Expos Rights question

[BrySmalls]

So how long before Washington National starts wearing expo throwbacks in games Vs the Bluejays in Toronto ?

Never. Many Nats fans want nothing to do with the Expos, even if it is just a set of throwback jerseys.

Which is downright appalling. Even when watching Nats games on MASN and MASN2, there is always some reference to the Expos whether it be for nostalgic purposes or to guess which player has the franchise record in a particular statistical category.

I'm not a fan of beating a dead horse when it comes to the Nats/Expos histories, but no matter how the organization wants to spin it, I have a tough time believing that this version of the Nats were "established" in 1905.

[nuordr]

So how long before Washington National starts wearing expo throwbacks in games Vs the Bluejays in Toronto ?

Never. Many Nats fans want nothing to do with the Expos, even if it is just a set of throwback jerseys.

Well, I am planning on a trip to D.C. next summer for a conference and I hope the Nats are playing at home, because I will buy a Expos jersey and go to the game just piss off the fans. Thanks for info.

[Bouj]

So how long before Washington National starts wearing expo throwbacks in games Vs the Bluejays in Toronto ?

Never. Many Nats fans want nothing to do with the Expos, even if it is just a set of throwback jerseys.

Which is downright appalling. Even when watching Nats games on MASN and MASN2, there is always some reference to the Expos whether it be for nostalgic purposes or to guess which player has the franchise record in a particular statistical category.

I'm not a fan of beating a dead horse when it comes to the Nats/Expos histories, but no matter how the organization wants to spin it, I have a tough time believing that this version of the Nats were "established" in 1905.

That's really one of my pet peeves concerning sports. The Expos began in 1969, and the Nats are that franchise. They have ZERO connection to the earlier iterations of the Washington Baseball Club. Those teams are in Minneapolis & Arlington. I don't have a problem with them honoring the city's baseball tradition by wearing old Nats/Sens stuff, but don't try to tell me you're a descendent of that lineage. I like that tha Mariners honor the old Pilots, that the Padres wear old PCL stuff, and that the Royals honor the Monarchs, but they don't claim to be the same team.

And on that note, the Cleveland Browns can say all they want that they kept the history, but Colt McCoy & Jim Brown played for different franchises. Jim Brown played for the team that is in Baltimore, and his records belong with that franchise. Just because the team in Cleveland wears the same uniforms doesn't mean they are the Browns. The Original Browns are Ravens, the current team in Cleveland are the New Browns and their history should begin in 1999.

[nuordr]

I agree with you. The Browns are definitely not the same team I grew up loving and and who ever says they are the same team is just holding on to nostalgia. These teams are different and I just wish the organization would realize that.

[JohnnySeoul]

And on that note, the Cleveland Browns can say all they want that they kept the history, but Colt McCoy & Jim Brown played for different franchises. Jim Brown played for the team that is in Baltimore, and his records belong with that franchise. Just because the team in Cleveland wears the same uniforms doesn't mean they are the Browns. The Original Browns are Ravens, the current team in Cleveland are the New Browns and their history should begin in 1999.

Not sure why this comes up 3 or 4 times a year, but this is not true. Art Modell was given a new expansion team in Baltimore. He was allowed to move the current roster with him. So if you want to say the 1995 Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore, then that is a correct statement. But the franchise DID NOT move. Art Modell signed over the rights to the Cleveland Browns to the NFL, city of Cleveland, and Al Learner. Therefore, the Browns (100% history, records, championships, logos, colors, and etc) stayed in Cleveland.

Moving a roster is not the same as moving a franchise. Apples and oranges.

Let's keep this an Expos/Nats debate.

[Neon_Matrix]

This article says differently about Dawson and Carter:

http://www.federalbaseball.com/2010/8/10/1615098/washington-nationals-make-montreal

Never said they weren't being honoured, I said that a chunk of the fan base wanted their removal and disassociation.

[Milo Meningocele]

And on that note, the Cleveland Browns can say all they want that they kept the history, but Colt McCoy & Jim Brown played for different franchises. Jim Brown played for the team that is in Baltimore, and his records belong with that franchise. Just because the team in Cleveland wears the same uniforms doesn't mean they are the Browns. The Original Browns are Ravens, the current team in Cleveland are the New Browns and their history should begin in 1999.

Not sure why this comes up 3 or 4 times a year, but this is not true. Art Modell was given a new expansion team in Baltimore. He was allowed to move the current roster with him. So if you want to say the 1995 Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore, then that is a correct statement. But the franchise DID NOT move. Art Modell signed over the rights to the Cleveland Browns to the NFL, city of Cleveland, and Al Learner. Therefore, the Browns (100% history, records, championships, logos, colors, and etc) stayed in Cleveland.

Moving a roster is not the same as moving a franchise. Apples and oranges.

Let's keep this an Expos/Nats debate.

You're either delusional, or trolling. I don't care what fairy tale the NFL sanctioned to appease Clevelanders, but that's fantasy. There were 30 NFL teams in 1995. There were 30 NFL teams in 1996. There was no expansion. The old Browns in their entirety (roster, ownership, management) moved to Baltimore, they are now the Ravens. The new Browns are a completely different franchise, with new ownership, management and players. End of story. Stop being delusional.

[Gothamite]

You can't argue with reality and accuse others of being "delusional."

The organization moved to Baltimore. The franchise stayed in Cleveland. Important distinction.

An NFL franchise is a physical certificate issued to teams giving them the right to field a team in the league.

When the Baltimore Colts moved to Indianapolis, Irsay carried his franchise certificate on the plane with him. As part of the process of moving the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore, Modell agreed to leave his franchise behind.

Around the time Curly Lambeau was fired by the Packers in 1950, the franchise certificate went missing. There was genuine panic on the part of the team that Curly had taken it with him (his name was on it), which technically would have meant the Packers losing their spot in the NFL.

[Milo Meningocele]

You can't argue with reality and accuse others of being "delusional."

The organization moved to Baltimore. The franchise stayed in Cleveland. Important distinction.

30 NFL teams played the 1998 season. 31 NFL teams played the 1999 season, after the Cleveland Browns participated in what was actually, officially referred to as an expansion draft. You really can't be any more clear that Cleveland was the actual expansion team, not the Ravens. A new franchise was granted to Cleveland. The colors, uniforms--and inexplicably, (and only officially) the history were the only things that stayed in Cleveland. NFL pretend-time history notwithstanding, The franchise didn't stay, a new one was granted.

[IceCap]

When the Baltimore Colts moved to Indianapolis, Irsay carried his franchise certificate on the plane with him.

I like to think he laughed maniacally as he carried it through security.

[Bouj]

You can't argue with reality and accuse others of being "delusional."

The organization moved to Baltimore. The franchise stayed in Cleveland. Important distinction.

An NFL franchise is a physical certificate issued to teams giving them the right to field a team in the league.

When the Baltimore Colts moved to Indianapolis, Irsay carried his franchise certificate on the plane with him. As part of the process of moving the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore, Modell agreed to leave his franchise behind.

Around the time Curly Lambeau was fired by the Packers in 1950, the franchise certificate went missing. There was genuine panic on the part of the team that Curly had taken it with him (his name was on it), which technically would have meant the Packers losing their spot in the NFL.

I appreciate the bit of history concerning the Franchise Certificate. It's very interesting and I didn't know about it. The whole idea of "Losing the certificate means losing the franchise" story wouldn't fly in 2011. If thieves broke into Reliant Stadium, stole the FC, and then hid it somewhere, that would not mean that the Houston Texans would cease to be a franchise.

Sorry for derailing the thread with the Browns/Ravens issue. It was tangiental to the discussion at hand concerning the Expos/Nats/Sens. Fortunately, it seems like the original question (who get the money from the Expos merchandise sales) was answered.

[bosrs1]

So how long before Washington National starts wearing expo throwbacks in games Vs the Bluejays in Toronto ?

Never. Many Nats fans want nothing to do with the Expos, even if it is just a set of throwback jerseys.

Which is downright appalling. Even when watching Nats games on MASN and MASN2, there is always some reference to the Expos whether it be for nostalgic purposes or to guess which player has the franchise record in a particular statistical category.

I'm not a fan of beating a dead horse when it comes to the Nats/Expos histories, but no matter how the organization wants to spin it, I have a tough time believing that this version of the Nats were "established" in 1905.

That's really one of my pet peeves concerning sports. The Expos began in 1969, and the Nats are that franchise. They have ZERO connection to the earlier iterations of the Washington Baseball Club. Those teams are in Minneapolis & Arlington. I don't have a problem with them honoring the city's baseball tradition by wearing old Nats/Sens stuff, but don't try to tell me you're a descendent of that lineage. I like that tha Mariners honor the old Pilots, that the Padres wear old PCL stuff, and that the Royals honor the Monarchs, but they don't claim to be the same team.

And on that note, the Cleveland Browns can say all they want that they kept the history, but Colt McCoy & Jim Brown played for different franchises. Jim Brown played for the team that is in Baltimore, and his records belong with that franchise. Just because the team in Cleveland wears the same uniforms doesn't mean they are the Browns. The Original Browns are Ravens, the current team in Cleveland are the New Browns and their history should begin in 1999.

Depends on the situation. This year, all year, the Padres celebrated the team's 75th anniversary going back to 1936 and were talking about "team records" and such that included their PCL days during events from opening to closing day.

As for the Browns, officially, legally, and historically Jim Brown did play for the team currently in Cleveland. The Browns historically were deactivated as a franchise in 1996 and Art Modell was granted an expansion franchise in Baltimore. Since they had a team's worth of players available from the on hiatus Cleveland team they were simply transferred to the new organization. It may harsh your sensibilities, but that's what the city and the league say and what they're legally bound to agree. A similar situation occurred in MLS where they deactivated the San Jose Earthquakes for 2 years and granted AEG a new expansion team in Houston which became the Dynamo. Remember, league's control their records and history, not the fans. So just as fans of the Winnipeg Jets or Washington Nationals can't wish away their respective Atlanta or Montreal history unless the league says so, so too can fans of the Browns and Earthquakes not wish away the history the leagues have designated as theirs beginning in 1946 and 1996 respectively.

[OnWis97]

You can't argue with reality and accuse others of being "delusional."

The organization moved to Baltimore. The franchise stayed in Cleveland. Important distinction.

An NFL franchise is a physical certificate issued to teams giving them the right to field a team in the league.

While this may be correct, it is at best a stupid "officially-sanctioned" revision of history.

"wow, it looks like the Cleveland Browns took three years off, the first of which included an expansion team in Baltimore. Since the Browns were on sabbatical, I guess their players were all available for the expansion Ravens. That's convenient. Then the Browns came back...well, they did not really come back since they were never really gone. They were not an expansion team...but they were able, it appears, to get players in an expansion draft. Weird."

I understand what happened, but it was the wrong move and was made because media ran with the "poor blue collar fans" angle. I hope it does not happen again in any sport.

I am OK with the name and (lack of) logos staying for an expansion team, but the history should have remained true. Much like is the case with the Winnipeg Jets.

[OnWis97]

When the Baltimore Colts moved to Indianapolis, Irsay carried his franchise certificate on the plane with him.

I like to think he laughed maniacally as he carried it through security.

I'd like to think there were a bunch of execs on the plane snorting cocaine off of it.

[bosrs1]

You can't argue with reality and accuse others of being "delusional."

The organization moved to Baltimore. The franchise stayed in Cleveland. Important distinction.

An NFL franchise is a physical certificate issued to teams giving them the right to field a team in the league.

While this may be correct, it is at best a stupid "officially-sanctioned" revision of history.

"wow, it looks like the Cleveland Browns took three years off, the first of which included an expansion team in Baltimore. Since the Browns were on sabbatical, I guess their players were all available for the expansion Ravens. That's convenient. Then the Browns came back...well, they did not really come back since they were never really gone. They were not an expansion team...but they were able, it appears, to get players in an expansion draft. Weird."

I understand what happened, but it was the wrong move and was made because media ran with the "poor blue collar fans" angle. I hope it does not happen again in any sport.

I am OK with the name and (lack of) logos staying for an expansion team, but the history should have remained true. Much like is the case with the Winnipeg Jets.

Already has happened again, twice. In MLS, the San Jose Earthquakes franchise was put on hiatus and their owners AEG granted a new expansion franchise in Houston. AEG proceeded to take their head coach and players with them. It could also be in the NBA's future as well as currently the Seattle SuperSonic's history is still retained by the city of Seattle for use by a new/replacement team should they acquire one.

[JohnnySeoul]

You can't argue with reality and accuse others of being "delusional."

The organization moved to Baltimore. The franchise stayed in Cleveland. Important distinction.

An NFL franchise is a physical certificate issued to teams giving them the right to field a team in the league.

When the Baltimore Colts moved to Indianapolis, Irsay carried his franchise certificate on the plane with him. As part of the process of moving the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore, Modell agreed to leave his franchise behind.

Around the time Curly Lambeau was fired by the Packers in 1950, the franchise certificate went missing. There was genuine panic on the part of the team that Curly had taken it with him (his name was on it), which technically would have meant the Packers losing their spot in the NFL.

Exactly. Facts are facts....nothing delusional about that.

[IceCap]

Regardless of what you think happened, there's no denying that the Browns to Baltimore thing really screwed how these things worked. Used to be that a team moved, they brought their history with them. There was never any question about it. Then that G-ddamn Cleveland Deal happened and you have people popping up out of the woodwork to suggest that the Jazz, Bobcats, and Hornets switch names/histories. Oy vey.

[JohnnySeoul]

Regardless of what you think happened, there's no denying that the Browns to Baltimore thing really screwed how these things worked. Used to be that a team moved, they brought their history with them. There was never any question about it. Then that G-ddamn Cleveland Deal happened and you have people popping up out of the woodwark to suggest that the Jazz, Bobcats, and Hornets switch names/histories. Oy vey.

Very true. Modell should've just sold the franchise and started a new one in Baltimore. But you can't just move the Browns, Steelers, Packers, Bears, Cowboys and those in that category (teams that mean more to the fans and city than words can describe) without something like this happening....as we all obviously found out with the Browns/Ravens ordeal.

As long as the Vikings stay put, this shouldn't happen again in the NFL.

[OnWis97]

You can't argue with reality and accuse others of being "delusional."

The organization moved to Baltimore. The franchise stayed in Cleveland. Important distinction.

An NFL franchise is a physical certificate issued to teams giving them the right to field a team in the league.

While this may be correct, it is at best a stupid "officially-sanctioned" revision of history.

"wow, it looks like the Cleveland Browns took three years off, the first of which included an expansion team in Baltimore. Since the Browns were on sabbatical, I guess their players were all available for the expansion Ravens. That's convenient. Then the Browns came back...well, they did not really come back since they were never really gone. They were not an expansion team...but they were able, it appears, to get players in an expansion draft. Weird."

I understand what happened, but it was the wrong move and was made because media ran with the "poor blue collar fans" angle. I hope it does not happen again in any sport.

I am OK with the name and (lack of) logos staying for an expansion team, but the history should have remained true. Much like is the case with the Winnipeg Jets.

Already has happened again, twice. In MLS, the San Jose Earthquakes franchise was put on hiatus and their owners AEG granted a new expansion franchise in Houston. AEG proceeded to take their head coach and players with them. It could also be in the NBA's future as well as currently the Seattle SuperSonic's history is still retained by the city of Seattle for use by a new/replacement team should they acquire one.

I cannot pretend to care about MLS.

So does this mean that there is no history attached to OKC? They were an "expansion team"? If so, then I guess it has happened again. And again it's stupid. And no matter how official it may be, it's dishonest.

And it may even be worse in this case because who's to say Seattle's ever going to get a team? I don't know how many NBA arenas I see being built in America in the future. Stern accuses the people of Seattle of not caring about the league and then they get the name/logos/history saved for them? If the Sonics don't get replaced then that team's history just hangs in limbo? They were essentially contracted?

I've learned alot from this thread. But I remain more convinced than ever that the Browns deal is the wrong way to go, no matter how much it pleases fans. There were two MLB franchies called the Baltimore Orioles and two called the Milwaukee Brewers (the originals gone by about 1903). There could have been two called the Cleveland browns without making this dishonest history transfer. Or we could have the Baltimore Browns, which would be my preference...just like the St. Louis Rams and the Arizona Cardinals (both have about as much history as the Browns). This deal happened because "Cleveland is blue collar and LOVES its Browns...DAWG POUND!!!)

The North Stars move to Dallas hurt. Bad. But honestly, I love how they've handled this. I love that they acknowledge their history in Minnesota. I love that they kept our two retired numbers. I love that they retired Neal Broten's number; he played there, but they essentially regognized his time in Minnesota, where his prime was spent. I appreciate that about the Dallas Stars today and I prefer it to all that stuff being hung up in Minnesota for our "one franchise" that took a seven year break.

[Gothamite]

Sounds to me that your problem with the Cleveland Browns' franchise transfer is really a problem with Cleveland in general.