Mark O Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Jacksonville's lease is up in 2030. The only reason they're included in the relocation talk is because they've been having trouble filling seats. It's not because their lease is up. If they did move, they would have to pay off the city nearly $100 million up front, and then $1 million in parking and ticket surcharges for every year that was left on the lease. Which is why the Chargers are the team that comes up a lot. They have an out clause in their lease that allows them to leave San Diego every year between February and like April. They've said it won't happen this year but I'd be shocked if it doesn't happen next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Most of the Gator Bowl was destroyed, except for the parts they had renovated 10 years prior to building Jacksonville Muni. It still took them 2 years to destroy most of the original and outdated Gator Bowl and then erect what is now known as Everbank Field. The only parts of the Gator Bowl that are still intact are essentially the outside areas, like the pedestrian ramps. Essentially, they gutted an old watermelon rind and filled it with new fruit. Jacksonville's lease is up in 2030. The only reason they're included in the relocation talk is because they've been having trouble filling seats. It's not because their lease is up. If they did move, they would have to pay off the city nearly $100 million up front, and then $1 million in parking and ticket surcharges for every year that was left on the lease. Well, that same kind of "gutting" is what was planned for Cleveland Muni. On the Jags lease...that new lease deal must have just been made as I understood their lease was going to expire. But, yea, their whole problems could probably be solved by winning...or bringing in Tim Tebow...which I understand they are NOT going to do, are they? And is the London deal going to really be all that much of a financial boon to them? I personally would not think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Which is why the Chargers are the team that comes up a lot. They have an out clause in their lease that allows them to leave San Diego every year between February and like April. They've said it won't happen this year but I'd be shocked if it doesn't happen next year. Well, apparently a deal for a new stadium is in place in LA. However, it all appears to be contingent on getting an NFL team. http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/story/_/id/8457561/agreement-signed-build-nfl-stadium-la So, I see you are betting on it being the Chargers. I wonder who else may be a candidate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Here is a link that has several articles in a sort of reverse time line for the LA Stadium deal: http://la.curbed.com/tags/nfl-stadium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 From NFL.com, though this is a bit old. Written in May 2012: Here's a quick breakdown of where things stand for each franchise ... San Diego Chargers San Diego has a three-month escape clause at the beginning of each calendar year at this point in its lease, and could leave next year by paying just $22 million in outstanding bonds. Still, there's a feeling that the Spanos family doesn't want to leave, the NFL doesn't want to lose the San Diego market and a reasonable stadium deal will keep the Bolts there. They have the easiest out, and the shortest, most painless path, but they've already had the chance to go, and haven't. And they might not be the NFL's ideal answer to the L.A. question. Plus, there's the fact that -- and this effects the Raiders, too -- the California government won't be overly enthusiastic to help a stadium plan if it's simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. St. Louis Rams The team has submitted a proposal to renovate the Edward Jones Dome to the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission. If it's accepted, the team's lease extends through 2025. If it's rejected, an arbitrator will work out a compromise plan, and the city accepting that one in December would also extend the lease to '25. If the city turns that one down, an out could be enacted in the Rams' lease in January 2015, pending some litigation. What we know is owner Stan Kroenke has deep pockets and Los Angeles ties. The ball, for now, is in St. Louis' court to get the dome into the lease-prescribed "top 25 percent" of venues in the league. Oakland Raiders The Raiders' lease is up after 2013. Sharing the 49ers' Santa Clara digs, set to open in 2014, is an option. A better one for the team would be gutting the Coliseum, which is located on a plot of land in Oakland the team feels is ideal. But the central question with the latter plan -- and really the former one, too -- is whether or not the Bay Area can support two teams, from a corporate standpoint, from a suite-selling standpoint, and -- if they were to play in separate venues long term -- from a naming-rights standpoint. While some speculation exists that estate taxes will eventually force Mark Davis to sell the team, my understanding is that a plan is in place for the club to remain in the family. But that doesn't mean the family won't eventually see greener pastures in its old area code if its current region simply doesn't have room for two clubs to thrive financially. Jacksonville Jaguars The bottom line here is that Jacksonville simply hasn't grown the way the NFL envisioned when it awarded the city a franchise in 1995. But the club has been creative in trying to make its challenging conditions work. And with new ownership, the Jags probably aren't going anywhere for a while. One reason is the team's lease, which runs through 2030. There is an out, but a tough one to enact. The Jaguars would have to prove they lost money three years in a row -- not an easy feat now, and one that might be tougher when the new TV deals kick in -- and then pay a significant fee on top of that. Also, Wayne Weaver put additional penalties for moving the team into his deal to sell the club to Shahid Khan, making it even more costly to do so. For now, Khan seems committed to making it work in Jacksonville. And really, for the time being, he doesn't have a choice. Buffalo Bills Owner Ralph Wilson, who is in his 90s, has said the team will not be moved while he's still living. The club's succession plan is to put the team in a trust and sell to the highest bidder. Still, the club is negotiating a new lease and renovation plan, and its regionalization efforts have been largely successful. Thirty-two percent of the club's tickets sales have come from Rochester, an hour away, and Southern Ontario, and the league is interested in continuing to cultivate the Toronto market. Down the line, could a new deep-pocketed owner swoop in, and whisk the team away? It's not impossible. But chances are, that won't happen any time soon. *** So as we close in on the 20th anniversary of the Raiders' and Rams' escape from L.A., we still don't know the Where or the Who -- and now even the Why is coming into question when it comes to reestablishing the league's presence in the City of Angels. The bottom line is the NFL is thriving. The TV deals are done. And those in Los Angeles that follow the NFL have displayed a contentment with being fed the premier games on a week-to-week basis, even if it means that the closest team is located more than 100 miles away. Maybe that changes sometime in the near future. But as of right now, there doesn't seem to be any real urgency to make that happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 From NFL.com, though this is a bit old. Written in May 2012: Here's a quick breakdown of where things stand for each franchise ... San Diego Chargers San Diego has a three-month escape clause at the beginning of each calendar year at this point in its lease, and could leave next year by paying just $22 million in outstanding bonds. Still, there's a feeling that the Spanos family doesn't want to leave, the NFL doesn't want to lose the San Diego market and a reasonable stadium deal will keep the Bolts there. They have the easiest out, and the shortest, most painless path, but they've already had the chance to go, and haven't. And they might not be the NFL's ideal answer to the L.A. question. Plus, there's the fact that -- and this effects the Raiders, too -- the California government won't be overly enthusiastic to help a stadium plan if it's simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. St. Louis Rams The team has submitted a proposal to renovate the Edward Jones Dome to the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission. If it's accepted, the team's lease extends through 2025. If it's rejected, an arbitrator will work out a compromise plan, and the city accepting that one in December would also extend the lease to '25. If the city turns that one down, an out could be enacted in the Rams' lease in January 2015, pending some litigation. What we know is owner Stan Kroenke has deep pockets and Los Angeles ties. The ball, for now, is in St. Louis' court to get the dome into the lease-prescribed "top 25 percent" of venues in the league. Oakland Raiders The Raiders' lease is up after 2013. Sharing the 49ers' Santa Clara digs, set to open in 2014, is an option. A better one for the team would be gutting the Coliseum, which is located on a plot of land in Oakland the team feels is ideal. But the central question with the latter plan -- and really the former one, too -- is whether or not the Bay Area can support two teams, from a corporate standpoint, from a suite-selling standpoint, and -- if they were to play in separate venues long term -- from a naming-rights standpoint. While some speculation exists that estate taxes will eventually force Mark Davis to sell the team, my understanding is that a plan is in place for the club to remain in the family. But that doesn't mean the family won't eventually see greener pastures in its old area code if its current region simply doesn't have room for two clubs to thrive financially. Jacksonville Jaguars The bottom line here is that Jacksonville simply hasn't grown the way the NFL envisioned when it awarded the city a franchise in 1995. But the club has been creative in trying to make its challenging conditions work. And with new ownership, the Jags probably aren't going anywhere for a while. One reason is the team's lease, which runs through 2030. There is an out, but a tough one to enact. The Jaguars would have to prove they lost money three years in a row -- not an easy feat now, and one that might be tougher when the new TV deals kick in -- and then pay a significant fee on top of that. Also, Wayne Weaver put additional penalties for moving the team into his deal to sell the club to Shahid Khan, making it even more costly to do so. For now, Khan seems committed to making it work in Jacksonville. And really, for the time being, he doesn't have a choice. Buffalo Bills Owner Ralph Wilson, who is in his 90s, has said the team will not be moved while he's still living. The club's succession plan is to put the team in a trust and sell to the highest bidder. Still, the club is negotiating a new lease and renovation plan, and its regionalization efforts have been largely successful. Thirty-two percent of the club's tickets sales have come from Rochester, an hour away, and Southern Ontario, and the league is interested in continuing to cultivate the Toronto market. Down the line, could a new deep-pocketed owner swoop in, and whisk the team away? It's not impossible. But chances are, that won't happen any time soon. *** So as we close in on the 20th anniversary of the Raiders' and Rams' escape from L.A., we still don't know the Where or the Who -- and now even the Why is coming into question when it comes to reestablishing the league's presence in the City of Angels. The bottom line is the NFL is thriving. The TV deals are done. And those in Los Angeles that follow the NFL have displayed a contentment with being fed the premier games on a week-to-week basis, even if it means that the closest team is located more than 100 miles away. Maybe that changes sometime in the near future. But as of right now, there doesn't seem to be any real urgency to make that happen. Like to see the Rams back in LA. It's where they belong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 What would be missed if San Diego lost its team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Well known Chargers fan: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark O Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Fantastic pictures...but not many in San Diego will even notice and it's not like they're moving across the country. It's a 2 hour drive north and staying in the same state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Well, that same kind of "gutting" is what was planned for Cleveland Muni. On the Jags lease...that new lease deal must have just been made as I understood their lease was going to expire. But, yea, their whole problems could probably be solved by winning...or bringing in Tim Tebow...which I understand they are NOT going to do, are they? And is the London deal going to really be all that much of a financial boon to them? I personally would not think so. I would have loved to have them gut the Muni. One wish I always had was to attend a Browns game in the Muni, just like my dad used to. There's a clause in the Jags lease that stipulates if the team finishes in the red in one season, and then below league average for each of the next two seasons, they can opt out of their lease and only have to pay 60% of the aforementioned fees. Weaver stated that the team had finished in the red twice under his ownership but declined to reveal exactly what seasons they were. They keep a tight lid on their books, but it was rumored that they finished last season in the red, and I believe that's where a majority of the relocation talk originated. I don't think the London deal will really affect them that much, but every new fan is one more they didn't have previously. Unfortunately, fan numbers don't always translate into ticket sales...especially when your fans are across the pond. Winning will solve everything, of course. But until they can field a solid winner they need to try other tactics to get fans in the stands. With the exception of MJD, the Jags are one of the most bland teams in the NFL. They've have relatively no-named coaches, less than electrifying play, and little to no national advertising. We are becoming more technological by the day. Integrating your product is key to creating memory links with the consumer. I can count the number of times on one hand I've seen the Jaguars or it's players in commercials or on television programs...and it is one time, when MJD was on an episode of The League. That's why I never understood any of these bottom dwelling teams (ourselves included) pushing to get on HBO's Hard Knocks. They need to make themselves enticing to the consumer, they have to sell themselves. I know I wouldn't buy them right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 6, 2013 Report Share Posted February 6, 2013 Well known Chargers fan: I think it moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cielo Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 Browns need to go ahead and copy Oregon States new uniforms, keep the helmet the same but use the orange from the helmet with the number. Maybe change the gray for brown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 Those jerseys are fucking amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyceRolls Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 I've been in favor of leaving the helmet unchanged but this is starting to grow on me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 6, 2013 Report Share Posted March 6, 2013 Not that impressed by those OSU jerseys. I have seen better renditions on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdmusch Posted March 7, 2013 Report Share Posted March 7, 2013 I actually really like the horizontal stripe idea for the Browns... Similar to Northwestern's Football Jerseys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cielo Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 Not that impressed by those OSU jerseys. I have seen better renditions on here. Which ones were better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 Which ones were better? I can't identify them by name. Its just that over the years various people have put uniform renderings on here that I have preferred to those OR St. ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 I like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuwoohio Posted March 8, 2013 Report Share Posted March 8, 2013 I've been in favor of leaving the helmet unchanged but this is starting to grow on me... Love this.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shep Posted March 9, 2013 Report Share Posted March 9, 2013 Love the new uni ideas. What's clear? Those are gorgeous colors, love to see them in all kinds of ways. I'm open to anything as long as it's seal and orange. Favorite color in the world is that really, really deep brown, man. On cars, too. Gets deep inside you. Well, that sounded like a crap reference, but you know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted July 1, 2013 Report Share Posted July 1, 2013 Browns AL uniform patch will disappear this seasonJul 01, 2013 -- 9:45am By Tony Grossi | ESPNCleveland.com Major changes to the Browns uniform won’t happen until the 2015 season (that is going to be a long offseason around here with all of the uniform homos all aflitter) after two years of market research and design study by the NFL and apparel-maker NIKE. But a minor change is coming this year. ESPN Cleveland has confirmed that the AL patch will no longer be worn on the Browns uniform jersey. (Yea!) The AL patch was added after former owner Al Lerner died in October of 2002. The team continued to wear it throughout the Lerner ownership. When Jimmy Haslam purchased the Browns from the Lerner family in August of 2012, he agreed to keep the patch through the 2012 season. Now it will come off. In March, Haslam initiated the process with the NFL marketing department to have everything about the Browns uniform reviewed. He told ESPN Cleveland, “I will say there will be no change to the helmet. But we will look at everything else. We may change a lot. We may change a little.” The NFL, through an independent market research firm, has conducted interviews with Browns fans in Cleveland and via telephone as part of that process. Removing the AL patch, however, was a decision made before Haslam entered the extensive process of researching a complete uniform change. Haslam said to ESPN Cleveland that he hopes to introduce the Browns' new uniform look prior to the 2015 draft. He just doesn't know how extensive it will be. http://espncleveland.com/common/more.php?m=49&action=blog&r=17&post_id=19501 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickers Posted July 1, 2013 Report Share Posted July 1, 2013 At the rate Haslams luck is going we may never see any change lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PoeticG Posted July 1, 2013 Report Share Posted July 1, 2013 Brown, Orange and White Prison Stripes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miktoxic Posted July 1, 2013 Report Share Posted July 1, 2013 Browns need to go ahead and copy Oregon States new uniforms, keep the helmet the same but use the orange from the helmet with the number. Maybe change the gray for brown? are you color blind? orange white and black. maybe the bengals can use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zombo Posted July 2, 2013 Report Share Posted July 2, 2013 All of you uniform homos can do something constructive and choose the Browns classic football look over Baltiwhore's purple abomination: http://www.nfl.com/greatestuni?campaign=Facebook_vote_uni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 are you color blind? orange white and black. maybe the bengals can use it. Our Brown home jerseys lately are essentially almost black. Subbing in our brown home jerseys wouldn't be too big of a difference Zombo can bitch all he wants, the jerseys will be changed in two years. Sorry, Charlie. Why don't you all go debate for the umpteenth time whether or not Gipson sucks or whether Weeden will throw for less than 20 INT'S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miktoxic Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 hey, i like the layout of the jersey, but what's that got to do with uniform change? you change the block font to a different block font? add some sponsors names to it? that ain't much of a 'change' brother. the only thing i did like was the wider stripes on the helmet, of course keeping it within the browns' color scheme not oregon fuckin state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 hey, i like the layout of the jersey, but what's that got to do with uniform change? you change the block font to a different block font? add some sponsors names to it? that ain't much of a 'change' brother. the only thing i did like was the wider stripes on the helmet, of course keeping it within the browns' color scheme not oregon fuckin state. Well, to me, that is the point. The Browns are known for their traditional jersey, just like the Packers. Modernizing that look would be much more widely accepted than completely changing the jersey style. Changing the number style and sharpening up the lines would go a long way toward making our jerseys look badass without changing the core of what makes us us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cielo Posted July 3, 2013 Report Share Posted July 3, 2013 are you color blind? orange white and black. maybe the bengals can use it. Are you blind period? Read under the last picture, obviously they would change the dark grey to brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.