(08-15-2015, 11:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Brad, I've been very nice despite the insults about my profession, which are odd considering that you just bragged about not being a child like everyone else. The reason I can be a high school teacher, especially a Social Studies teacher, is because I am capable of distinguishing between an opinion and a fact. 

Opinions:
-The NFL should count the Ravens as the same franchise as the pre 1996 Browns
-The NFL should distinguish between the post 1999 Browns and the pre 1996 Browns. 

-No one takes anyone but Brad seriously on the Bengals Board.


Fact:
-The Ravens franchise was established in 1996
-The Browns were deactivated for 3 years between 1996 and 1999.


You can give your arguments as to why you THINK or BELIEVE that this should be the case. This is merely your opinion. Your opinion does not change the FACT that the Ravens are not the same franchise as the pre 1996 Browns. This isn't hard. My 9th graders understand the difference. You might not, but, at least the 100+ kids I am responsible for teaching can grasp this concept. 

Eat a snickers or something, dude. 

(08-16-2015, 12:14 AM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: I think Brad might need another "timeout", now he's insulting peoples professions to try and prove
he's right.  Brad, how are you going to argue with 4 or 5 members, plus the NFL?  Are you just above admitting you may be wrong?

(08-16-2015, 01:51 PM)Harmening Wrote: Why does this guy worry so much about some sort of dopey 'victory' all the time?

He clearly needs to just bow out of this discussion.

(08-16-2015, 05:32 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: How big of a child are you?!  How many times on the previous board did you insult my profession, call me a pedophile, and various other unfounded insults, yet someone does it to you and you get all hurt?!

Noted.

Where'd the Browns team go if it didn't exist for three years?  Did they all just quit the NFL?  No, they went to Baltimore, leaving only the name, uniform, and records, along with some front office.

The Ravens were established with the foundation from the Browns, meaning they were the Browns with a different name.  Or did every Browns player announce his retirement and then suddenly decide to come play for, ironically, the team that was just formed because the one they retired from deactivated?  

You can argue why you THINK or BELIEVE the Browns still have those titles, but the fact is that the franchise that won them was relocated to Baltimore.  What relationship to the new Browns have to the old ones, other than a name, location, and uniform?  (Leaving out the titles because the point being is that the titles shouldn't be theirs.)

(08-16-2015, 06:09 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: This is a really dumb "debate".

(08-16-2015, 06:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Well now you're just claiming a victory because you can't debate. This is why no one takes you seriously. 







Seriously, though. I assumed saying once what the NFL officially did would end this, at the time, 36 hour "debate". Apparently not. 

Quote:Since former Browns owner Art Modell moved the team to Baltimore in 1996, the Ravens have blossomed into one of the NFL's premier franchises.

(08-16-2015, 07:15 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: In 1999, the Browns formed a NEW franchise, one that had no ties to the old franchise other than the name and city.

(08-16-2015, 07:31 PM)Beaker Wrote: No ties other than the uniforms, stadium, colors, fans, and entire history.

(08-16-2015, 07:15 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: IT WAS A TECHNICALITY TO AVOID A LAWSUIT!!

How do you not comprehend that?!  The team that won those titles was the Browns that was MOVED to Baltimore and renamed!!

NFL.com refers to it as a move, and from that article, there are quotes like this:

Moved the team to Baltimore, but he simply changed the name.  NFL.com says it, but you know better than the NFL, right?

In 1999, the Browns formed a NEW franchise, one that had no ties to the old franchise other than the name and city.

(08-16-2015, 07:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Technicality to avoid a lawsuit or not, it's reality. He moved the team and formed a new franchise. That's why the NFL states that the Ravens were established in 1996. 

No one is telling you that your opinion that they SHOULD be considered the same franchise is invalid. That's your opinion, and it's fine. You could point to the Oilers and Titans being the same franchise after a move and then name change a few years later. But you're attempting to state that the Ravens and Browns are the same franchise, which is incorrect.

Chill your tits and get a grip. 

(08-16-2015, 08:08 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: It's fine, though, believe whatever.  

(08-16-2015, 05:32 PM)BFritz21 Wrote:  But that doesn't fit your agenda or your pre-formed opinions

(08-16-2015, 08:08 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: He did no such thing.

(08-16-2015, 08:08 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: He did no such thing.

He bought the Browns, moved them to Baltimore, and renamed them to avoid a lawsuit, which I just posted a link to the NFL stating such, which you said the NFL saying it makes it reality.  If you change your name to Dave, does that change the fact that you were initially Pat?  Does your history change?

Everything the Browns did from their beginning evolved and resulted in what the Ravens are now.  Without the Browns, the Ravens never exist; without the first Browns team, the new team could still exist and be the same.

It's fine, though, believe whatever.  

(08-17-2015, 12:31 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: He didn't just rename them as part of the settlement - that's the point.  He agreed to relinquish the franchise.   Your analogy is incomplete: in order to be comparable, Pat wouldn't just change his name from Pat to Dave.  He would legally agree to relinquish his previous estate for a brand new one.  

It seems that you cannot distinguish between the team and the franchise.  They may seem the same, but there is a subtle distinction.  The team is the actual people.  But the franchise is more of an intellectual property: it is a distinction granted by the league.  For example, Andy Dalton and his teammates are considered Bengals only because they are  contracted to play with a legal entity known as 'The Cincinnati Bengals'.  They do not inherently carry the 'Bengal' identity from birth, nor is it permanent once they attain it.  Once that contract expires or is nullified for any reason, their connection to that legal entity ceases.  Surely you understand that.  

And yet you somehow insist that the old Browns are not subject to this reality. You think that because they were once Browns, they must always remain Browns.  

Here's the thing: Modell and the league agreed to suspend the franchise known as the Browns so that Cleveland could keep it.  Not just the name: the whole franchise.  It doesn't really matter what motivated them to do it.  They did it of their own free wills.  And when they did, the whole team of individuals was separated from the franchise.  I'm fairly certain that you understand that concept on an individual level (unless you think Carson Palmer is still a Bengal), but you seem unable to grasp the idea that it can happen to a whole team at once if all the necessary parties agree to do it, which they did.  

Now, you can argue that this wasn't right, or that Modell should have stood his ground.  But you cannot change the fact that Modell legally chose to relinquish the intellectual property that was 'The Browns' and start a new franchise with his pre-existing team.  It is fact. 

*By the way, could someone please quote this?  I have a feeling Brad has me on ignore.   

(08-17-2015, 12:31 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: He didn't just rename them as part of the settlement - that's the point.  He agreed to relinquish the franchise.   Your analogy is incomplete: in order to be comparable, Pat wouldn't just change his name from Pat to Dave.  He would legally agree to relinquish his previous estate for a brand new one.  

It seems that you cannot distinguish between the team and the franchise.  They may seem the same, but there is a subtle distinction.  The team is the actual people.  But the franchise is more of an intellectual property: it is a distinction granted by the league.  For example, Andy Dalton and his teammates are considered Bengals only because they are  contracted to play with a legal entity known as 'The Cincinnati Bengals'.  They do not inherently carry the 'Bengal' identity from birth, nor is it permanent once they attain it.  Once that contract expires or is nullified for any reason, their connection to that legal entity ceases.  They will always be able to say that they had been Bengals, but nothing they do from that day forward will be part of the franchise history.  Surely you understand that.  

And yet you somehow insist that the old Browns are not subject to this reality. You think that because they were once Browns, they must always remain Browns.  

I understand your confusion.  Usually the two terms are used interchangeably, because there hasn't been a reason to make the distinction.  Usually, when one refers to the collective group of individuals (the team), one is also referring to the intellectual property (the franchise).  But this is the one exception to that.  

Here's the thing: Modell and the league agreed to suspend the franchise known as the Browns so that Cleveland could keep it.  Not just the name: the whole franchise.  It doesn't really matter what motivated them to do it.  They may have faced some pressure, but it was still their decision to make.  And when they did it, the whole team of individuals was separated from the franchise.  I'm fairly certain that you understand that concept on an individual level (unless you think Carson Palmer is still a Bengal), but you seem unable to grasp the idea that it can happen to a whole team at once if all the necessary parties agree to do it, which they did.  

Now, you can argue that this wasn't the right decision, or that Modell should have stood his ground.  But you cannot change the fact that Modell legally chose to relinquish the intellectual property that was 'The Browns' and start a new franchise with his pre-existing team.  It is fact. 

*By the way, could someone please quote this?  I have a feeling Brad has me on ignore.   

(08-17-2015, 08:44 AM)BFritz21 Wrote:

BFritz21 Wrote:It doesn't matter if he legally agreed to relinquish the franchise because he moved the team to Baltimore.

 
It does matter.

Quote:Tell me this, do you agree that everything that the Browns ever did and every season that they ever had prior to the move was the same for what became the Ravens?  

No.  Art relinquished the Browns Franchise, created a whole new franchise in Baltimore and offered contracts to all personnel that was previously under the Browns contract.  Therefore the history was left with the original "owner-less" franchise.  A new owner later came and invested into the original franchise and continued the Browns.

(08-17-2015, 08:44 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: It doesn't matter if he legally agreed to relinquish the franchise because he moved the team to Baltimore.  

That's a technicality, just as I've been saying.  Just because he legally relinquishes the intellectual property, it doesn't change the act of the actual team being moved, along with everything it took to build that team.  

Tell me this, do you agree that everything that the Browns ever did and every season that they ever had prior to the move was the same for what became the Ravens?  

*Why would I have you on ignore?