08-15-2015, 11:43 PM
(08-15-2015, 11:16 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: YOU WERE THE ONE CLAIMING VICTORY!
HILARIOUS HOW YOU PEOPLE CAN'T EVEN CARRY ON A DEBATE!
I just explained how it's a technicality, and you don't even attempt to argue it or even debate it, you just point out the technicality. What makes it even more of a technicality is the fact that it was done for the sole purpose of avoiding a lawsuit.
Oh, Lord.
First of all, he wasn't claiming 'victory'. He was assuming you were smart enough to understand this thing.
He was obviously wrong.
It's not just a technicality. It was a large-scale version of a player or a coach switching teams. Yes, it was a unique occurrence for an entire team to switch franchises at once, but that's essentially the situation that the compromise brought about.
The fact that it was motivated by a lawsuit is irrelevant. The agreement was made and ratified between all of the parties. This makes it a legally binding arrangement.
So let's try this one last time to see if you can get it: the league suspended the franchise. They took it away from Modell (in exchange for another one). They legally nullified the connection of the entire group to the entity known as the Cleveland Browns. Once that happened the players were no longer Browns any more than Peyton is now a Colt or Carson a Bengal. It is for this reason that it is ridiculous to say that Joe Flacco or any other current Raven (none of whom played during the era when the switch took place) have any claim whatsoever to Browns history. It's like saying that Demaryius Thomas has a connection to the Colts because Peyton used to play for them.
