Cleveland Browns

[leopard88]

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?

Excellent analogy.

[powersurge]

So what is the real issue here?

Sounds like we're just talking about the team identity and history, which it seems like Modell wanted NOTHING to do with. He merely wanted to take the players, staff, front office and maybe a couple of footballs to another town to start over.

So essentially NOTHING changed in Cleveland. The only thing that changed was that it took three years for Business to re-open at a NEW facility with some new players, staff, front office and a couple of footballs.

Okay, maybe something changed.

[quantum]

Cleveland really never had a leg to stand on. Ultimately, the NFL could have just disenfranchised the Browns and then the fans could have had something to b*tch about.

When the Packers were making their pitch for stadium renovations, the same possibility was used to motivate people to pass the tax referendum. Basically, the franchise needed the new Lambeau to live up to league revenue obligations.

[powersurge]

Cleveland really never had a leg to stand on. Ultimately, the NFL could have just disenfranchised the Browns and then the fans could have had something to b*tch about.

When the Packers were making their pitch for stadium renovations, the same possibility was used to motivate people to pass the tax referendum. Basically, the franchise needed the new Lambeau to live up to league revenue obligations.

This is one of many reasons why the NFL is so successful, yet MLB suffers. The Marlins and Rays would NEVER be able to operate in stadiums the way the have been the past few years and draw so few fans. The NFL would essentially make them shape up or ship out. I understand that it is alot more complicated than that, but I'm just saying.

[Gothamite]

Good point.

I believe that Bud Selig really hates relocation - there's a lot of threatening to relocate, but teams are allowed to languish in markets that don't support them.

[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.

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.

Oh, OK. I thought you had said that the settlement (whereby the records stayed in Cleveland) was the moral thing to do. That was the assertion I thought I was disagreeing with.

(Also, I should have said something like "upside down" rather than "backwards", which sounds far more hostile than I had intended. Sorry for the poor choice, and thanks for not taking offence.)

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?

This is an interesting point, but I think the analogy is more than a little shaky due to the nature of affilliated minor league ball. An affilliated minor league team does not employ any players in the first place; it is just a contractor to a Major League team. So, there are no "real" Indianapolis Indians, only Brewers or Pirates employees assigned to AAA. (As I recently wrote in the thread about the new Trenton Thunder unis, I maintain that affilliated teams aren't really "ballclubs"; therefore they shouldn't have separate identities at all and should just be "Brewers AAA", "Pirates AAA", etc., so as to reflect the reality of the situation. Which is a whole other topic.)

By contrast, the Browns employed their own players, all of whom moved on to Baltimore. Despite your preemptive disclaimer, the fact that the roster, the coaches, and the front office all moved together is powerful support for the view that the Browns/Ravens are one continuous entity. Otherwise known as one "franchise", in ordinary English.

You are correct when you cite the contractual legalities behind the Browns' move, that Modell was granted a new "franchise" to operate in Baltimore. However, this argument depends on using the term "franchise" purely as a "term of art" (a term having a specialised, specific meaning within a limited setting). In ordinary parlance, "franchise" is understood to mean something along the lines of "the entire history of a team, including any other names it has played under".

Furthermore, I believe that this contractual process of being awarded a new "franchise" occurs for most -- if not all -- team relocations in any league (except maybe in the Raiders' first move).

Baseball has typically been very good at recognising the continuity of the franchises, even where nicknames have changed. We have seen throwback uni nights where the Orioles wore StL Browns unis, and where Texas wore Senators unis. Also, I will always remember the first baseball card set I collected, the 1973 Topps set, in which the team picture cards had franchise leaders on the back. The Rangers card had "Senators/Rangers Leaders" and the Twins card had "Senators/Twins" leaders. Another fond memory of mine is when the Twins won the 1987 World Series, and several news outlets correctly reported that it was the franchise's first World Champioinship since 1924.

(This trend of historical correctness in baseball is why I regard the Washington Nationals as a debacle: first, they don't recognise their own franchise's history from its time in Montreal; second, the stupid "Founded 1905" on their logo refers to precisely nothing. Baseball truly dropped the ball on this one.)

The NBA has also been superb in regonising franchise histories, as evidenced by its own uni throwback nights. Thanks these throwback nights, it is now pretty well-known even among the kiddie fans that the Clippers used to be the Buffalo Braves, that the Kings used to be the Cincinnati Royals, and so forth.

I would bet that, just like Modell, the owners each of those aforementioned NBA and baseball teams had to be assigned a new "franchise" by its league in order to operate in a new city. Nevertheless, the "Cincinnati Royals / Kansas City (Omaha) Kings / Sacramento Kings" are still "one franchise", in the most common meaning of that word among ordinary English speakers.

As are the Browns/Ravens, despite what the altered NFL history books say.

[Gothamite]

Oh, OK. I thought you had said that the settlement (whereby the records stayed in Cleveland) was the moral thing to do. That was the assertion I thought I was disagreeing with.

(Also, I should have said something like "upside down" rather than "backwards", which sounds far more hostile than I had intended. Sorry for the poor choice, and thanks for not taking offence.)

No problem - I knew where you were coming from.

Otherwise known as one "franchise", in ordinary English.

...snip...

In ordinary parlance, "franchise" is understood to mean something along the lines of "the entire history of a team, including any other names it has played under".

...snip...

in the most common meaning of that word among ordinary English speakers.

"Ordinary parlance" has nothing whatsoever to do with this. Far from it.

Words mean different things in different contexts. If I say I have a "theory" about whoever took my soda out of the fridge at work, that means I'm guessing. Maybe I have evidence, maybe I don't. Could be a wild stab in the dark. When a scientist has a theory, it doesn't mean "random guess" at all - it means that he has formulated a model for describing the behavior of natural phenomena. That theory must be supported by evidence or it isn't worthy of the name. Context is everything.

The League established that the franchise remained in Cleveland when Modell's organization left (and it is important to catch the distinction between the two - they are not necessarily one and the same), and so the new Browns are the continuation of the prior club, even though they did not actually field a team in those three years (as other franchises in the League's history have done).

It's not about "altering history" at all. Nobody's done that - that would require the "official" story to have been changed, whereas the NFL has been consistent on this point. You're trying to apply colloquial English to the bylaws of a corporate entity. That those NFL rules should seem at a disconnect with casual parlance should not be surprising, but neither is it convincing.

You could call it "legalese splitting hairs", but it is not "altered" or "denied history".

[powersurge]

Oh, OK. I thought you had said that the settlement (whereby the records stayed in Cleveland) was the moral thing to do. That was the assertion I thought I was disagreeing with.

(Also, I should have said something like "upside down" rather than "backwards", which sounds far more hostile than I had intended. Sorry for the poor choice, and thanks for not taking offence.)

No problem - I knew where you were coming from.

Otherwise known as one "franchise", in ordinary English.

...snip...

In ordinary parlance, "franchise" is understood to mean something along the lines of "the entire history of a team, including any other names it has played under".

...snip...

in the most common meaning of that word among ordinary English speakers.

"Ordinary parlance" has nothing whatsoever to do with this. Far from it.

Words mean different things in different contexts. If I say I have a "theory" about whoever took my soda out of the fridge at work, that means I'm guessing. Maybe I have evidence, maybe I don't. Could be a wild stab in the dark. When a scientist has a theory, it doesn't mean "random guess" at all - it means that he has formulated a model for describing the behavior of natural phenomena. That theory must be supported by evidence or it isn't worthy of the name. Context is everything.

The League established that the franchise remained in Cleveland when Modell's organization left (and it is important to catch the distinction between the two - they are not necessarily one and the same), and so the new Browns are the continuation of the prior club, even though they did not actually field a team in those three years (as other franchises in the League's history have done).

It's not about "altering history" at all. Nobody's done that - that would require the "official" story to have been changed, whereas the NFL has been consistent on this point. You're trying to apply colloquial English to the bylaws of a corporate entity. That those NFL rules should seem at a disconnect with casual parlance should not be surprising, but neither is it convincing.

You could call it "legalese splitting hairs", but it is not "altered" or "denied history".

I think a better analogy lies in the fast food industry.

When you buy a franchise in esscence you don't buy the people you buy the system and then implement it someplace else with different people. Although the Ravens weren't operating in Baltimore under the DBA of "Cleveland Browns". I think you get the point though.

In essence it was like Modell took his staff and equipment to operate a burger joint in Baltimore. He just couldn't use the name McBrowns because it belonged to Cleveland.

[OleSmokey]

In addition to the legal arguments, the other major reason that Cleveland got the franchise back so quickly was the passionate protests of the fans in Cleveland. The protests were so fierce towards Tagliabue and company that it helped make Cleveland's case to be awarded a new franchise quickly. Everyone has protestors when a franchise moves, but the passion shown by Browns fans had never been seen before, and may never be seen again.

As for the logo discussion, I would go with the traditional Brownie over the bulldog or the =B=. This "It's an elf" argument is very weak. If Notre Dame can have a leprechaun and St. Louis can have a Billikin, then there's nothing wrong with a Brownie. I'd like to see it on the helmet, as this to me would be the only acceptable logo if there ever was one on put on the helmet. I'm OK with the traditional plain helmet, but if you're going to put a logo on the helmet, do the Brownie. If not on the helmet, I would put it as a logo on the white pants, in a similar location to where the Cowboys used to put the player's number on the pants in the 80's.

[fiasco!]

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.

[Gothamite]

Come on.

There's no cause to be insulting.

This from a moderator?

[leopard88]

Come on.

There's no cause to be insulting.

This from a moderator?

I think there may be a touch of sarcasm in there somewhere. With that big Detroit sig, he probably wouldn't/shouldn't be throwing any stones at anyone else's house unless it was in jest.

[powersurge]

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.

To borrow the quote from another poster on this board:

"I believe you forgot the sarcasm tag"

[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.

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.

Before you declare game, set and match, lets start this court case and figure out why Modell was in the hole?? Was it his fault or the fault of the city and fans, who ultimatety got punished for his "deeds"??? Was it him not being able to compete honestly in this market or did he make a series of bad decisions, on and off field that accumulated and became the financial ruin he was facing in 1995??

Again, I was here, I know this story intimately and I know the answer to this.

rams80's little rant displayed that he hasnt read a thing I have typed and has his preconcieved notions and opinions about Cleveland and Browns fans. He had his opinions before this thread and hasnt bothered to let any facts change what he thinks.

[Burning River]

Whew... where do I begin? The main problem to me is that Modell never went public with this. Was Modell at fault... YES... YES. Were the city leaders at fault...YES... YES... and YES!!

Example: Modell never had a press conference announcing his situation. Telling fans that the "New NFL" was going to be about new stadiums and generated revenue. We never had a chance to vote for or against a new stadium. The city leaders worked behind closed doors and wanted nothing to become public. They stalled for years. So, Modell took what Baltimore gave him.

Now, we don't know that if Modell had a Press Conference and cried "New Stadium", "I need money!"... what the reaction would've been. Fans may have erupted and cried SELL THE TEAM! No WAY!! Remember people were upset with Bellicheck at the time. Though, we did previously vote a new stadium for the (at the time) crappy Tribe and arena for the Cavaliers. So, I think the Browns would've passed a vote. But, at least we would've had a voice in the matter. I blame both for keeping it hush-hush... then BAM!!! I mean, usually teams move after stadium issues are voted down and no fans show up. We knew NOTHING.

I think the city leaders were flabbergasted: "Look what HE did! HE is moving OUR Browns!" They then reacted in Panic mode and then just settled for anything the NFL would give us. Deep down., they know that they screwed up. I am not taking Modell's side by any means. He knew damn well what the team meant to the city. If he needed money becasue of bad decisions, he should've sold the team. Obviously he didn't want to sell, so he should've told us fans what actually was happening. I just feel the city leaders at that time are just as guilty. Then they spin it to come across like hero's. We still got our Browns! But, the NFL demanded that the new Stadium was to be built on the current sight of the old one. They didn't want any teams moving to our vacant stadium. Hmmm.... What? So, the city let the NFL decide wht to do with our PRIME property on Lake Erie.

As I look across the NFL now... I see new stadiums and luxery boxes... Was that the initial plan for the NFL? OR since the Cleveland fiasco, they realized it WOULD become the plan?

Since Modell did NOT like the elf: That is the reson we MUST use the elf... except on uniforms or helmets!!

[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.

Great catch - I missed that the first time around.

Game, set, match.

Before you declare game, set and match, lets start this court case and figure out why Modell was in the hole?? Was it his fault or the fault of the city and fans, who ultimatety got punished for his "deeds"??? Was it him not being able to compete honestly in this market or did he make a series of bad decisions, on and off field that accumulated and became the financial ruin he was facing in 1995??

Regardless of how competent an owner Modell was and whether or not the losses were of his doing, etc., it is an accepted and even protected right of businesses to change locations to better their opportunities. Just because Modell may have made some poor decisions, doesn't mean that the higher, neutral courts would have ruled against him.

Again, I was here, I know this story intimately and I know the answer to this.

And you don't know jack about the demographics of the Rams fanbase and you still took a swing at them.

rams80's little rant displayed that he hasnt read a thing I have typed and has his preconcieved notions and opinions about Cleveland and Browns fans. He had his opinions before this thread and hasnt bothered to let any facts change what he thinks.

That was just what I feel, and nothing that the Cleveland fans have presented as "factual" has changed my mind.

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

[hacim419]

As a Browns fan, I dislike Modell and I hate The Ravens (even more than The Steelers), however I am very happy and greatful that we still have a team, it sucked to have to start over from scratch, but at least we got our team back. 3 years is not that long at all in the grand scheme of things...you won't hear me whining, I think we're lucky we still have a team and that the NFL cooperated with us so well and so quickly.

[VitaminD]

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.

[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!!

[rams80]

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?