BBTV Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 I'm still not seeing how history is being "taken or given."Franchises are a piece of paper giving an organization the right to field a team in a specific league. Modell wanted to move his business out of Cleveland, and was allowed to do so if he left the franchise behind. He was then granted an additional franchise to operate in Baltimore.The history wasn't taken or given. It was held in trust until a new ownership group could take it (and promptly drop it on the ground, but that's not relevant).That's exactly my point though - history can't be "held in trust". The members of the '97 Ravens are the next in the line of the '96 Browns. I totally understand the whole franchise and paper deal, I just think that the actual players involved are more of a piece of the history than a piece of paper.On the back of Matt Stover's football card, how does it say he was acquired? Drafted by the team way back when, or "assigned" to the team in '97?Can history just be bought and sold? Could the Seahawks' owner just buy the franchise paper from the Steelers, say that his players are being transfered to that franchise, then give his franchise paper to the Rooney's, who just transfer his players to the former Seattle franchise? Now the Seahawks can claim 5 Super Bowls to their history, without the team even moving.There was no 96 Browns. Their last season in Cleveland was 95.Matt Stover was drafted by the New York Giants, not the Cleveland Browns.Oops about the '95 thing, you're right of course. The point is the same though.As for Stover, how would his bio read in '96? ACQUIRED: Signed by Browns '91... OR Assigned to Ravens '96?The player is irrelevent... it could be any player from the '96 Ravens who played for the '95 Browns. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Since this is an unusual case, it would most likely be taken as a given. Everyone knows that the Browns franchise went dormant for a few years, so there's no real need to explain the player movement.But if we must know, I'd say "signed by Browns in 1991, moved to Ravens in 1996." Such a player would have two teams on his resume, not one. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.