Why your team sucks

[BFritz21]

(08-15-2015, 06:33 PM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: He got the picture, that's why he hasn't posted anymore in this thread.  

Ha!

I haven't even been in this thread since that and you're claiming victory like you shamed me or something!

The only thing that changed was the name, uniform, location, and front office, but the team, the TEAM, didn't change.  

Just because a technicality of "oh, we'll let you keep the title" happened, doesn't change the fact that the TEAM, which is make up of players, not names, not a location, not a front office, moved to Baltimore.

The new Browns were built from scratch, so how does a team that's built from nothing, and never even played a game to that point, have championships?

[Tiger Teeth]

(08-15-2015, 06:57 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Ha!

I haven't even been in this thread since that and you're claiming victory like you shamed me or something!

The only thing that changed was the name, uniform, location, and front office, but the team, the TEAM, didn't change.  

Just because a technicality of "oh, we'll let you keep the title" happened, doesn't change the fact that the TEAM, which is make up of players, not names, not a location, not a front office, moved to Baltimore.

The new Browns were built from scratch, so how does a team that's built from nothing, and never even played a game to that point, have championships?

Can you simply not read?  And I'm not claiming victory, Brad, these threads aren't a competition.  Nevermind, I'm just gonna' have to make you the first person I've ever put on ignore.  Bye-bye.

[JS-Steelerfan]

(08-15-2015, 06:57 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Ha!

I haven't even been in this thread since that and you're claiming victory like you shamed me or something!

The only thing that changed was the name, uniform, location, and front office, but the team, the TEAM, didn't change.  

Just because a technicality of "oh, we'll let you keep the title" happened, doesn't change the fact that the TEAM, which is make up of players, not names, not a location, not a front office, moved to Baltimore.

The new Browns were built from scratch, so how does a team that's built from nothing, and never even played a game to that point, have championships?

(08-15-2015, 08:55 PM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: Can you simply not read?  And I'm not claiming victory, Brad, these threads aren't a competition.  Nevermind, I'm just gonna' have to make you the first person I've ever put on ignore.  Bye-bye.

And THIS is why I made a second reply directly to Brad's post. Brad's ability to turn his fellow Bengals fans against himself is always good for a chuckle.

[Tiger Teeth]

(08-15-2015, 09:49 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: And THIS is why I made a second reply directly to Brad's post.  Brad's ability to turn his fellow Bengals fans against himself is always good for a chuckle.  

Well then maybe I should take him off of ignore.  I'm always up for a good chuckle.  

[BFritz21]

(08-15-2015, 11:22 AM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: The city of Cleveland was primed to sue the league over Modell's move, so the league cut a deal to avoid that.  The deal stated that Cleveland would receive a replacement franchise that retained the history of the team while Modell's team relinquished both the name and the history.  It was an arbitrary move, but one within the league's power to make.  What they essentially did was to temporarily suspend the Browns franchise and release all of their personnel, and even the owners, from any connection to 'The Browns'.  Those people were then free to form what was essentially a ready-made expansion franchise, which became the Ravens.  When the Browns franchise was reinstated, they populated it with new personnel, but it was, historically, the old Browns franchise.  

That may not be the way  some of you want to think about it, but it's what the league did, and it's reality.

Modelll moved the entire Browns' franchise and renamed it.

When he bought it, they were the Browns, and he didn't cut every player on the team and start an entirely new franchise.

It's a technicality, but the team and franchise that won those titles no longer exists because it changed to the Ravens.

(08-15-2015, 08:55 PM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: Can you simply not read?  And I'm not claiming victory, Brad, these threads aren't a competition.  Nevermind, I'm just gonna' have to make you the first person I've ever put on ignore.  Bye-bye.

lol.

So this wasn't claiming victory(?):

Quote:He got the picture, that's why he hasn't posted anymore in this thread. 

Please explain that to me, or someone else might have to do it since he put me on ignore to avoid doing it.

(08-15-2015, 09:49 PM)JS-Steelerfan Wrote: And THIS is why I made a second reply directly to Brad's post.  Brad's ability to turn his fellow Bengals fans against himself is always good for a chuckle.  

Explain how, more than just a technicality, the Browns won two titles before they even played a game?

You said yourself that it was just a technicality by Modell to avoid the league being sued.

[BmorePat87]

the Ravens are considered an expansion team and a whole separate franchise. SCS is correct.

[Tiger Teeth]

LMAO I just couldn't put him on ignore. He's just too much fun. Brad, you're priceless. Keep fighting against everyone to prove you're right, and by god, keep that GOOD name.

[BmorePat87]

(08-14-2015, 05:43 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I really can't believe that he can't comprehend that.

The entire franchise moved to Baltimore, but since another one, which was built from scratch and had no ties to the old franchise, took on the same name in the same location, they somehow get to keep the titles?

the NFL states that the Browns were deactivated in 1996 for three years. The personnel from the team left and were retained by Modell for his new franchise, the Ravens. 

In 1999, a new Browns team was formed as a continuation of the franchise.


Since the NFL has just a little bit more authority than Brad on this situation, what they say is what is so. You can argue all you want, but at the end of the day you're wrong. 

[Tiger Teeth]

(08-15-2015, 10:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: the NFL states that the Browns were deactivated in 1996 for three years. The personnel from the team left and were retained by Modell for his new franchise, the Ravens. 

In 1999, a new Browns team was formed as a continuation of the franchise.


Since the NFL has just a little bit more authority than Brad on this situation, what they say is what is so. You can argue all you want, but at the end of the day you're wrong. 

No, the NFL is just trying to soil Brad's good name.  We, all of us, and the NFL, are WRONG.

[BFritz21]

(08-15-2015, 10:47 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: the Ravens are considered an expansion team and a whole separate franchise. SCS is correct.

Technicality verse reality.  

The Browns moved to Baltimore and just left the name and records behind.

(08-15-2015, 10:49 PM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: LMAO  I just couldn't put him on ignore.  He's just too much fun.  Brad, you're priceless.  Keep fighting against everyone to prove you're right, and by god, keep that GOOD name.

(08-15-2015, 10:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: the NFL states that the Browns were deactivated in 1996 for three years. The personnel from the team left and were retained by Modell for his new franchise, the Ravens. 

In 1999, a new Browns team was formed as a continuation of the franchise.


Since the NFL has just a little bit more authority than Brad on this situation, what they say is what is so. You can argue all you want, but at the end of the day you're wrong. 

I'd say LMAO and keep claiming victory, but, like I said, I'm not that childish.

You're proving my point, though, because A NEW BROWNS TEAM WAS FORMED, and the old one took the players and everything with it, besides for the name, location, and records.

Modell bought the BROWNS, changed the name, and moved them.  He took everything with him, except for the name and a technicality.

If you two want to claim victory based on a technicality, that's fine, but I deal in reality, and the reality is that the franchise that won those championships is now in Baltimore with a new name.

[Tiger Teeth]

(08-15-2015, 11:04 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: but I deal in reality

Oh, really.

[Tiger Teeth]

We all just might as well give in, Brad's right, he wins, and his good name carries on.

[BmorePat87]

(08-15-2015, 11:04 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Technicality verse reality.  

The Browns moved to Baltimore and just left the name and records behind.


I'd say LMAO and keep claiming victory, but, like I said, I'm not that childish.

You're proving my point, though, because A NEW BROWNS TEAM WAS FORMED, and the old one took the players and everything with it, besides for the name, location, and records.

Modell bought the BROWNS, changed the name, and moved them.  He took everything with him, except for the name and a technicality.

If you two want to claim victory based on a technicality, that's fine, but I deal in reality, and the reality is that the franchise that won those championships is now in Baltimore with a new name.

The only technicality in what I am telling you is that it is reality. And I am not "claiming victory", I am telling you a fact. 

You can argue for 10 years about this, but you will never be correct because the NFL has already settled this 20 years ago. 

[BFritz21]

(08-15-2015, 11:08 PM)Tiger Teeth Wrote: We all just might as well give in, Brad's right, he wins, and his good name carries on.

YOU WERE THE ONE CLAIMING VICTORY!

HILARIOUS HOW YOU PEOPLE CAN'T EVEN CARRY ON A DEBATE!

(08-15-2015, 11:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The only technicality in what I am telling you is that it is reality. And I am not "claiming victory", I am telling you a fact. 

You can argue for 10 years about this, but you will never be correct because the NFL has already settled this 20 years ago. 

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.

[BmorePat87]

Quote: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.

This isn't a debate. The NFL said something so it is true. You BELIEVE that the Ravens should be considered the same Franchise as the Browns pre 1996 and you BELIEVE that the Browns from 1999+ should be considered a new franchise. They are not.


http://www.nfl.com/teams/clevelandbrowns/profile?team=CLE

Quote:Founded: 1946

http://www.nfl.com/teams/clevelandbrowns/profile?team=BAL

Quote:Founded: 1996

I'm done with this. I came in to explain the history and what the NFL says. I have. If someone wants to argue with the NFL, I could care less. You can lead a horse to water...

[BFritz21]

(08-15-2015, 11:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This isn't a debate. The NFL said something so it is true. You BELIEVE that the Ravens should be considered the same Franchise as the Browns pre 1996 and you BELIEVE that the Browns from 1999+ should be considered a new franchise. They are not.


http://www.nfl.com/teams/clevelandbrowns/profile?team=CLE

http://www.nfl.com/teams/clevelandbrowns/profile?team=BAL



I'm done with this. I came in to explain the history and what the NFL says. I have. If someone wants to argue with the NFL, I could care less. You can lead a horse to water...

lol!

How do you teach high school kids?!  You can't understand that I already explained how it's a technicality?!

The Browns moved, and so did all their players!  They (the Browns) were allowed to keep the name, colors, and history to avoid being sued, but the team that won those titles is in Baltimore!!

[JS-Steelerfan]

(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.

[BmorePat87]

(08-15-2015, 11:26 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: lol!

How do you teach high school kids?!  You can't understand that I already explained how it's a technicality?!

The Browns moved, and so did all their players!  They (the Browns) were allowed to keep the name, colors, and history to avoid being sued, but the team that won those titles is in Baltimore!!

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. 

[Tiger Teeth]

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?

[Se ky bengal]

(08-15-2015, 06:57 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Ha!

I haven't even been in this thread since that and you're claiming victory like you shamed me or something!

The only thing that changed was the name, uniform, location, and front office, but the team, the TEAM, didn't change.  

Just because a technicality of "oh, we'll let you keep the title" happened, doesn't change the fact that the TEAM, which is make up of players, not names, not a location, not a front office, moved to Baltimore.

The new Browns were built from scratch, so how does a team that's built from nothing, and never even played a game to that point, have championships?