Oklahoma City .....

[Ez Street]

No, the people that trademarked the name are the current team owners. The address is listed in Washington, because they are still located there.

I'm sure this is just to make sure someone else doesn' trademark it and sell merch with it.

I'm still interested to see how this "shared" history will work.

[LMU]

Perhaps the history will solely be with the city and not a future franchise. For example, banners will hang in whatever venue a new team plays in, more implying that a team playing in the city won a title, and not the current team.

Only other possibility would be for the OKC franchise to renounce claim to any titles once a new team is in place in Seattle, but I don't see that happening.

[DallasSports]

Cleveland Browns moving to Baltimore all over again.

[BBTV]

Whether a team "renounces" titles or history, it doesn't matter. The team that is playing in OKC has the lineage that goes back to the Sonics championships. Whatever they (or fans) choose to recognize is irrelevant. Same with the Browns. I understand the deal, and that the Ravens are like an expansion franchise (and the Cle. Browns were "inactive" for a few years) but the bottom line is that the Ravens lineage goes back to the old Browns teams. There is absolutely nothing that any court of law can do to change that.

[ferrousoxide66]

So, why has the team done this if they are "giving" back the name to the city of Seattle for future use? There's no reason to protect it if they aren't going to use it, is there? That's meant as an honest question. Is protecting it for the sake of it worthwhile?

I hope they don't pull a "Well its too late to change names and logos this year, we will change next year, but for now we'll be the OKC Supersonics." Talk about throwing salt in Seattle fans and pissing off those you made a deal with.

Isn't that why Memphis is still known as the Grizzlies?

I remember hearing that once they got out of Vancouver, they were wanting to change their nickname to something like the Express. I'm not sure what exactly happened, but they weren't allowed to make the switch right away so they just scrapped the plan and stayed as the Grizzlies.

Stern said that came too close to sponsorship, since FedEx was one of the driving forces to bringing the franchise to Memphis. Another great idea from the Kaiser. He's really been batting a thousand lately....

[CC97]

So, why has the team done this if they are "giving" back the name to the city of Seattle for future use? There's no reason to protect it if they aren't going to use it, is there? That's meant as an honest question. Is protecting it for the sake of it worthwhile?

I hope they don't pull a "Well its too late to change names and logos this year, we will change next year, but for now we'll be the OKC Supersonics." Talk about throwing salt in Seattle fans and pissing off those you made a deal with.

Isn't that why Memphis is still known as the Grizzlies?

I remember hearing that once they got out of Vancouver, they were wanting to change their nickname to something like the Express. I'm not sure what exactly happened, but they weren't allowed to make the switch right away so they just scrapped the plan and stayed as the Grizzlies.

Stern said that came too close to sponsorship, since FedEx was one of the driving forces to bringing the franchise to Memphis. Another great idea from the Kaiser. He's really been batting a thousand lately....

The proposed colour scheme was also to be purple and orange

[Gothamite]

IIRC, there was a proposed uniform released, either in the papers or SI (print only). Never seen it, though....

[Gothamite]

Whether a team "renounces" titles or history, it doesn't matter. The team that is playing in OKC has the lineage that goes back to the Sonics championships. Whatever they (or fans) choose to recognize is irrelevant. Same with the Browns. I understand the deal, and that the Ravens are like an expansion franchise (and the Cle. Browns were "inactive" for a few years) but the bottom line is that the Ravens lineage goes back to the old Browns teams. There is absolutely nothing that any court of law can do to change that.

The Browns situation has nothing to do with any court of law.

An NFL franchise is permission from the league to field a team. In olden days, it was an actual certificate, don't know if they still issue it.

When Modell moved his team to Baltimore, the franchise stayed behind. He was given a new one as an expansion team, and the Cleveland franchise went dormant (as the Rams' did in the 1940s, and the Yellow Jackets' did in 1931 before being bought by the owner who would re-christen them Eagles), until they could get a team together.

It is true that the Ravens' lineage does go back to the old Browns teams, but only in the way that the Atlanta Braves' lineage goes back to the Cincinnatti Red Stockings, the first openly professional franchise. Doesn't mean that the Braves are that team, any more than the Ravens are the "real" Cleveland Browns.

[BBTV]

Whether a team "renounces" titles or history, it doesn't matter. The team that is playing in OKC has the lineage that goes back to the Sonics championships. Whatever they (or fans) choose to recognize is irrelevant. Same with the Browns. I understand the deal, and that the Ravens are like an expansion franchise (and the Cle. Browns were "inactive" for a few years) but the bottom line is that the Ravens lineage goes back to the old Browns teams. There is absolutely nothing that any court of law can do to change that.

The Browns situation has nothing to do with any court of law.

An NFL franchise is permission from the league to field a team. In olden days, it was an actual certificate, don't know if they still issue it.

When Modell moved his team to Baltimore, the franchise stayed behind. He was given a new one as an expansion team, and the Cleveland franchise went dormant (as the Rams' did in the 1940s, and the Yellow Jackets' did in 1931 before being bought by the owner who would re-christen them Eagles), until they could get a team together.

It is true that the Ravens' lineage does go back to the old Browns teams, but only in the way that the Atlanta Braves' lineage goes back to the Cincinnatti Red Stockings, the first openly professional franchise. Doesn't mean that the Braves are that team, any more than the Ravens are the "real" Cleveland Browns.

Lineage = history. The OKC Whatevers are the old Seattle Sonics. Certificates mean nothing compared to the actual reality of the situation. What I'm saying is that the leagues or courts can throw around terms like "dormant", "inactive", etc. but it's all just words that don't change the true facts of the situation. We're bordering on WWF territory here.

Edit:

Just thought of a comparison. A fraternity at a college gets their charter revoked / suspended. Five years later, the national office decides to re-colonize a chapter at that school. They sign up new members and re-instate the suspended charter. According to the National office, it's the same exact chapter (they'll even share the same chapter designation) but ask any members of the original chapter, and they'll tell you that the history stays with them (and if they form a new organization after the charter suspension, that history belongs (even if unofficially) to that new organization.))

[Gothamite]

I can't speak to the Sonics situation, since they have this bizarre "shared history" thing. So we'll have to see how this plays out. But the "true facts" are that Modell was forced to leave his franchise behind when he moved.

I also can't speak to fraternal organizations, since I was never a member of one. But it seems to me that the members of the original chapter are wrong - the organization which charters it retains its history.

There might be a sentimental backlash against it from those original frat members, but they can't claim ownership of something that was never theirs in the first place.

Just to keep this on the Sonics, a "share" is preposterous and the NBA should put a stop to it. They left the name and history behind when they left Seattle as part of the agreement with the city. Although with this group of scumbags, we already knew that a deal meant nothing to them....

[Mac the Knife]

An NFL franchise is permission from the league to field a team. In olden days, it was an actual certificate, don't know if they still issue it.

When Modell moved his team to Baltimore, the franchise stayed behind. He was given a new one as an expansion team, and the Cleveland franchise went dormant (as the Rams' did in the 1940s, and the Yellow Jackets' did in 1931 before being bought by the owner who would re-christen them Eagles), until they could get a team together.

It is true that the Ravens' lineage does go back to the old Browns teams, but only in the way that the Atlanta Braves' lineage goes back to the Cincinnatti Red Stockings, the first openly professional franchise. Doesn't mean that the Braves are that team, any more than the Ravens are the "real" Cleveland Browns.

First off, that franchise certificate is simply a great find, Goth... they do still issue them, but I'd never actually seen one before. Where'd you find that image?

Actually one correction, though I might be wrong about it as I've heard different things over the years - the Philadelphia Eagles (supposedly) were not the reincarnated Frankford Yellow Jackets. What I've heard on that is that the Frankford franchise was revoked by the NFL, with a new franchise being awarded. I've never heard of a Braves-Red Stockings connection, though a connect to the 1876 Boston Braves could easily be made.

My personal thought on the subject is that the relocation of a team, at least in the bulk of cases, and in some cases even the renaming of a club (Colt .45's/Astros, Devil Rays/Rays, Senators/Rangers, Oilers/Titans, etc.) could and perhaps should be looked upon as an entity separate from its predecessor. The Cleveland Browns of 1999 weren't a resumption of the franchise in my view, but an expansion club; but the Baltimore Cravens weren't simply a relocated Cleveland Browns either.

[Gothamite]

That franchise certificate went up for bid at Leland's a couple years ago. They always get the best stuff. I thought about bidding on it at the time, but couldn't bring myself to.

The franchise belonging to the Frankford Yellow Jackets was bought by the Eagles in 1933. The NFL now considers them separate teams, but that wasn't always the case.

As for the Atlanta Braves, they were founded as the Boston Red Stockings by three starters from the Cincinnati Red Stockings, including the playing-manager. Some baseball historians link the two teams because of this, but I personally feel that the link is unwarranted.

I think a lot of these relocations/renamings need to be viewed case-by-case. It's clear that the current Browns are a continuation of the old Browns based on the actions of the League (the only opinion which counts, after all). Others aren't so clear-cut. Especially this one, which is why I don't like it.

[BBTV]

History belongs to the people who made it. It's that simple.

[Gothamite]

If only it were that simple. But it isn't.

They still get to keep their part of the history. Guy gets traded from one franchise to another, his part in the first team's history isn't diminished because he doesn't get to take the uniform with him.

[rams80]

History belongs to the people who made it. It's that simple.

Which in this case means it belongs to no one...except the former Sonics players. Failing that, it belongs to the person who dropped serious coin to buy a franchise and its history.

It's not like Philly claims title to the Athletics' World Series wins, right?

[BBM]

History belongs to the people who made it. It's that simple.

Which in this case means it belongs to no one...except the former Sonics players. Failing that, it belongs to the person who dropped serious coin to buy a franchise and its history.

It's not like Philly claims title to the Athletics' World Series wins, right?

There's a section in the new park in Philly that talks about Philly's baseball past including a section devoted to the A's, yes.

[BBTV]

History belongs to the people who made it. It's that simple.

Which in this case means it belongs to no one...except the former Sonics players. Failing that, it belongs to the person who dropped serious coin to buy a franchise and its history.

It's not like Philly claims title to the Athletics' World Series wins, right?

It's fun to remember the A's from when they were winning here (if you're old enough to do so, which I'm not) but those championships are now in Oakland (and eventually... Freemont )

[buzzcut]

If we need to realign the NBA, it should be done this way:

ATLANTIC: Boston, Brooklyn(If the Nets ever get their act together), New York Knicks, Philadelphia, Toronto

SOUTHEAST: Atlanta, Charlotte, Memphis, Miami, New Orleans, Orlando

CENTRAL: Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Indiana, Milwaukee, Minnesota

MIDWEST: Dallas, Denver, Houston, Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Utah

PACIFIC: Golden State, Los Angeles Clippers, Los Angeles Lakers, Phoenix, Portland, Sacramento

Schedule: 6 games versus your divisional mates. 2 games against everyone else with an additonal game based on divisional finish.

Playoff format: Divisional winners and the next 11 teams based on W-L record qualify.

1st Round: 2-game, total-points(Higher seed host 2nd game)

Quarterfinals: Best-of-3(1-2)

Semifinals: Best-of-5(2-2-1)

NBA Finals: As currently formatted.

Terrible terrible terrible.

You no like my ideas? Come on, get a clue. I think you'll see the first two ideas get implemented than the 3rd one (Format of games, not the seeding idea).

[ldswoosh33]

Is there any news on when and what the team will be called?

[FiddySicks]

History belongs to the people who made it. It's that simple.

Which in this case means it belongs to no one...except the former Sonics players. Failing that, it belongs to the person who dropped serious coin to buy a franchise and its history.

It's not like Philly claims title to the Athletics' World Series wins, right?

It's fun to remember the A's from when they were winning here (if you're old enough to do so, which I'm not) but those championships are now in Oakland (and eventually... Freemont )

I'm not so sure about that. Now of course the Athletics as a franchise will claim all of those titles, but they're not celebrated in Oakland at all. The A's as an organization have nine World Titles, but only four are celebrated by the OAKLAND Athletics. And with that, only the four are acknowledged throughout the stadium, as (sort of) seen here

Check the upper right hand part of the tarped off seats.