(08-17-2015, 09:33 AM)djs7685 Wrote: How did this not end after the first person explained how Brad is factually incorrect and what the NFL itself acknowledges regarding the Browns/Ravens?  

(08-17-2015, 11:28 AM)PhilHos Wrote: And allow me to add that NOTHING from the Browns teams of the '50s remained in Cleveland in 1996 (other than its history) nor was in Baltimore in 1997. None of the owners, front office personnel, middle management, players, stadium workers. etc from the 50s were still part of the team in the 90s.

Or put it this way, let's assume that the original Cincinnati Bengals franchise from the 30s was added to our current team's history. Guess what that changes for the team in this upcoming season? ABOSLUTELY NOTHING.

(08-17-2015, 11:21 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I think we need another Forum, much like the one in reddit called "Quit Your Bull Shit"

Settlement[edit]
After extensive talks between the NFL, the Browns, and officials of the two cities, Cleveland accepted a legal settlement that would keep the Browns' legacy in Cleveland. On February 9, 1996, the NFL announced that the Browns would be 'deactivated' for three years, and that a new stadium would be built for a new Browns team, as either an expansion team or a team moved from another city, that would begin play in 1999. Modell would in turn then be granted a new franchise (the 31st NFL franchise), for Baltimore, retaining the current contracts of players and personnel. There would be a reactivated team for Cleveland, where the Browns' name, colors, history, records, awards, and archives would remain in Cleveland.[18] The only other current NFL team to suspend operations without merging with another was Cleveland's previous NFL team, the Rams, during the 1943 season at the height of World War II.[19]

An additional stipulation was that in any future realignment plan, the Browns would automatically be placed in a division with the Pittsburgh Steelers and Cincinnati Bengals, because of longstanding rivalries with those two teams.[20] Upon their reactivation in 1999, the Browns were placed back in the AFC Central with the Steelers and Bengals, as well as the Ravens, Titans, and Jaguars. When the NFL realigned into divisions of four teams for the 2002 season, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Baltimore remained together, but in the newly created AFC North.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns_relocation_controversy

(08-17-2015, 01:42 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: But it was only a technicality!!!   

(08-17-2015, 09:33 AM)djs7685 Wrote: How did this not end after the first person explained how Brad is factually incorrect and what the NFL itself acknowledges regarding the Browns/Ravens?  

Brad calling anybody in the universe "childish" is pretty unbelievable. I've yet to see another grown man act like a child on this consistent of a basis.

All of the facts surrounding this have been laid out throughout the thread by multiple people. JS, SCS, Patrick, and others have all gone into detail to explain all of the factual based evidence for the whole situation. There shouldn't be anything to debate here, but for some reason you can't acknowledge the facts/reality of this whole ordeal.

Did Pink Floyd produce enjoyable music? I'm not the biggest fan, but we could debate that and each have our own opinion on that matter.

Are the championships from the 1950's tied to the current Cleveland Browns franchise? Yes, and this isn't a matter of opinion.

(08-17-2015, 02:16 PM)Wyche Wrote: Hell yes they did!  WTF is wrong with you?

(08-17-2015, 02:19 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: After Roger left the band, they could only be called Pink Floyd on a Technicality...

(08-17-2015, 02:19 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: After Roger left the band, they could only be called Pink Floyd on a Technicality...

(08-17-2015, 02:28 PM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: Funny you mention that.  I read today that David Gilmour announced they are breaking up the band for good.  Probably going to just move on to a new name, but keep the old members.  So they'll never get to claim their old music.  Is that a technicality, or what?

(08-17-2015, 05:31 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Didn't read page 3 because the arguements were getting boring by page 2 so forgive me if I skipped something said.

Have to say I agree with bfritz on this one. Yes they (Ravens) are legally and technically a brand new franchise while the Browns are a continuation years later of the original Browns squad.

BUT

Yeah that entire franchise, it's players, coaches, and other personnel all went and formed the Baltimore Ravens so the players that decades of football decisions built up to became the Ravens team so yeah there's certainly an actual connection even if there isn't a legal connection between the Ravens and the original Browns team that they spawned from.

(08-17-2015, 05:31 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Have to say I agree with bfritz on this one. Yes they (Ravens) are legally and technically a brand new franchise while the Browns are a continuation years later of the original Browns squad.

(08-17-2015, 05:31 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Didn't read page 3 because the arguements were getting boring by page 2 so forgive me if I skipped something said.

Have to say I agree with bfritz on this one. Yes they (Ravens) are legally and technically a brand new franchise while the Browns are a continuation years later of the original Browns squad.

BUT

Yeah that entire franchise, it's players, coaches, and other personnel all went and formed the Baltimore Ravens so the players that decades of football decisions built up to became the Ravens team so yeah there's certainly an actual connection even if there isn't a legal connection between the Ravens and the original Browns team that they spawned from.

(08-17-2015, 05:31 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Didn't read page 3 because the arguements were getting boring by page 2 so forgive me if I skipped something said.

Have to say I agree with bfritz on this one. Yes they (Ravens) are legally and technically a brand new franchise while the Browns are a continuation years later of the original Browns squad.

BUT

Yeah that entire franchise, it's players, coaches, and other personnel all went and formed the Baltimore Ravens so the players that decades of football decisions built up to became the Ravens team so yeah there's certainly an actual connection even if there isn't a legal connection between the Ravens and the original Browns team that they spawned from.

(08-17-2015, 06:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The problem is Brad disagrees with these facts.

No one is saying you can't argue the connection, but these two facts that you stated are the things Brad is trying to argue did not happen.

(08-17-2015, 07:39 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: So you agree then that it is Baltimore and not the Browns that have Pre-Super Bowl championships?

(08-17-2015, 07:48 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You're full of shit!

I specifically stated that everything the Ravens are now came from the original Browns, but my point is that the Browns just became the Ravens, so the entire history goes WITH THE TEAM THAT FORMED THE HISTORY.


The new Browns are a completely new franchise that has nothing to do with the old one, aside from the name and location.

Everything the previous Browns did shaped and formed who the Ravens are, but the new Browns were a completely new franchise.

(08-17-2015, 08:02 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: None of what you typed is true.  The history did not go with the "team".  The Ravens franchise is considered by the NFL to be the new team and the Browns to be the old franchise that was suspended for three years.

(08-17-2015, 08:08 PM)jason Wrote: Wait a minute...  BFritz is right.  In 1999 the Cleveland Browns (being an expansion franchise) had the first pick in the draft (Tim Couch).  In 1996 the Jets selected Keyshawn Johnson number 1.  Baltimore (who I will refer to as the Browns from now on on this board) selected in whatever spot the Browns earned the season before.  Ravens are the Browns.