog nickname but atleast it helps refute some of the comparisons to some other football fan groups that people( including yourself) keep making about the dog reference. I don't believe the dog reference is that much of a stretch either way....it depends of course on which side of this argument you are on.

[Gothamite]

That's the first time I've heard the name "Dawg Pound" was intended to hearken back to the Cleveland Bulldogs.

That's a pretty big stretch.

[axlrush]

There are two really good books that discuss the Browns move:

Fumble!

False Start

The first book was written by an exec from Cleveland Stadium Corp., and the second one was written by Terry Pluto, a very well-respected jounalist in NE Ohio.

Basically, Modell AND the city of Cleveland both share the blame in my eyes. For example, one of the things the city did to really screw Modell was taking away much of the parking for Cleveland Municipal Stadium. When the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame was built, the city took away a major portion of parking from the Stadium (if you haven't been to Cleveland, the RnR HOF is literally .1 miles east of the old/new stadium, if that). When the city did this, they basically told Modell "sorry, you deal with it." That was a MAJOR loss of revenue for Modell. Keep in mind that Modell took over Cleveland Stadium operations in the mid-70s basically as a favor to the city because of its poor state at the time with revenue, especially since the Indians at that time were utterly deplorable.

There are many more reasons in the first book to blame both sides.

As for the second book, yes it is written by someone "close to the siutation". It explains why the Browns got such a bad start with their new franchise. But I really can't understand how that doesn't make Pluto a credible source. I think most of us can tell is someone is writing with emotion or fact. Yes, there was plenty of backlash right after the move was annouced, but journalism is journalism, and Terry is very well respected.

My $.02.

[axlrush]

The real issue is whether or not you believe that the dog identity is appropriate because it identifies with the fans. Obviously you don't think it is, I do. I really don't see it as a huge stretch to have a dog logo identifying a team called the "Browns". Is it that odd and out of place? I think a huge point that you are missing here is the history of football in the area. Maybe then you'd understand that the dog identity might not necessarily originate from the fans, but maybe from a previous franchise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canton_Bulldogs

I can't confirm that this is the origin of the dog nickname but atleast it helps refute some of the comparisons to some other football fan groups that people( including yourself) keep making about the dog reference. I don't believe the dog reference is that much of a stretch either way....it depends of course on which side of this argument you are on.

OK, the Canton Bulldogs have absolutely nothing to do with the "Dawg Pound". Let's get that straight right now.

Hanford Dixon has explicitly explained (and I think I have it on video, from a pre-game show in the mid 80s) that he would actually "bark" at the receiver he was covering, before the snap. Frank Minnifield caught on to this and started doing this as well. Hanford started calling the defense "The Dawgs". Once the fans caught wind of it, the rest is history.

I'm not trying to sound condescending. I just wanted to clear that up.

[Gothamite]

Thank you for the background.

I knew it couldn't be so....