@ghoolie said:

The team will move

They have to...it is tackle football. They must run, catch, throw etc.  The game is based on movement.

(But, if you are talking about the Browns moving to another city...it will not happen in your lifetime)

@texasag1969 said:

I love that turnout rate which is a meaningless stat. Reason being is that the stands look pretty empty and about 1/3 look like fans of the opponents that Browns fans have sold at deep discounts. I'd love to see what the prices are for tickets the week before each game on Stub Hub. My Nephew has multiple season tickets to Broncos games (I think 6) and for years he has kept two and sold the remainder and comes away with a profit every week while seeing the game live. Even during this "down" year they just had.

The only stat that is meaningful regarding this thread is 100% of Ghoolie posts are worthless.

@texasag1969 said:

I love that turnout rate which is a meaningless stat. Reason being is that the stands look pretty empty and about 1/3 look like fans of the opponents that Browns fans have sold at deep discounts. I'd love to see what the prices are for tickets the week before each game on Stub Hub. My Nephew has multiple season tickets to Broncos games (I think 6) and for years he has kept two and sold the remainder and comes away with a profit every week while seeing the game live. Even during this "down" year they just had.

I can tell you this much Ag about the discounts that were being offered late last season. I finally threw in the towel about doing the 400 miles of driving to watch D II football being played. Told my pal Don- who's the season ticket holder of record- (we each have two seats)  "dump 'em". Our seats are 20 yard line row 9 field level. Nominal face value (it varies by game desirability) is $85. After all was said and done we netted $28. 

Looking at StubHub for the Ravens game, you could get in the building for $6, with plenty of opportunity to move down. Section 109 row 20, that's 50 yard line, best seats in the house- I checked it out-  was being offered for $100- $5 over face value. I saw Club seats going for 50% discount.  And FWIW I don't think Club is worth the extra $$$$, you get nicer bars and nicer rest rooms for 3X the price.   

@d-bone said:

So what you're telling me is we get to see about 10 more wins until it's 'possible'? 

Next year...a 10 win season!!  Yahoo!

@the-gipper said:

The Browns ain't going nowhere until 2028.....and likely will go nowhere at all after that.  

So what you're telling me is we get to see about 10 more wins until it's 'possible'? 

@hoorta said:

I've been to Indy and Detroit- and sure those domes are nice, as I've gotten older and less cold tolerant- don't call me a wimp either- I sat through the NHL Winter Classic one New Year's Day in Michigan's Stadium when it was 12 degrees. He's the deal on that coulda, shoulda- didn't. Couldn't afford it- who was going to come up with the extra couple $100 million to build a retractable dome at the time? The answer was no one. My only gripe about the new place is fan input said they wanted the new place to feel just like the old place- as much as possible. That meant the really narrow corridors behind the stands. Welcome to sardine city. All the other new stadiums have concourses that are at least three times wider than First Energy to alleviate the congestion. 

If Haslami goes to jail you may be right about the ownership. But to broaden your horizons- here's a question for you Tom- what do the Jacksonville Jaguars and the Cleveland Browns have in common- you know, the team (in a market far smaller than NE Ohio) who's attendance was so crappy, was rampant speculation they were going to be moved, and (until lately) they closed several sections of the upper stadium (the renovated dump Gator Bowl) because there were only empty seats up there? It's the same reason Ohio State (ever been to a game there?) can charge NFL+ prices for 80,000 bleacher seats in a shithole stadium & sell out. They win all the time. Winning cures everything. 

FYI, I was quite alive, and have been a Browns fan since the 60s. The answer to your question, and to Tom's POV is this. Regarding never move- not debatable. Regarding move in the foreseeable future? Not going to happen. What the Jags and Browns have in common is an unbreakable lease. Lehrner signed it, and Haslam re-upped it. When Artie pulled out to move to what he though would be greener pastures the best lawyers in Cleveland (all Browns fans BTW) drew up the biggest poison pill lease they could dream up. We collectively learned from the fallacy that the Browns could never be moved. Gip can correct me on this if I'm wrong. But in essence it says moving the nouveau Browns out of Cleveland would cause "irreparable harm" to the city and we are entitled to whatever the hell we think the compensatory figure for damages is. A figure so high that even the owner- with the help of the almighty NFL would balk at paying. Secondly- on top of that- even if you do decide to move, there's a "specific performance" rider attached to the lease. Meaning, you can go- but you want to play somewhere else- sorry Charlie. You're obligated to play your games in Cleveland until the expiration of the lease- meaning 2027. The NFL has suffered enough PR black eyes of late- they wouldn't dare stirring up another hornet's nest trying to move the Browns a second time, facing a protracted and very ugly battle that might wind up in the Supreme Court. . 

So what was different in the most recent moves of the Rams, Chargers, and Raiders? The respective cities weren't smart enough to have the owners held at gunpoint with similar conditions to force them to stick around. Carpetbagger Kroenke might have been the exception, but St. Louis could have been around a billion or two richer if they had....   

It was the specific performance clause that was enforced that was the downfall in Art's attempt to move.  The court ruled he could not move.

The same applies here.    The Browns ain't going nowhere until 2028.....and likely will go nowhere at all after that.  It is just pure ignorance to believe otherwise....but then.....I show you exhibit A:   you know who.

@ghoolie said:

So you are saying that Browns fans are no better than Steeler fans. You are saying, unless the team wins, Browns fans don't show up. 

Unbelievable dude, Browns fans are worse than CNN. No matter what the fukcing truth us, you guys has some apology for it. 

Look dude, the Browns are 30th out of 32 teams in filling their stadium. Don't give me this bullshidt about how loyal Browns fans are. This is the same schidt you try to blast pre 1972 Steeler fans for.

Steeler fans hardly show up even when the ARE winning.   Look at the chart you posted.....the Steelers are only like 2 positions ahead of the Browns on that chart. 

And by the way...the Browns were 29th...not 30th...and the Steelers were 26th.   Imagine what their numbers would be if they had been as bad as the Browns the last many years.  

An 0-16 team having a 29th place showing is not surprising...it is surprising that they are not lower.   a perennial division winner.....being 26th?   That is embarrassing....far more embarassing and worrying for the NFL.

@ghoolie said:

Actually, not true. At a 87.3 % turnout rate, the Browns rank 30 of 32 teams at percentage of the seats filled.

The Cleveland market IS a problem for the NFL. Don't think for a moment they aren't looking at it.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/attendance

It is of absolutely NO concern to the NFL.   The only thing the NFL would look for is how the Browns can be more competitive. 

@ghoolie said:

1) Anyone who thinks "The Browns Aren't Going Anywhere" most likely never earned $125,000 a year at any time in their life. Football teams are a commodity, and to think the NFL is loyal to anyone but the owners, is to be a simpleton. Gipper likes to call people FRAKs (or some such horseschidt), but in fact, MOST fans today, are indeed transient, newcomers, change with the wind fans. The NFL knows this.

Just because many...or most of them may do that....does not make them any less of a Khunt FRAK.  You may kind of expect that behavior out of Millenials....but not people of our generation.   To me...these are the kind of people that would have rooted for the Gemans after they bombed Pearl Harbor....or who would have rooted for the Japanese during the Blitzkrieg.  They root for winners because they are losers.

2) The NFL is not looking to expand. If they were, the Raiders would have remained in Oakland, and the Vegas Rollers would have been born. For a variety of reasons we all know, the audience and the dollars for the NFL have shrunk, and are continuing to shrink. There is no reversing or revitalizing the NFL. 32 owners have only 2 tools with which they can return their shrinking revenue stream.

Agree that the NFL is not looking to expand...though I don't think anything has shrunk.  (well...except,perhaps your manhood)

a) Retract the number of teams (Very expensive for the 30 owners who remain, and very profitable for 2 owners who take the buyout)

Not going to happen.  But if a team should be contracted (which is the correct term...not retract)...the Steelers and their fake a phone fairweather fans would be a candidate.  They can't hang around during a close playoff game?  What a bunch of pussies.

Move some teams around to create new excitement

Like it or not, the Cleveland Browns franchise is a subject of these kinds of speculations among the NFL power brokers as we speak. 1 - 31, fans not showing up, a 0 - 16 parade, an owner facing jail time, a demographic that shows a dwindling fan of Browns fans, and an increasing number of Steeler and Bengals fans in NE Ohio.

You don't know a fuycking thing about a fuycking thing.  The ONLY thing that NFL power brokers care about is stadium deals that can bring them more money.  The Browns stadium...its lease etc. are rock solid for another 10 years......and...among "power brokers"  given the Browns cap space, draft assets...it is considered one of the franchises with the most potential in the NFL.  Stupid Steeler FRAKs disappear once the Browns start winning.  The ownership situation is irrelevant.  Even if JH goes to jail....(and there is about a 0.005% chance of that)  then his wife and kids take over running the franchise.  Owners come and go.  In case you didn't hear, the Steelers owner died last spring. 

If you fuktards actually think the Browns are in a great position of solidity, you are out of your fukcing minds.

It is not a matter of what WE think....it is a matter of what the FACTS are.  The facts are the Browns are going nowhere and doing nothing...even if they have a losing record the next 10 years running. Because you have no freeking clue of the legal status of matters.  You just think with your groin..and nothing else.

@ghoolie said:

Actually, not true. At a 87.3 % turnout rate, the Browns rank 30 of 32 teams at percentage of the seats filled.

The Cleveland market IS a problem for the NFL. Don't think for a moment they aren't looking at it.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/attendance

I love that turnout rate which is a meaningless stat. Reason being is that the stands look pretty empty and about 1/3 look like fans of the opponents that Browns fans have sold at deep discounts. I'd love to see what the prices are for tickets the week before each game on Stub Hub. My Nephew has multiple season tickets to Broncos games (I think 6) and for years he has kept two and sold the remainder and comes away with a profit every week while seeing the game live. Even during this "down" year they just had.

@dutch-oven said:

I love cold, snowy football. Football in the mud, and in the rain. Love it.

That being said, Cleveland as a city goofed up by not building a retractable dome stadium like Indianapolis.

I've been to Indy and Detroit- and sure those domes are nice, as I've gotten older and less cold tolerant- don't call me a wimp either- I sat through the NHL Winter Classic one New Year's Day in Michigan's Stadium when it was 12 degrees. He's the deal on that coulda, shoulda- didn't. Couldn't afford it- who was going to come up with the extra couple $100 million to build a retractable dome at the time? The answer was no one. My only gripe about the new place is fan input said they wanted the new place to feel just like the old place- as much as possible. That meant the really narrow corridors behind the stands. Welcome to sardine city. All the other new stadiums have concourses that are at least three times wider than First Energy to alleviate the congestion. 

@ghoolie said:

1) Anyone who thinks "The Browns Aren't Going Anywhere" most likely never earned $125,000 a year at any time in their life. Football teams are a commodity, and to think the NFL is loyal to anyone but the owners, is to be a simpleton. Gipper likes to call people FRAKs (or some such horseschidt), but in fact, MOST fans today, are indeed transient, newcomers, change with the wind fans. The NFL knows this.

2) The NFL is not looking to expand. If they were, the Raiders would have remained in Oakland, and the Vegas Rollers would have been born. For a variety of reasons we all know, the audience and the dollars for the NFL have shrunk, and are continuing to shrink. There is no reversing or revitalizing the NFL. 32 owners have only 2 tools with which they can return their shrinking revenue stream.

a) Retract the number of teams (Very expensive for the 30 owners who remain, and very profitable for 2 owners who take the buyout)

Move some teams around to create new excitement

Like it or not, the Cleveland Browns franchise is a subject of these kinds of speculations among the NFL power brokers as we speak. 1 - 31, fans not showing up, a 0 - 16 parade, an owner facing jail time, a demographic that shows a dwindling fan of Browns fans, and an increasing number of Steeler and Bengals fans in NE Ohio.

If you fuktards actually think the Browns are in a great position of solidity, you are out of your fukcing minds.

If Haslami goes to jail you may be right about the ownership. But to broaden your horizons- here's a question for you Tom- what do the Jacksonville Jaguars and the Cleveland Browns have in common- you know, the team (in a market far smaller than NE Ohio) who's attendance was so crappy, was rampant speculation they were going to be moved, and (until lately) they closed several sections of the upper stadium (the renovated dump Gator Bowl) because there were only empty seats up there? It's the same reason Ohio State (ever been to a game there?) can charge NFL+ prices for 80,000 bleacher seats in a shithole stadium & sell out. They win all the time. Winning cures everything. 

@d-bone said:

Anyone who thinks that these v2.0 Browns are somehow untouchable and will never move, well they must have either not been alive or not a Browns fan in 1995. 

FYI, I was quite alive, and have been a Browns fan since the 60s. The answer to your question, and to Tom's POV is this. Regarding never move- not debatable. Regarding move in the foreseeable future? Not going to happen. What the Jags and Browns have in common is an unbreakable lease. Lehrner signed it, and Haslam re-upped it. When Artie pulled out to move to what he though would be greener pastures the best lawyers in Cleveland (all Browns fans BTW) drew up the biggest poison pill lease they could dream up. We collectively learned from the fallacy that the Browns could never be moved. Gip can correct me on this if I'm wrong. But in essence it says moving the nouveau Browns out of Cleveland would cause "irreparable harm" to the city and we are entitled to whatever the hell we think the compensatory figure for damages is. A figure so high that even the owner- with the help of the almighty NFL would balk at paying. Secondly- on top of that- even if you do decide to move, there's a "specific performance" rider attached to the lease. Meaning, you can go- but you want to play somewhere else- sorry Charlie. You're obligated to play your games in Cleveland until the expiration of the lease- meaning 2027. The NFL has suffered enough PR black eyes of late- they wouldn't dare stirring up another hornet's nest trying to move the Browns a second time, facing a protracted and very ugly battle that might wind up in the Supreme Court. . 

So what was different in the most recent moves of the Rams, Chargers, and Raiders? The respective cities weren't smart enough to have the owners held at gunpoint with similar conditions to force them to stick around. Carpetbagger Kroenke might have been the exception, but St. Louis could have been around a billion or two richer if they had....   

@ghoolie said:

So you are saying that Browns fans are no better than Steeler fans. You are saying, unless the team wins, Browns fans don't show up. 

Unbelievable dude, Browns fans are worse than CNN. No matter what the fukcing truth us, you guys has some apology for it. 

Look dude, the Browns are 30th out of 32 teams in filling their stadium. Don't give me this bullshidt about how loyal Browns fans are. This is the same schidt you try to blast pre 1972 Steeler fans for.

What? Better yet whatever. Steelers fans? 1972? CNN?  No I was referring to the current BROWNS. Adios.

@mjp28 said:

And I thought that The Ghool didn't like charts, facts and numbers 

.....-but- he has this wrong it's the 1-31 that has driven the home numbers down not the fans, region, state, whatever. Ohio always was a football nuts state from pee-wee football on up. 

So you are saying that Browns fans are no better than Steeler fans. You are saying, unless the team wins, Browns fans don't show up. 

Unbelievable dude, Browns fans are worse than CNN. No matter what the fukcing truth us, you guys has some apology for it. 

Look dude, the Browns are 30th out of 32 teams in filling their stadium. Don't give me this bullshidt about how loyal Browns fans are. This is the same schidt you try to blast pre 1972 Steeler fans for.

@ghoolie said:

Actually, not true. At a 87.3 % turnout rate, the Browns rank 30 of 32 teams at percentage of the seats filled.

The Cleveland market IS a problem for the NFL. Don't think for a moment they aren't looking at it.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/attendance

And I thought that The Ghool didn't like charts, facts and numbers 

.....-but- he has this wrong it's the 1-31 that has driven the home numbers down not the fans, region, state, whatever. Ohio always was a football nuts state from pee-wee football on up. 

@the-gipper said:

 In a sense, yes, they should be concerned about Cleveland...but not about its fan base showing up.   But about the team that is being fielded...and the coaching and ownership.  We have a higher turnout rate at 0-16 than half the teams in the playoffs.  The Cleveland market is not a problem for the NFL...it is the Cleveland owner/coach situation.

Actually, not true. At a 87.3 % turnout rate, the Browns rank 30 of 32 teams at percentage of the seats filled.

The Cleveland market IS a problem for the NFL. Don't think for a moment they aren't looking at it.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/attendance

@dutch-oven said:

I love cold, snowy football. Football in the mud, and in the rain. Love it.

That being said, Cleveland as a city goofed up by not building a retractable dome stadium like Indianapolis.

Big time they missed out on a HUGE super bowl week with the Canton HOF, game, rock n roll HOF, Cleveland and the rest of Ohio  benefits and business spinoff. 

Just look at the summer Indians and enclosed Cavaliers championship game HUGE positive results. Even the highly successful Republican convention came off without a hitch.

........oh well maybe they'll get it right in the next BROWNS stadium. 

2) The NFL is not looking to expand. If they were, the Raiders would have remained in Oakland, and the Vegas Rollers would have been born. For a variety of reasons we all know, the audience and the dollars for the NFL have shrunk, and are continuing to shrink. There is no reversing or revitalizing the NFL. 32 owners have only 2 tools with which they can return their shrinking revenue stream.

a) Retract the number of teams (Very expensive for the 30 owners who remain, and very profitable for 2 owners who take the buyout)

Move some teams around to create new excitement

Like it or not, the Cleveland Browns franchise is a subject of these kinds of speculations among the NFL power brokers as we speak. 1 - 31, fans not showing up, a 0 - 16 parade, an owner facing jail time, a demographic that shows a dwindling fan of Browns fans, and an increasing number of Steeler and Bengals fans in NE Ohio.

If you fuktards actually think the Browns are in a great position of solidity, you are out of your fukcing minds.

That being said, Cleveland as a city goofed up by not building a retractable dome stadium like Indianapolis.

@boo-fagley said:

There is no point in having NFL games in Mexico and the UK other than to gauge fan interest and expand. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/nfl/nfl-releases-schedule-for-2018-games-in-london/ar-AAuyWPw

Dividing the pot? Do you have any idea how much money is in London, Mexico City or Toronto? Toronto hosts a plethora of Canadian company headquarters. People with deep pockets that will pay for luxury boxes that go directly in the owners pockets. The owners share the gate receipts of the poor slobs sitting in the endzone eating popcorn. The real money is in luxury boxes and the people who will pay for them via long term contracts. TV money as well. 

The NFL wants new stadiums. Thats why the Rams moved and the Chargers and the Raiders. Pavlovs dog. T

The NFL can expand its product into those markets...without expanding its number of teams.   It can have a game in Mexico...and a couple 3 games in London without having more than 32 teams.  It can sell it product on TV in those places.   (I assume some UK network and some Mexican network pays broadcast rights...and they can sell all the jerseys and paraphenalia it wants....that does not mean it is workable to have a team there. So...they can still squeeze money out of those markets without expanding there.

But, yes...the NFL wants new stadiums.    It says it still has a few "unresolved" stadium issues.  Not sure where those are supposed to be.  They resolved both Oakland and San Diego by moving out.  There wasn't really a stadium problem in St. Louis...that owner...and other NFL owners just wanted to slobber all over the LA marketby putting a team there.   Perhaps, at this point the only "unresolved" stadium issue is Buffalo.

But hell fire....per this article....the biggest stadium issues are empty seats.:

http://thebiglead.com/2017/09/13/the-nfl-is-seriously-concerned-with-empty-stadiums/

But one of them is at the new 49ers stadium.  Maybe Jimmy G starting there will resolve that.  The other two are in LA....but the NFL should just shatdafakap over that because that is a situation of their own making because they knew that LA was an apathetic market. 

And hey...when you have a half empty stadium near the end of a fairly close playoff game...maybe the NFL should be worried about that!  (yes...I am talking the Steelers game).  

In a sense, yes, they should be concerned about Cleveland...but not about its fan base showing up.   But about the team that is being fielded...and the coaching and ownership.  We have a higher turnout rate at 0-16 than half the teams in the playoffs.  The Cleveland market is not a problem for the NFL...it is the Cleveland owner/coach situation.

@mjp28 said:

Really? 

Each NFL club is granted a franchise, the league's authorization for the team to operate in its home city. This franchise covers 'Home Territory' (the 75 miles surrounding the city limits, or, if the team is within 100 miles of another league city, half the distance between the two cities) and 'Home Marketing Area' (Home Territory plus the rest of the state the club operates in, as well as the area the team operates its training camp in for the duration of the camp). Each NFL member has the exclusive right to host professional football games inside its Home Territory and the exclusive right to advertise, promote, and host events in its Home Marketing Area. There are several exceptions to this rule, mostly relating to teams with close proximity to each other: the San Francisco 49ers and Oakland Raiders only have exclusive rights in their cities and share rights outside of it; and teams that operate in the same city (e.g. New York City and Los Angeles) or the same state (e.g. California, Florida, and Texas) share the rights to the city's Home Territory and the state's Home Marketing Area, respectively.

^{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~}

Front Office

Yes, while this is all correct....that does not mean that the Cleveland Browns constitute "Cleveland Football".  I mean...there are the Gladiators that are Cleveland....and there could be USFL or XFL...or some attempted competing league that could locate a team here.

Hell....this market could be ripe for a competing league to put a team here....give the shite we have had to endure around here this entire Millenium.

@marc1971 said:

Cleveland football, not a legal entity.

But, the Cleveland Browns are.  Established 1945.

@marc1971 said:

Cleveland football, not a legal entity.

Really? 

Each NFL club is granted a franchise, the league's authorization for the team to operate in its home city. This franchise covers 'Home Territory' (the 75 miles surrounding the city limits, or, if the team is within 100 miles of another league city, half the distance between the two cities) and 'Home Marketing Area' (Home Territory plus the rest of the state the club operates in, as well as the area the team operates its training camp in for the duration of the camp). Each NFL member has the exclusive right to host professional football games inside its Home Territory and the exclusive right to advertise, promote, and host events in its Home Marketing Area. There are several exceptions to this rule, mostly relating to teams with close proximity to each other: the San Francisco 49ers and Oakland Raiders only have exclusive rights in their cities and share rights outside of it; and teams that operate in the same city (e.g. New York City and Los Angeles) or the same state (e.g. California, Florida, and Texas) share the rights to the city's Home Territory and the state's Home Marketing Area, respectively.

^{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~}

Front Office