08-17-2015, 12:31 AM
(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.
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.
