Cleveland Browns

[02Rover]

I'm sorry, but I just can't buy that.

If the owner wants to leave, he'll leave. You can't force him to keep the team in town. No matter how many homer judges you have sitting on the bench in your locality.

Bottom line: Browns fans got to keep their team, with a blip in their history that means less every year. They got to keep their records, got to keep their legacy. Browns fans got treatment that Brooklyn Dodger fans, or Milwaukee Braves fans, would have killed for.

That may be the case with regards to Brooklyn or Milwaukee fans, but that was also a completely different generation in sports. In 1995, there were iron clad leases and contracts in place. The reason Cleveland fans got those things that we did get is because of the legal rights that the owner DIDNT have to move the team at his whim. The fact that they werent permited to take those things with them is proof that there were legalities in place that perhaps werent in place with the other franchise moves.

The way the league dealt with the Cleveland situation was a travesty and will go down in history as such. Anyone with intimate knowledge of the situation readily admits that they vacancy was left open for other teams to leverage their cities in hopes that they could have just moved another team here rather than expand. Remember, when they expanded, it was an odd number of teams and that meant more of the pie cut up for each owner. They didnt want to expand to Cleveland, which is why they waited til the last possible second to go that route.

[rams80]

I'm sorry, but I just can't buy that.

If the owner wants to leave, he'll leave. You can't force him to keep the team in town. No matter how many homer judges you have sitting on the bench in your locality.

Bottom line: Browns fans got to keep their team, with a blip in their history that means less every year. They got to keep their records, got to keep their legacy. Browns fans got treatment that Brooklyn Dodger fans, or Milwaukee Braves fans, would have killed for.

That may be the case with regards to Brooklyn or Milwaukee fans, but that was also a completely different generation in sports. In 1995, there were iron clad leases and contracts in place. The reason Cleveland fans got those things that we did get is because of the legal rights that the owner DIDNT have to move the team at his whim. The fact that they werent permited to take those things with them is proof that there were legalities in place that perhaps werent in place with the other franchise moves.

The way the league dealt with the Cleveland situation was a travesty and will go down in history as such. Anyone with intimate knowledge of the situation readily admits that they vacancy was left open for other teams to leverage their cities in hopes that they could have just moved another team here rather than expand. Remember, when they expanded, it was an odd number of teams and that meant more of the pie cut up for each owner. They didnt want to expand to Cleveland, which is why they waited til the last possible second to go that route.

So? If worse came to worse, the I'm willing to bet the NFL appeals whatever decision the Cleveland court comes out with to the district court in Cincinnati (interstate business and all....). It's just the NFL didn't want to fight a drawn out court battle that would leave the Browns franchise in limbo for the 1996 season in order to do this. Think of it this way. If the courts ruled the NFL was unable to force a franchise to stay in a market (see also, Raiders) then I don't think a group of customers would be able to force a business to stay in a certain market-if it can be demonstrated that doing so would be harmful to the business.

I want a link from say...Houston, where the Oilers say, "We could move to Cleveland." Not something from a Cleveland reporter...something from one of the teams that actually did threaten/did move in the mid-90s. Of course they didn't want to expand so there would have been an odd number of teams; they would have much rather preferred to see Cleveland come in when Houston did. And if you're mad the NFL stacked the player performance deck against Cleveland, well after the success Carolina and Jacksonville had in year 2 of their existence (reaching their respective Conference Championships), the NFL establishment decided "never again" on having good expansion teams.

[Gothamite]

That may be the case with regards to Brooklyn or Milwaukee fans, but that was also a completely different generation in sports. In 1995, there were iron clad leases and contracts in place. The reason Cleveland fans got those things that we did get is because of the legal rights that the owner DIDNT have to move the team at his whim. The fact that they werent permited to take those things with them is proof that there were legalities in place that perhaps werent in place with the other franchise moves.

No, it only means that the name and history wasn't worth enough to Modell to fight for it. Whether or not he would have been "permitted" to keep them had he decided he really wanted to is a matter of opinion and speculation, not fact.

The way the league dealt with the Cleveland situation was a travesty and will go down in history as such.

As far as history is concerned, I think quite the opposite.

Bottom line: not only did you get another team, you got to keep the legacy of your old one. What's to complain about?

[rams80]

Bottom line: not only did you get another team, you got to keep the legacy of your old one. What's to complain about?

I don't know...being spared the trauma of watching those mid-to-late 90s Ravens teams stink it up on the field I guess....

[Eye]

Bottom line: not only did you get another team, you got to keep the legacy of your old one. What's to complain about?

Yes, Cleveland got another team called the Browns and got to keep the 1946-1995 version's history. The thing to complain about is not having a team for three years when they shouldn't have been moved in the first place. As much as people say "It's the same.", it isn't. The old Browns had sentimental value so to speak. Think of it like this, if the Packers moved to another city, but Green Bay got the "Cleveland Deal" and a new stadium because Lambeau field was demolished, would it truly be the same? Probably not. Green bay would support the "new" Packers just like Cleveland supports the "new" Browns, but would it ever truly be the same? I don't know, but I'd say probably not. It would come close to being the same, but it would not be.

[Gothamite]

Those three missing years will soon fade away into obscurity. Do Rams fans miss the year during WWII that the team was forced to suspend operations and not play? Does anybody even remember that anymore? Is it a hole in their hearts still today?

Is it losing the old stadium that bothers you? That seems a separate issue - you may well have lost the old stadium even if Modell had sold the team and left town.

I'm sorry, but your explanations don't begin to justify the whinging. What's the real beef?

[leopard88]

Bottom line: not only did you get another team, you got to keep the legacy of your old one. What's to complain about?

Yes, Cleveland got another team called the Browns and got to keep the 1946-1995 version's history. The thing to complain about is not having a team for three years when they shouldn't have been moved in the first place. As much as people say "It's the same.", it isn't. The old Browns had sentimental value so to speak. Think of it like this, if the Packers moved to another city, but Green Bay got the "Cleveland Deal" and a new stadium because Lambeau field was demolished, would it truly be the same? Probably not. Green bay would support the "new" Packers just like Cleveland supports the "new" Browns, but would it ever truly be the same? I don't know, but I'd say probably not. It would come close to being the same, but it would not be.

I don't THINK anyone is saying it is exactly the same. I don't claim to speak for everyone else, but the point I have been trying to make is that the Cleveland is the only city faced with the move of a team that was GUARANTEED a replacement team within a fixed period of time AND allowed to retain the identity and history of the old team. In fact, Cleveland is the only city that has received either of those considerations in that situation.

Again, I am sympathetic to the plight of Browns fans, having been on the other side before with the Colts (I was 16 when they snuck out of town). However, if the biggest complaint left is that the NFL hurt the new team by holding off too long in naming the owner of the expansion Browns, then Cleveland was left in far better shape than anyone else. THAT is the point that I think most people are trying to make.

[02Rover]

You guys arent reading whats being said by the Cleveland people on this thread. The reason we got to keep the heritage, name, unis and were promised a team in 3 years was because the city had leases and contracts, legal documents, in place. No other franchise move had to deal with those issues, I believe. Cleveland had the right to tie the whole thing up in court for 5-10 years. In the mean time, they team would have stayed in town and either put Art out of business for good since he was on the brink of bankruptcy to begin with, or he would have been forced to sell, likely to local owners. Either way, it would be bad for Art and for the NFL.

The NFL, supposedly, threatened that if the city went thru with the plan, they would have ensured the city never, ever got football back once this was over and done with and offered the deal. The city leaders took the deal.

I dont believe for a moment that the NFL would have stayed out of Cleveland forever because there is too much money to be made here. All these guys care about is money and Cleveland is a GREAT NFL town. Look at how we have supported the piles of crap they have rolled out there since 1999 as proof of that.

Cleveland wasnt given anything by the NFL to mean that we got a great deal. They gave us what they had to give us because had they not, the move would have never happened, there would have never ever been any Baltimore Ravens. That was our payoff for having those leases and contracts in place. That was not the NFL treating us well or doing us any favors. The reason other cities didnt get those provisions is because they must not have had the legal clout to threaten a lawsuit that would have derailed the whole thing like Cleveland had.

The way we were treated after that is proof that they werent trying to do us any favors. I agree that Carolina and Jax ruined it for everyone else, but the fact is Houston had a long better startup time than we did. 2 1/2 years versus the 8 months we had.

Its easy to say that the 3 years will fade, but they wont. Its not the same. No one thinks it is. Plus, the team is so bad and has been so bad, there is no way to forget what happened. Im suprised a Green Bay fan like yourself, the supposed gold standard in NFL old school-ness, isnt in tune with what we are talking about here.

As for the Rams and thier hole, they have been to 3 or 4 different cities since then. They barely have any fans outside of St Louis. The fans they do have have been following them for about 10-12 years. Hardly the same as the tradtition rich Cleveland Browns and thier long suffering and supporting fans.

[rams80]

Those three missing years will soon fade away into obscurity. Do Rams fans miss the year during WWII that the team was forced to suspend operations and not play? Does anybody even remember that anymore? Is it a hole in their hearts still today?

That's right...the Rams did lose a year...I keep forgetting.

D@mn you Hitler! You !

[Gothamite]

You guys arent reading whats being said by the Cleveland people on this thread. The reason we got to keep the heritage, name, unis and were promised a team in 3 years was because the city had leases and contracts, legal documents, in place. No other franchise move had to deal with those issues, I believe. Cleveland had the right to tie the whole thing up in court for 5-10 years. In the mean time, they team would have stayed in town and either put Art out of business for good since he was on the brink of bankruptcy to begin with, or he would have been forced to sell, likely to local owners. Either way, it would be bad for Art and for the NFL.

You're right - it would have been expensive and embarrassing to the team and league had they fought it out in court. That's why they settled (plus, it was the right thing to do morally).

That doesn't mean that Cleveland actually had a legal case, or that the team was any more bound to the city than any other team is. Only that Cleveland had enough of a case to file a lawsuit, which is a very low standard.

Its easy to say that the 3 years will fade, but they wont. Its not the same. No one thinks it is. Plus, the team is so bad and has been so bad, there is no way to forget what happened. Im suprised a Green Bay fan like yourself, the supposed gold standard in NFL old school-ness, isnt in tune with what we are talking about here.

I understand. I am sympathetic. I would like to see the Browns bring another championship back to Cleveland, so long as it isn't at my Packers' expense.

Personally, I missed those Browns during the three off years. The NFL was diminished by the team's absence.

But I still don't understand all the whining, so many years later. You got the best possible deal out of a relocation - better than any other teams' fans in American sports history have been granted - and despite all the complaining nobody has been able to show anything to the contrary. You got the name, colors and legacy, and all you have to deal with is a three-year gap in the record books that will read "did not field a team." Big deal.

Heck, the Packers were thrown out of the NFL in 1921. We had to scratch our way back in, and you don't hear us complaining about it. Twenty years from now, those three years will seem so distant.

[powersurge]

You guys arent reading whats being said by the Cleveland people on this thread. The reason we got to keep the heritage, name, unis and were promised a team in 3 years was because the city had leases and contracts, legal documents, in place. No other franchise move had to deal with those issues, I believe. Cleveland had the right to tie the whole thing up in court for 5-10 years. In the mean time, they team would have stayed in town and either put Art out of business for good since he was on the brink of bankruptcy to begin with, or he would have been forced to sell, likely to local owners. Either way, it would be bad for Art and for the NFL.

The NFL, supposedly, threatened that if the city went thru with the plan, they would have ensured the city never, ever got football back once this was over and done with and offered the deal. The city leaders took the deal.

I dont believe for a moment that the NFL would have stayed out of Cleveland forever because there is too much money to be made here. All these guys care about is money and Cleveland is a GREAT NFL town. Look at how we have supported the piles of crap they have rolled out there since 1999 as proof of that.

Cleveland wasnt given anything by the NFL to mean that we got a great deal. They gave us what they had to give us because had they not, the move would have never happened, there would have never ever been any Baltimore Ravens. That was our payoff for having those leases and contracts in place. That was not the NFL treating us well or doing us any favors. The reason other cities didnt get those provisions is because they must not have had the legal clout to threaten a lawsuit that would have derailed the whole thing like Cleveland had.

The way we were treated after that is proof that they werent trying to do us any favors. I agree that Carolina and Jax ruined it for everyone else, but the fact is Houston had a long better startup time than we did. 2 1/2 years versus the 8 months we had.

Its easy to say that the 3 years will fade, but they wont. Its not the same. No one thinks it is. Plus, the team is so bad and has been so bad, there is no way to forget what happened. Im suprised a Green Bay fan like yourself, the supposed gold standard in NFL old school-ness, isnt in tune with what we are talking about here.

As for the Rams and thier hole, they have been to 3 or 4 different cities since then. They barely have any fans outside of St Louis. The fans they do have have been following them for about 10-12 years. Hardly the same as the tradtition rich Cleveland Browns and thier long suffering and supporting fans.

There is some truth to what you are saying, but understand this: An owner can and will do whatever they want with a franchise. This includes moving the team and abandoning a stadium. There are loop holes in everything, no matter how "iron clad" a contract is. Refer to the Colts moving to Indy, Al Davis and the city of Irwindale, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim naming mess. (not a move, but an interesting example of using a loop hole to screw a city)

I have to say that I fully understand why the NFL rushed back into Cleveland. Part of it has to do with what you just mentioned, but part of it also has to do with the fans and market. But remember that TWO teams left LA (the second largest TV market in America) and there has yet to be a team put there. That market should have and will have a team. I don't want to hear any B.S. like "The LA market is not a good football market" because this is silly. With the right ownership and stadium situation that market would be an NFL gold mine.

I cringe when I hear a Cleveland fan whining about three years lost or whatever else they whine about. Your team could have been in LA right now instead of Cleveland.

[rams80]

You guys arent reading whats being said by the Cleveland people on this thread. The reason we got to keep the heritage, name, unis and were promised a team in 3 years was because the city had leases and contracts, legal documents, in place. No other franchise move had to deal with those issues, I believe. Cleveland had the right to tie the whole thing up in court for 5-10 years. In the mean time, they team would have stayed in town and either put Art out of business for good since he was on the brink of bankruptcy to begin with, or he would have been forced to sell, likely to local owners. Either way, it would be bad for Art and for the NFL.

Ladies and gentlemen...the bolded part is exactly why an independent, neutral judiciary would ultimately have decided in favor of Modell. You're right though, the NFL didn't want the court battle. Of course...one has to ask if a 5 year court battle would even have been worth it for Browns fans; the team would be left bankrupt and derelict, and they still would be playing in a outdated hole of a stadium.

The NFL, supposedly, threatened that if the city went thru with the plan, they would have ensured the city never, ever got football back once this was over and done with and offered the deal. The city leaders took the deal.

Smart folks. I'd buy that threat.

I dont believe for a moment that the NFL would have stayed out of Cleveland forever because there is too much money to be made here. All these guys care about is money and Cleveland is a GREAT NFL town. Look at how we have supported the piles of crap they have rolled out there since 1999 as proof of that.

Ladies and gents...the NFL is like the Godfather. Mess with him, and you are ed. Barring the weird demon that possesses Al Davis telling him to move to Cleveland, I'm willing to bet that Tags and his successor Goodell would have done everything within their power to ensure the NFL didn't return to Cleveland during their tenures, especially after a long, drawn out court battle.

Cleveland wasnt given anything by the NFL to mean that we got a great deal. They gave us what they had to give us because had they not, the move would have never happened,

Just because a judge in Cleveland says so, doesn't mean a federal judge in higher court would. The NFL would ultimately win. They gave you an out because they didn't want to let the Browns franchise whither and languish while it went on.

there would have never ever been any Baltimore Ravens. That was our payoff for having those leases and contracts in place. That was not the NFL treating us well or doing us any favors. The reason other cities didnt get those provisions is because they must not have had the legal clout to threaten a lawsuit that would have derailed the whole thing like Cleveland had.

Or they cave and build new stadia, or they say "C'est la vie", or their judges aren't corrupt. (apparently).

The way we were treated after that is proof that they werent trying to do us any favors. I agree that Carolina and Jax ruined it for everyone else, but the fact is Houston had a long better startup time than we did. 2 1/2 years versus the 8 months we had.

The point remains...why couldn't you have asked for another year, or even to wait until Houston came in?

Its easy to say that the 3 years will fade, but they wont. Its not the same. No one thinks it is. Plus, the team is so bad and has been so bad, there is no way to forget what happened. Im suprised a Green Bay fan like yourself, the supposed gold standard in NFL old school-ness, isnt in tune with what we are talking about here.

See my satirical post above for a reason why it will fade. Shoot...they played in Cleveland back then. Can you honestly say you were aware of this and are torqued off at the Axis Powers because of their missed season?

As for the Rams and thier hole, they have been to 3 or 4 different cities since then. They barely have any fans outside of St Louis. The fans they do have have been following them for about 10-12 years. Hardly the same as the tradtition rich Cleveland Browns and thier long suffering and supporting fans.

The Rams still have a fairly sizable following in Los Angeles. It has been rumored online, in fact, that the team may ultimately move back there once it becomes financially feasible (vis-a-vis breaking the lease) to do so. You didn't see the near Civil War that broke out in Rams Nation between the LA and St. Louis fans following the blackouts at the end of last year, and after the Edward Jones Dome got turned into "Arrowhead East" and "Soldier South". (and will happen this year when it turns into "Lambeau South" and "Heinz West". Anyway...the storied Rams franchise played in Cleveland before the Browns. So put the history card away.

------------------------------------

I'm just going to say this, and I may get suspended for saying what I think of Browns fans. Browns fans are the wussiest fans in the NFL. Waaah! Our team, that can't make money is leaving town! Give us another team now! (NFL decides 5 year court battle isn't worth it, accedes) Waaah! We had to wait 3 years to get a team! (Cleveland had to build a stadium, which takes time, and ignores that never before or since has a market been guaranteed a new team so quickly and guaranteed the old team's history after losing the old one, and the speed with which a replacement team was fielded is only matched by New York getting the Mets after the Dodgers and Giants left.) Waaah! The team's garbage and the FO's incompetent! (Well...you had to have a team in 3 years, which restricts the chances you have of getting a team to move in that can compete instantly, and expansion teams are supposed to play like garbage now.) Waaah! The old team won a Super Bowl and often contends now! (Never mind that I'm sure that if the team had stayed in Cleveland, the needed roster changes to set up such a team would have been butterflied away. )

[Gothamite]

You guys arent reading whats being said by the Cleveland people on this thread. The reason we got to keep the heritage, name, unis and were promised a team in 3 years was because the city had leases and contracts, legal documents, in place. No other franchise move had to deal with those issues, I believe. Cleveland had the right to tie the whole thing up in court for 5-10 years. In the mean time, they team would have stayed in town and either put Art out of business for good since he was on the brink of bankruptcy to begin with, or he would have been forced to sell, likely to local owners. Either way, it would be bad for Art and for the NFL.

Ladies and gentlemen...the bolded part is exactly why an independent, neutral judiciary would ultimately have decided in favor of Modell.

Great catch - I missed that the first time around.

Game, set, match.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I once dated a girl, she had a bunch of my stuff, and we broke up. She and I have since moved on to other people. She's had her individual successes, and I've had mine. We are now independent people. However, she still has, among other things, my first edition of "World According to Garp."

Browns fans need to recognize that they came out of a messy breakup but still have their stuff. That's pretty rare and pretty special.

[Gothamite]

Wow.

That's the best summary I've ever seen.

[Blue Falcon]

So why don't the Browns ever make money? Is it because they sell virtually ZERO merchandise outside of Ohio because of their boring uniforms?

Please excuse me while I duck to avoid the barrage of hate coming my way.

[Gothamite]

If you want to avoid a "barrage of hate," you ought to get your facts straight.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

(...it was the right thing to do morally).

I hear this argument a lot, and I find it completely backwards.

I mean, one can convincingly argue that the move was morally wrong, on the grounds that the team was a civic institution. Indeed, the move did not have to occur -- if Modell really was going bankrupt, then the league could have bought the club (a la the Montreal Expos), and then run it while seeking another owner.

But, once a move occurs, it is ludicrous to then argue that the very facts of history should be rearranged to hide it! As someone who takees a great interest in history (sports and otherwise), I must say that I find this position actually quite immoral.

I am in no way denying the sadness that the Browns' move caused to its great fanbase. But, the objective truth is that the Browns/Ravens franchise is one continuous entity that dates to 1946, and the new Cleveland team is an expansion team that began in 1999. That this truth is an unpleasant one does not morally justify playing "let's pretend" with the facts of history.

[Blue Falcon]

If you want to avoid a "barrage of hate," you ought to get your facts straight.

OK, so the Browns are 9th. I guess the question should be "Despite being the 9th most profitable NFL franchise, why do the Browns continue to play football on the semi-pro level?"

[Gothamite]

(...it was the right thing to do morally).

I hear this argument a lot, and I find it completely backwards.

I mean, one can convincingly argue that the move was morally wrong, on the grounds that the team was a civic institution.

I might not have made myself clear - that was exactly my point. I personally think maintaining the Browns franchise in Cleveland was the right thing to do, morally. Far from being "backwards," you are agreeing with me.

But, once a move occurs, it is ludicrous to then argue that the very facts of history should be rearranged to hide it! As someone who takees a great interest in history (sports and otherwise), I must say that I find this position actually quite immoral.

I am in no way denying the sadness that the Browns' move caused to its great fanbase. But, the objective truth is that the Browns/Ravens franchise is one continuous entity that dates to 1946, and the new Cleveland team is an expansion team that began in 1999. That this truth is an unpleasant one does not morally justify playing "let's pretend" with the facts of history.

Not "objective truth" at all - what we think of as the teams are actually franchises, granted by the league, giving the owner a right to operate an NFL club. They do not have to actually field a team (an example of this is the aforementioned Rams, who took a season off during WWII because they couldn't afford to actually play). When Modell moved his team, he was granted a new franchise to operate an NFL team in Baltimore and the Cleveland franchise was left behind until a suitable owner could be found to operate it.

But, you might say, he took the entire roster to Baltimore! This is true, but not really material. The franchise stayed in Cleveland, but the organization moved to Baltimore. They are not necessarily the same thing. This is especially true in the minor leagues, where clubs do not actually own their players. When the Indianapolis Indians switched their affiliation from the Brewers to the Pirates, they lost all their players to the Nashville Sounds. Does that mean that the Sounds are the "real" Indians?