Looking back on Bill
-
I am here to tell the truth and the facts and the facts are the Browns franchise never moved. and the only people to back me up in that contention are the Cleveland Browns the Baltimore ravens city of Cleveland the city of Baltimore the National Football League state of Ohio state of Maryland county of Cuyahoga Baltimore County and anyone that says that they’ve met someone that backed up they have like as much credibility as a carnival fortune teller
We're not denying some players moved to Baltimore... Players come and go, coaches come and go, Front offices come and go. And in the case of the Ravens and Browns even owners come and go.
But the legal entity of "The Cleveland Browns" isn't the players, coaches, or owner. It's "The Franchise" which was granted to- who was it originally- Mickey McBride? By the NFL.
In response to Flugels- sure, Modell initially tried to take the franchise along with him to Baltimore- but thanks to legalities (for those who would bother to listen) he couldn't. At least not until his lease with Cleveland ran out. He was obligated by the specific performance clause that he could move everything to Baltimore- but had to play his games in Cleveland. Period. Rather than agree to that scenario- Modell caved in. And relinquished the Browns franchise to the NFL to be held in trust, while he got his new shiny Baltimore Ravens Franchise.
So thank goodness for legalities- or the few Cleveland NFL fans that would have remained would have been rooting for the Baltimore Browns.... Maybe had that happened- the NFL would have played nine-nice and granted Cleveland the expansion franchise- the Cleveland Bulldogs. Would you have supported them? I know I wouldn't have....
That's the history- guys. If you don't believe it- I really don't care, but believe anything else- you're buying into revisionist- or misinformed history...
We're not denying some players moved to Baltimore... Players come and go, coaches come and go, Front offices come and go. And in the case of the Ravens and Browns even owners come and go.
But the legal entity of "The Cleveland Browns" isn't the players, coaches, or owner. It's "The Franchise" which was granted to- who was it originally- Mickey McBride? By the NFL.
In response to Flugels- sure, Modell initially tried to take the franchise along with him to Baltimore- but thanks to legalities (for those who would bother to listen) he couldn't. At least not until his lease with Cleveland ran out. He was obligated by the specific performance clause that he could move everything to Baltimore- but had to play his games in Cleveland. Period. Rather than agree to that scenario- Modell caved in. And relinquished the Browns franchise to the NFL to be held in trust, while he got his new shiny Baltimore Ravens Franchise.
So thank goodness for legalities- or the few Cleveland NFL fans that would have remained would have been rooting for the Baltimore Browns.... Maybe had that happened- the NFL would have played nine-nice and granted Cleveland the expansion franchise- the Cleveland Bulldogs. Would you have supported them? I know I wouldn't have....
That's the history- guys. If you don't believe it- I really don't care, but believe anything else- you're buying into revisionist- or misinformed history...
He did take the franchise with him - what do you think was in the 18 wheelers - Mrs Modell's makeup? Where did the roster come from? Ozzie? He wanted the colors and the storied tradition as well.
He wanted to bone you up the dumpster without the vaseline Hoorta.
Now, all the players remaining on Art's roster that LOVED playing in Cleveland for the loyal fan base (and bummed they moved) were the bad guys on Sundays? The former Browns weren't the scum bags.
I welcome the only Defensive Coordinator to earn a Superbowl Ring in New Orleans while understanding Revenge of the Nerds is a sequel. "Come get some!" -
We're not denying some players moved to Baltimore... Players come and go, coaches come and go, Front offices come and go. And in the case of the Ravens and Browns even owners come and go.
But the legal entity of "The Cleveland Browns" isn't the players, coaches, or owner. It's "The Franchise" which was granted to- who was it originally- Mickey McBride? By the NFL.
In response to Flugels- sure, Modell initially tried to take the franchise along with him to Baltimore- but thanks to legalities (for those who would bother to listen) he couldn't. At least not until his lease with Cleveland ran out. He was obligated by the specific performance clause that he could move everything to Baltimore- but had to play his games in Cleveland. Period. Rather than agree to that scenario- Modell caved in. And relinquished the Browns franchise to the NFL to be held in trust, while he got his new shiny Baltimore Ravens Franchise.
So thank goodness for legalities- or the few Cleveland NFL fans that would have remained would have been rooting for the Baltimore Browns.... Maybe had that happened- the NFL would have played nine-nice and granted Cleveland the expansion franchise- the Cleveland Bulldogs. Would you have supported them? I know I wouldn't have....
That's the history- guys. If you don't believe it- I really don't care, but believe anything else- you're buying into revisionist- or misinformed history...
He did take the franchise with him - what do you think was in the 18 wheelers - Mrs Modell's makeup? Where did the roster come from? Ozzie? He wanted the colors and the storied tradition as well.
He wanted to bone you up the dumpster without the vaseline Hoorta.
Now, all the players remaining on Art's roster that LOVED playing in Cleveland for the loyal fan base (and bummed they moved) were the bad guys on Sundays? The former Browns weren't the scum bags.
He did take the franchise with him - what do you think was in the 18 wheelers - Mrs Modell's makeup? Where did the roster come from? Ozzie? He wanted the colors and the storied tradition as well.
He wanted to bone you up the dumpster without the vaseline Hoorta.
Now, all the players remaining on Art's roster that LOVED playing in Cleveland for the loyal fan base (and bummed they moved) were the bad guys on Sundays? The former Browns weren't the scum bags.
Of course some of the players, including Matt Barr, love the guy. I loved the guy until, well you know. I wish the city of Cleveland would have gotten off their Collective ass and built the new stadium. Not positive that would have cleared up the situation but the opposition certainly didn't help.
Actually I would have liked to see the state of the art Stadium in Strongsville where Modell's reportedly had some property set aside.
Then Fannie Lewis could have done her Victory lap around the empty carcass of Muni Stadium.
By the way before anybody starts to lecture me I realize Arthur also needed the infusion of cash from Baltimore on top of the new stadium and still couldn't hang on. But I think the league and the city are as much to blame.
WSS
-
I am here to tell the truth and the facts and the facts are the Browns franchise never moved. and the only people to back me up in that contention are the Cleveland Browns the Baltimore ravens city of Cleveland the city of Baltimore the National Football League state of Ohio state of Maryland county of Cuyahoga Baltimore County and anyone that says that they’ve met someone that backed up they have like as much credibility as a carnival fortune teller
We're not denying some players moved to Baltimore... Players come and go, coaches come and go, Front offices come and go. And in the case of the Ravens and Browns even owners come and go.
But the legal entity of "The Cleveland Browns" isn't the players, coaches, or owner. It's "The Franchise" which was granted to- who was it originally- Mickey McBride? By the NFL.
In response to Flugels- sure, Modell initially tried to take the franchise along with him to Baltimore- but thanks to legalities (for those who would bother to listen) he couldn't. At least not until his lease with Cleveland ran out. He was obligated by the specific performance clause that he could move everything to Baltimore- but had to play his games in Cleveland. Period. Rather than agree to that scenario- Modell caved in. And relinquished the Browns franchise to the NFL to be held in trust, while he got his new shiny Baltimore Ravens Franchise.
So thank goodness for legalities- or the few Cleveland NFL fans that would have remained would have been rooting for the Baltimore Browns.... Maybe had that happened- the NFL would have played nine-nice and granted Cleveland the expansion franchise- the Cleveland Bulldogs. Would you have supported them? I know I wouldn't have....
That's the history- guys. If you don't believe it- I really don't care, but believe anything else- you're buying into revisionist- or misinformed history...
We're not denying some players moved to Baltimore... Players come and go, coaches come and go, Front offices come and go. And in the case of the Ravens and Browns even owners come and go.
But the legal entity of "The Cleveland Browns" isn't the players, coaches, or owner. It's "The Franchise" which was granted to- who was it originally- Mickey McBride? By the NFL.
In response to Flugels- sure, Modell initially tried to take the franchise along with him to Baltimore- but thanks to legalities (for those who would bother to listen) he couldn't. At least not until his lease with Cleveland ran out. He was obligated by the specific performance clause that he could move everything to Baltimore- but had to play his games in Cleveland. Period. Rather than agree to that scenario- Modell caved in. And relinquished the Browns franchise to the NFL to be held in trust, while he got his new shiny Baltimore Ravens Franchise.
So thank goodness for legalities- or the few Cleveland NFL fans that would have remained would have been rooting for the Baltimore Browns.... Maybe had that happened- the NFL would have played nine-nice and granted Cleveland the expansion franchise- the Cleveland Bulldogs. Would you have supported them? I know I wouldn't have....
That's the history- guys. If you don't believe it- I really don't care, but believe anything else- you're buying into revisionist- or misinformed history...
Precisely. Think of a team franchise like the deed to property. Who issued the deed to the Cleveland Browns franchise? Originally it was the E FC. Then those deed if you win right we’re going to do the NFL in the 1950 merger. And since then it is the NFL that has the granting rights. The NFL granted those Deed Rights to the city of Cleveland. In the city of Cleveland has always held those rights. Modelz effort to transfer those rights was unsuccessful and actually denied by the league. But what he did do is it created a new deed to a new franchise in Baltimore and it granted The rights to that franchise to Modell and that deed to Baltimore.
-
We're not denying some players moved to Baltimore... Players come and go, coaches come and go, Front offices come and go. And in the case of the Ravens and Browns even owners come and go.
But the legal entity of "The Cleveland Browns" isn't the players, coaches, or owner. It's "The Franchise" which was granted to- who was it originally- Mickey McBride? By the NFL.
In response to Flugels- sure, Modell initially tried to take the franchise along with him to Baltimore- but thanks to legalities (for those who would bother to listen) he couldn't. At least not until his lease with Cleveland ran out. He was obligated by the specific performance clause that he could move everything to Baltimore- but had to play his games in Cleveland. Period. Rather than agree to that scenario- Modell caved in. And relinquished the Browns franchise to the NFL to be held in trust, while he got his new shiny Baltimore Ravens Franchise.
So thank goodness for legalities- or the few Cleveland NFL fans that would have remained would have been rooting for the Baltimore Browns.... Maybe had that happened- the NFL would have played nine-nice and granted Cleveland the expansion franchise- the Cleveland Bulldogs. Would you have supported them? I know I wouldn't have....
That's the history- guys. If you don't believe it- I really don't care, but believe anything else- you're buying into revisionist- or misinformed history...
He did take the franchise with him - what do you think was in the 18 wheelers - Mrs Modell's makeup? Where did the roster come from? Ozzie? He wanted the colors and the storied tradition as well.
He wanted to bone you up the dumpster without the vaseline Hoorta.
Now, all the players remaining on Art's roster that LOVED playing in Cleveland for the loyal fan base (and bummed they moved) were the bad guys on Sundays? The former Browns weren't the scum bags.
He did take the franchise with him - what do you think was in the 18 wheelers - Mrs Modell's makeup? Where did the roster come from? Ozzie? He wanted the colors and the storied tradition as well.
He wanted to bone you up the dumpster without the vaseline Hoorta.
Now, all the players remaining on Art's roster that LOVED playing in Cleveland for the loyal fan base (and bummed they moved) were the bad guys on Sundays? The former Browns weren't the scum bags.
Floogals your thousand dollars would be in my pocket if we made a bet on it.
-
To me, I see both sides being "right." Yes the entire team/therefore the franchise went to Baltimore, but everything Cleveland Browns didn't. So I'm reading these posts and just see both sides using different views of a word.
I look at it like this. If San Diego or St Louis were to get teams, they couldn't go back to their Chargers/Rams, as the entire thing moved. I think what throws people off with the topic is getting an "expansion" team. But expansion and new arent mutually exclusive. Its expanding the league with another team, not a new team.
Maybe that doesn't make sense, but hopefully it does.
-
We're not denying some players moved to Baltimore... Players come and go, coaches come and go, Front offices come and go. And in the case of the Ravens and Browns even owners come and go.
But the legal entity of "The Cleveland Browns" isn't the players, coaches, or owner. It's "The Franchise" which was granted to- who was it originally- Mickey McBride? By the NFL.
In response to Flugels- sure, Modell initially tried to take the franchise along with him to Baltimore- but thanks to legalities (for those who would bother to listen) he couldn't. At least not until his lease with Cleveland ran out. He was obligated by the specific performance clause that he could move everything to Baltimore- but had to play his games in Cleveland. Period. Rather than agree to that scenario- Modell caved in. And relinquished the Browns franchise to the NFL to be held in trust, while he got his new shiny Baltimore Ravens Franchise.
So thank goodness for legalities- or the few Cleveland NFL fans that would have remained would have been rooting for the Baltimore Browns.... Maybe had that happened- the NFL would have played nine-nice and granted Cleveland the expansion franchise- the Cleveland Bulldogs. Would you have supported them? I know I wouldn't have....
That's the history- guys. If you don't believe it- I really don't care, but believe anything else- you're buying into revisionist- or misinformed history...
He did take the franchise with him - what do you think was in the 18 wheelers - Mrs Modell's makeup? Where did the roster come from? Ozzie? He wanted the colors and the storied tradition as well.
He wanted to bone you up the dumpster without the vaseline Hoorta.
Now, all the players remaining on Art's roster that LOVED playing in Cleveland for the loyal fan base (and bummed they moved) were the bad guys on Sundays? The former Browns weren't the scum bags.
He did take the franchise with him - what do you think was in the 18 wheelers - Mrs Modell's makeup? Where did the roster come from? Ozzie? He wanted the colors and the storied tradition as well.
Now, all the players remaining on Art's roster that LOVED playing in Cleveland for the loyal fan base (and bummed they moved) were the bad guys on Sundays? The former Browns weren't the scum bags.
And we corrected your error Flugs... Modell tried to take the franchise with him. And failed. Players are not the franchise. Coaches aren't the franchise. Modell had the NFL rights to the the Browns franchise but was forced to relinquish it to the City of Cleveland and the NFL to settle the lawsuit Cleveland slapped him with.
Cities like Baltimore, San Diego, St. Louis, and Oakland aren't so lucky. Other NFL cities learned a valuable lesson from the Cleveland fiasco- and when they shell out damn near a billion today to build an NFL owner a pleasure palace, they put a specific performance clause poison pill in the stadium lease that makes is difficult, if not impossible for an owner to break. See Jacksonville as a prime example. They would have been long gone to greener pastures otherwise.
-
To me, I see both sides being "right." Yes the entire team/therefore the franchise went to Baltimore, but everything Cleveland Browns didn't. So I'm reading these posts and just see both sides using different views of a word.
I look at it like this. If San Diego or St Louis were to get teams, they couldn't go back to their Chargers/Rams, as the entire thing moved. I think what throws people off with the topic is getting an "expansion" team. But expansion and new arent mutually exclusive. Its expanding the league with another team, not a new team.
Maybe that doesn't make sense, but hopefully it does.
To me, I see both sides being "right." Yes the entire team/therefore the franchise went to Baltimore, but everything Cleveland Browns didn't. So I'm reading these posts and just see both sides using different views of a word.
I look at it like this. If San Diego or St Louis were to get teams, they couldn't go back to their Chargers/Rams, as the entire thing moved. I think what throws people off with the topic is getting an "expansion" team. But expansion and new arent mutually exclusive. Its expanding the league with another team, not a new team.
Maybe that doesn't make sense, but hopefully it does.
To some here, it's obviously just semantics. But to some of us the semantics make a mighty important difference as to what happened legally . Me and Gipper dealt with Baltimorons for years who didn't know the difference, and now apparently some Browns fans aren't willing to admit there is a difference either....
-
To me, I see both sides being "right." Yes the entire team/therefore the franchise went to Baltimore, but everything Cleveland Browns didn't. So I'm reading these posts and just see both sides using different views of a word.
I look at it like this. If San Diego or St Louis were to get teams, they couldn't go back to their Chargers/Rams, as the entire thing moved. I think what throws people off with the topic is getting an "expansion" team. But expansion and new arent mutually exclusive. Its expanding the league with another team, not a new team.
Maybe that doesn't make sense, but hopefully it does.
To some here, it's obviously just semantics. But to some of us the semantics make a mighty important difference as to what happened legally . Me and Gipper dealt with Baltimorons for years who didn't know the difference, and now apparently some Browns fans aren't willing to admit there is a difference either....
To some here, it's obviously just semantics.
Thank you for saying what I was just about to say.
Technicalities meant absolutely zero to the tires on the trucks that moved our team to Baltimore.
Lipstick on a pig.
BEING A BROWNS FAN IS A TEST TO SEE HOW MUCH YOU CAN TAKE -
To me, I see both sides being "right." Yes the entire team/therefore the franchise went to Baltimore, but everything Cleveland Browns didn't. So I'm reading these posts and just see both sides using different views of a word.
I look at it like this. If San Diego or St Louis were to get teams, they couldn't go back to their Chargers/Rams, as the entire thing moved. I think what throws people off with the topic is getting an "expansion" team. But expansion and new arent mutually exclusive. Its expanding the league with another team, not a new team.
Maybe that doesn't make sense, but hopefully it does.
To some here, it's obviously just semantics. But to some of us the semantics make a mighty important difference as to what happened legally . Me and Gipper dealt with Baltimorons for years who didn't know the difference, and now apparently some Browns fans aren't willing to admit there is a difference either....
To some here, it's obviously just semantics. But to some of us the semantics make a mighty important difference as to what happened legally . Me and Gipper dealt with Baltimorons for years who didn't know the difference, and now apparently some Browns fans aren't willing to admit there is a difference either....
I got your semantics right here!
I don't know many franchise owners in America that think employees, equipment and leadership staff aren't the most important parts of their franchise. It doesn't matter as long as you and Gipper know otherwise...
-
Thank you for saying what I was just about to say.
Technicalities meant absolutely zero to the tires on the trucks that moved our team to Baltimore.
Lipstick on a pig.
I got your semantics right here!
I don't know many franchise owners in America that think employees, equipment and leadership staff aren't the most important parts of their franchise. It doesn't matter as long as you and Gipper know otherwise...
Then you guys should be glad we not only got our team and new players back, because if it wasn't for those legal semantics- you'd be rooting for the Baltimore Browns or the Cleveland Bulldogs.
-
Thank you for saying what I was just about to say.
Technicalities meant absolutely zero to the tires on the trucks that moved our team to Baltimore.
Lipstick on a pig.
I got your semantics right here!
I don't know many franchise owners in America that think employees, equipment and leadership staff aren't the most important parts of their franchise. It doesn't matter as long as you and Gipper know otherwise...
Then you guys should be glad we not only got our team and new players back, because if it wasn't for those legal semantics- you'd be rooting for the Baltimore Browns or the Cleveland Bulldogs.
Then you guys should be glad we not only got our team and new players back, because if it wasn't for those legal semantics- you'd be rooting for the Baltimore Browns or the Cleveland Bulldogs.
Bite your tongue....I was never rooting for the Baltimore Browns. If it had been a new team in Cleveland after 3 years without anything, not sure I would've really been a fan. It would've turned into like the NBA for me, I'm happy for Cleveland when the Cavs win but I'm not rushing out buying Cavs merchandise either. I "rooted" for the Packers and Bears during our 3 years off because those cities and fan bases seemed to be like Cleveland. Probably would've stuck with one of those or just never had a true "favorite" team again.
-
To me, I see both sides being "right." Yes the entire team/therefore the franchise went to Baltimore, but everything Cleveland Browns didn't. So I'm reading these posts and just see both sides using different views of a word.
I look at it like this. If San Diego or St Louis were to get teams, they couldn't go back to their Chargers/Rams, as the entire thing moved. I think what throws people off with the topic is getting an "expansion" team. But expansion and new arent mutually exclusive. Its expanding the league with another team, not a new team.
Maybe that doesn't make sense, but hopefully it does.
To some here, it's obviously just semantics. But to some of us the semantics make a mighty important difference as to what happened legally . Me and Gipper dealt with Baltimorons for years who didn't know the difference, and now apparently some Browns fans aren't willing to admit there is a difference either....
To some here, it's obviously just semantics. But to some of us the semantics make a mighty important difference as to what happened legally . Me and Gipper dealt with Baltimorons for years who didn't know the difference, and now apparently some Browns fans aren't willing to admit there is a difference either....
I agree with you, I'm just saying it appears as if some are not using it in the same way. As in everything that encompasses the franchise moved, while the Cleveland Browns stayed.
I look at it as the team moved, not the franchise. The team being all the people, etc
-
To some here, it's obviously just semantics. But to some of us the semantics make a mighty important difference as to what happened legally . Me and Gipper dealt with Baltimorons for years who didn't know the difference, and now apparently some Browns fans aren't willing to admit there is a difference either....
I agree with you, I'm just saying it appears as if some are not using it in the same way. As in everything that encompasses the franchise moved, while the Cleveland Browns stayed.
I look at it as the team moved, not the franchise. The team being all the people, etc
I agree with you, I'm just saying it appears as if some are not using it in the same way. As in everything that encompasses the franchise moved, while the Cleveland Browns stayed.
I look at it as the team moved, not the franchise. The team being all the people, etc
At least someone gets where me & Gip are coming from. The young 'uns may not be aware of how hard some of us worked when Modell pulled the rug out from under us (this was before the Internet really took off) jamming the NFL's Fax machines, picketing their office in New York to at least get table scraps. Modell got plenty of death threats, bet that made him think twice about going out in public for awhile. Some Browns fans recognized him eating in a restaurant in (I believe it was) West Palm shortly after, and gave him a full fledged barrage of profanity before they were asked to leave, letting him know on a personal level exactly how the fans felt. Our name, our colors. Best lawyers in Cleveland donated their time to make it happen.
-
Thank you for saying what I was just about to say.
Technicalities meant absolutely zero to the tires on the trucks that moved our team to Baltimore.
Lipstick on a pig.
But that’s just the point the only thing moved to Baltimore were chattels . The contents of the house. The house itself did not move.
-
Thank you for saying what I was just about to say.
Technicalities meant absolutely zero to the tires on the trucks that moved our team to Baltimore.
Lipstick on a pig.
I got your semantics right here!
I don't know many franchise owners in America that think employees, equipment and leadership staff aren't the most important parts of their franchise. It doesn't matter as long as you and Gipper know otherwise...
Then you guys should be glad we not only got our team and new players back, because if it wasn't for those legal semantics- you'd be rooting for the Baltimore Browns or the Cleveland Bulldogs.
Then you guys should be glad we not only got our team and new players back, because if it wasn't for those legal semantics- you'd be rooting for the Baltimore Browns
For Browns fans who have never lived anywhere near Ohio, what is the 'huge' difference between rooting for the Cleveland Browns or the Baltimore Browns?
-
Thank you for saying what I was just about to say.
Technicalities meant absolutely zero to the tires on the trucks that moved our team to Baltimore.
Lipstick on a pig.
But that’s just the point the only thing moved to Baltimore were chattels . The contents of the house. The house itself did not move.
But that’s just the point the only thing moved to Baltimore were chattels
Look, I understand and have always understood your legal ee's point. But it does not jive with what we, as Browns fans, went through. They way to explain what happened to us was that our team moved away and THEN won a super bowl. The ultimate snub. As has been said, we got an expansion team that was called the Browns.
BEING A BROWNS FAN IS A TEST TO SEE HOW MUCH YOU CAN TAKE -
Thank you for saying what I was just about to say.
Technicalities meant absolutely zero to the tires on the trucks that moved our team to Baltimore.
Lipstick on a pig.
I got your semantics right here!
I don't know many franchise owners in America that think employees, equipment and leadership staff aren't the most important parts of their franchise. It doesn't matter as long as you and Gipper know otherwise...
Then you guys should be glad we not only got our team and new players back, because if it wasn't for those legal semantics- you'd be rooting for the Baltimore Browns or the Cleveland Bulldogs.
Then you guys should be glad we not only got our team and new players back, because if it wasn't for those legal semantics- you'd be rooting for the Baltimore Browns or the Cleveland Bulldogs.
Your Dodge ball continues. Did Baltimore have a tough time selling games out from the very first time they weren't called the Colts on game day? No, they had the choice of crying in their beers forever or following the sport they love on home turf. Guess what they chose? 2 SB Championships and several post season appearances later - worries of new team name and colors is all old testament in Ratville. Winning puts fannies in seats; and it has forever.
Do you really want to go down memory lane about how happy you have been about this team since 99? That's 20 years with only 2 winning seasons so quit acting like NOTHING was taken and carrying on with your semantics nonsense. The franchise was ripped right out of Cleveland; because a very bad business man was being heavily rewarded to move the team,equipment, staff and leadership. This left Cleveland bulldozing the stadium it won 8 Pro Football championships in and 3 years without football before countless years of football follies followed that you've belly ached about repeatedly. But hold on, you are now in an argument over semantics so let's sweep all this inconvenient truth right under the rug.
I welcome the only Defensive Coordinator to earn a Superbowl Ring in New Orleans while understanding Revenge of the Nerds is a sequel. "Come get some!" -
But that’s just the point the only thing moved to Baltimore were chattels
Look, I understand and have always understood your legal ee's point. But it does not jive with what we, as Browns fans, went through. They way to explain what happened to us was that our team moved away and THEN won a super bowl. The ultimate snub. As has been said, we got an expansion team that was called the Browns.
Look, I understand and have always understood your legal ee's point. But it does not jive with what we, as Browns fans, went through. They way to explain what happened to us was that our team moved away and THEN won a super bowl. The ultimate snub. As has been said, we got an expansion team that was called the Browns.
The house analogy I think is the best. There was a house in Cleveland called the Browns. The guy that owned the house moved and took the furniture with him. Title deed to the house stayed in a trust. The foundation of the house stayed the walls and the floor and ceiling the roof all stayed. What was taken Were the couches chairs the bed and the pots and pans. I don’t know how much more simply I can try to make people understand.
-
Then you guys should be glad we not only got our team and new players back, because if it wasn't for those legal semantics- you'd be rooting for the Baltimore Browns or the Cleveland Bulldogs.
Your Dodge ball continues. Did Baltimore have a tough time selling games out from the very first time they weren't called the Colts on game day? No, they had the choice of crying in their beers forever or following the sport they love on home turf. Guess what they chose? 2 SB Championships and several post season appearances later - worries of new team name and colors is all old testament in Ratville. Winning puts fannies in seats; and it has forever.
Do you really want to go down memory lane about how happy you have been about this team since 99? That's 20 years with only 2 winning seasons so quit acting like NOTHING was taken and carrying on with your semantics nonsense. The franchise was ripped right out of Cleveland; because a very bad business man was being heavily rewarded to move the team,equipment, staff and leadership. This left Cleveland bulldozing the stadium it won 8 Pro Football championships in and 3 years without football before countless years of football follies followed that you've belly ached about repeatedly. But hold on, you are now in an argument over semantics so let's sweep all this inconvenient truth right under the rug.
Your Dodge ball continues. Did Baltimore have a tough time selling games out from the very first time they weren't called the Colts on game day? No, they had the choice of crying in their beers forever or following the sport they love on home turf. Guess what they chose? 2 SB Championships and several post season appearances later - worries of new team name and colors is all old testament in Ratville. Winning puts fannies in seats; and it has forever.
Do you really want to go down memory lane about how happy you have been about this team since 99? That's 20 years with only 2 winning seasons so quit acting like NOTHING was taken and carrying on with your semantics nonsense. The franchise was ripped right out of Cleveland; because a very bad business man was being heavily rewarded to move the team,equipment, staff and leadership. This left Cleveland bulldozing the stadium it won 8 Pro Football championships in and 3 years without football before countless years of football follies followed that you've belly ached about repeatedly. But hold on, you are now in an argument over semantics so let's sweep all this inconvenient truth right under the rug.
That the house stayed. The new owners had to re-furnish it and they have done purely shitty job of doing so I mean that’s the problem. The new owners got their furniture from big lots instead of going to like Ethan Allen.
-
Look, I understand and have always understood your legal ee's point. But it does not jive with what we, as Browns fans, went through. They way to explain what happened to us was that our team moved away and THEN won a super bowl. The ultimate snub. As has been said, we got an expansion team that was called the Browns.
The house analogy I think is the best. There was a house in Cleveland called the Browns. The guy that owned the house moved and took the furniture with him. Title deed to the house stayed in a trust. The foundation of the house stayed the walls and the floor and ceiling the roof all stayed. What was taken Were the couches chairs the bed and the pots and pans. I don’t know how much more simply I can try to make people understand.
The house analogy I think is the best. There was a house in Cleveland called the Browns. The guy that owned the house moved and took the furniture with him. Title deed to the house stayed in a trust. The foundation of the house stayed the walls and the floor and ceiling the roof all stayed. What was taken Were the couches chairs the bed and the pots and pans. I don’t know how much more simply I can try to make people understand.
If the players, coaches and staff moved... Let's rather say that all the house was lifted by its foundations and moved elsewhere, while they poured salt on the soil and the now homeless guys kept only the sign in the front.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login