This may be a touchy ?

[SissyBoyFloyd]

If the Browns ever became the San Diego Brown's or London Browns (both being about same distance from Cleve!and I presume), or moved to any city keeping their name and history, would most fans stay loyal and continue to follow them?  Or is that just too much to ask after the Baltimore move?  I was wondering because as bad as the Cardinals have been over 70 years now, I am always coming across Cards fans that go back to both St Louis and even Chicago.

I was a childhood end zone fan club member of the original AFL Dallas Texans and followed them as the Chiefs and was still a fan several decades later.

[The Gipper]

Shatdafakap arseling.

[TexasAg1969]

I never followed the Oilers to Tenn. But then I have always liked Denver better anyway and they'll never move. You inherit season tickets there. Place is always full even in the not so great years. This is definitely a down year and without a QB that may continue. It will be interesting to see which team finds their franchise QB first, Denver or Cleveland. Elway keeps missing too.

[Mark O]

9 hours ago, SissyBoyFloyd said:

If the Browns ever became the San Diego Brown's or London Browns (both being about same distance from Cleve!and I presume), or moved to any city keeping their name and history, would most fans stay loyal and continue to follow them?  Or is that just too much to ask after the Baltimore move?  I was wondering because as bad as the Cardinals have been over 70 years now, I am always coming across Cards fans that go back to both St Louis and even Chicago.

I was a childhood end zone fan club member of the original AFL Dallas Texans and followed them as the Chiefs and was still a fan several decades later.

 

No.. 

[Dutch Oven]

Not a chance in Hades.

[BrownsFan4Evr]

The Browns aren't going anywhere.

[hoorta]

18 hours ago, SissyBoyFloyd said:

If the Browns ever became the San Diego Brown's or London Browns (both being about same distance from Cleve!and I presume), or moved to any city keeping their name and history, would most fans stay loyal and continue to follow them?  Or is that just too much to ask after the Baltimore move?  I was wondering because as bad as the Cardinals have been over 70 years now, I am always coming across Cards fans that go back to both St Louis and even Chicago.

I was a childhood end zone fan club member of the original AFL Dallas Texans and followed them as the Chiefs and was still a fan several decades later.

Nope, wouldn't follow them... Wouldn't hardly even follow the NFL either if that ever happened. BTW- the Browns can't move until 2028 at the earliest, their agreement with the city has a poison pill in it so big no owner in his right mind would swallow it to break the lease. . 

[jcam222]

No

[mjp28]

After no team from 1996-1998 and near total futility since 1999 I'd guess the young fan base hasn't exactly grown much, many old geezers have kicked the bucket -so- another 5+ years of crap football and I wouldn't hold my breath on that one......if the NFL is still viable. Who knows?

That should get the masses all cranked up. 

[wargograw]

I'll give it a solid maybe. Depends on how the fundamentally change the franchise. Sure, I'd consider switching allegiances, but I don't know where else I would go. 

[Westside Steve]

10 hours ago, hoorta said:

Nope, wouldn't follow them... Wouldn't hardly even follow the NFL either if that ever happened. BTW- the Browns can't move until 2028 at the earliest, their agreement with the city has a poison pill in it so big no owner in his right mind would swallow it to break the lease. . 

That's about where I'm at. Probably wouldn't follow the NFL at all. I've maybe watched almost a full game once or twice in my life that didn't have the Browns in it and that was only to route for somebody beating down the Steelers.

WSS

[nickers]

11 hours ago, hoorta said:

Nope, wouldn't follow them... Wouldn't hardly even follow the NFL either if that ever happened. BTW- the Browns can't move until 2028 at the earliest, their agreement with the city has a poison pill in it so big no owner in his right mind would swallow it to break the lease. . 

I thought it was 2025.. If the team left again.. I would just migrate and root for the Bungles as theyre the only thing connected to PB anymore...

[mjp28]

12 hours ago, hoorta said:

Nope, wouldn't follow them... Wouldn't hardly even follow the NFL either if that ever happened. BTW- the Browns can't move until 2028 at the earliest, their agreement with the city has a poison pill in it so big no owner in his right mind would swallow it to break the lease. . 

AH-HA a clue! 2028 minus 2018 = 10 years so any prospective multibillionaire suitors will be laying the prospective groundwork in maybe what 5+ years?

Remember too the NFL numbers are already getting dangerously soft, high schools are having more problems now even fielding teams, college attendance numbers are going down (except for the elite teams) so do I want to sink billions into stadiums and buying an NFL team?

Stay tuned. 

[mjp28]

3 minutes ago, boo fagley said:

Unless they pack up and move in the middle of the night, theres no way that the city would let them leave.

The NFL will be asking for a new Browns stadium soon which they will get and then a Super Bowl will be played in Cleveland.

The NFL wants more teams anyway. Look for 2 new teams. Maybe San Antonio, but Canada makes a lot of sense and so does London.

Another thing the CTE epidemic is really exploding now it can take years or sometimes decades for concussion injuries to have dire consequences. One thing lawyers will be busy for a long time despite the NFL's admissions of the link and current lowball settlement.

Yes the NFL may talk further expansion now but how realistic is it in the long run? Same with London, if you don't have a plane ticket and accommodations who travels? Mexico City or just Mexico maybe Canada might be better fit with the common border.

[dawg2fan]

On 1/16/2018 at 2:27 AM, SissyBoyFloyd said:

If the Browns ever became the San Diego Brown's or London Browns (both being about same distance from Cleve!and I presume), or moved to any city keeping their name and history, would most fans stay loyal and continue to follow them?  Or is that just too much to ask after the Baltimore move?  I was wondering because as bad as the Cardinals have been over 70 years now, I am always coming across Cards fans that go back to both St Louis and even Chicago.

I was a childhood end zone fan club member of the original AFL Dallas Texans and followed them as the Chiefs and was still a fan several decades later.

Absolutely not!.  If we lose this team one more time, I give up the NFL forever. 

[mjp28]

8 minutes ago, dawg2fan said:

Absolutely not!.  If we lose this team one more time, I give up the NFL forever. 

Oh please don't say that you're going to follow sock-her? 

[The Gipper]

2 hours ago, boo fagley said:

Unless they pack up and move in the middle of the night, theres no way that the city would let them leave.

The NFL will be asking for a new Browns stadium soon which they will get and then a Super Bowl will be played in Cleveland.

The NFL wants more teams anyway. Look for 2 new teams. Maybe San Antonio, but Canada makes a lot of sense and so does London.

I am not so sure that the NFL is looking to expand.   Expansion has its pros and cons.   These 32 owners basically do NOT want to divide the money pot amongst anyone else.   The ONLY thing that could possibly persuade them would be charging the new expansion team owners huge expansion fees.  Otherwise, nyet.   Also...there is the question of how to divide up the league structure, division wise.   I guess a couple of the current divisions could just have 5 teams in them....but with the round robin that is played...that could wreek havoc with scheduling. 

No....what this league wants more than anything is to pit city against city.  It is what they have always done:  blackmail current cities with the threat of moving their team.  They are straight out and out whores when it comes to that regard.  They fuyucked over St. Louis.....they abandoned Oakland and San Diego.  That is just in the last couple of years.  You know what they did in the 80s and 90s.....screwed over anyone they could.  Baltimore, St. Louis, Cleveland, LA, Oakland,  Houston.  Hell, this league has no pride about itself.  It will screw over a city twice if it means more money...see St. Louis.  And it will use a city it has screwed over to leverage teams in cities that it now feels do not live up to what it wants.  And what it wants are cash cow palaces.  

It would not surprise me at all if it would start trying to leverage the likes of St. Louis...again, San Diego, cities it has abandoned....or new cities like San Antonio, Portland, Sacramento, Memphis, OK City,  Salt Lake...and maybe Toronto, London etc.   though I don't know if international is the way to go.  They may not want to step on the toes of the CFL...which..I think, they view as somewhat of a minor league/feeder league for them.  And the logistics of London...to me, for a permanent team, are just not workable.

[The Gipper]

1 hour ago, mjp28 said:

Oh please don't say that you're going to follow sock-her? 

If the Columbus Crew abandons Columbus for Austin...which it is threatening,  do not be surprised if NE Ohio would perhaps be in line for an MLS team.    And don't be surprised if the person to spearhead that to become the owner would be one Mr. LeBron James.....and don't be surprised if it were to be located in Akron. 

[The Cysko Kid]

I can barely stand them now. I wouldn't watch the San Diego browns. Screw that. 

We're lucky. We've got the Ohio State buckeyes around here. 

[Marc1971]

Cleveland football, not a legal entity.

[dawg2fan]

3 hours ago, mjp28 said:

Oh please don't say that you're going to follow sock-her? 

The NFL is the only professional team I follow.  No Soccer or Hockey.  Some MLB and Basketball, but the Browns is the only team I truly follow. 

[mjp28]

23 minutes ago, Marc1971 said:

Cleveland football, not a legal entity.

Really? 

Each NFL club is granted a franchise, the league's authorization for the team to operate in its home city. This franchise covers 'Home Territory' (the 75 miles surrounding the city limits, or, if the team is within 100 miles of another league city, half the distance between the two cities) and 'Home Marketing Area' (Home Territory plus the rest of the state the club operates in, as well as the area the team operates its training camp in for the duration of the camp). Each NFL member has the exclusive right to host professional football games inside its Home Territory and the exclusive right to advertise, promote, and host events in its Home Marketing Area. There are several exceptions to this rule, mostly relating to teams with close proximity to each other: the San Francisco 49ers and Oakland Raiders only have exclusive rights in their cities and share rights outside of it; and teams that operate in the same city (e.g. New York City and Los Angeles) or the same state (e.g. California, Florida, and Texas) share the rights to the city's Home Territory and the state's Home Marketing Area, respectively.

^{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~}

Front Office

MANAGEMENT
Jimmy Haslam	Owner
Dee Haslam	Owner
John Dorsey	General Manager
Paul DePodesta	Chief Strategy Officer
David A. Jenkins	Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
Mike Nikolaus	Chief Human Resources Officer
Brent Stehlik	Executive Vice President, Chief Revenue Officer
Jim Brown	Special Advisor
Chris Cooper	Director, Football Administration
Ted Tywang	Director, Legal Affairs
Katie Noble-Murphy	Director, Ownership Operations
Will Black	Coordinator, Ownership Operations
Donna Podolak	Executive Assistant
Marikka Pretz-Anderson	Manager, Legal Affairs
Theresa Dunham	Executive Assistant
Cari Savage	Executive Assistant ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...........Sounds kind of legal to me.

 

 

[The Gipper]

2 hours ago, Marc1971 said:

Cleveland football, not a legal entity.

But, the Cleveland Browns are.  Established 1945.

[The Gipper]

2 hours ago, mjp28 said:

Really? 

Each NFL club is granted a franchise, the league's authorization for the team to operate in its home city. This franchise covers 'Home Territory' (the 75 miles surrounding the city limits, or, if the team is within 100 miles of another league city, half the distance between the two cities) and 'Home Marketing Area' (Home Territory plus the rest of the state the club operates in, as well as the area the team operates its training camp in for the duration of the camp). Each NFL member has the exclusive right to host professional football games inside its Home Territory and the exclusive right to advertise, promote, and host events in its Home Marketing Area. There are several exceptions to this rule, mostly relating to teams with close proximity to each other: the San Francisco 49ers and Oakland Raiders only have exclusive rights in their cities and share rights outside of it; and teams that operate in the same city (e.g. New York City and Los Angeles) or the same state (e.g. California, Florida, and Texas) share the rights to the city's Home Territory and the state's Home Marketing Area, respectively.

^{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~}

Front Office

MANAGEMENT
Jimmy Haslam	Owner
Dee Haslam	Owner
John Dorsey	General Manager
Paul DePodesta	Chief Strategy Officer
David A. Jenkins	Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
Mike Nikolaus	Chief Human Resources Officer
Brent Stehlik	Executive Vice President, Chief Revenue Officer
Jim Brown	Special Advisor
Chris Cooper	Director, Football Administration
Ted Tywang	Director, Legal Affairs
Katie Noble-Murphy	Director, Ownership Operations
Will Black	Coordinator, Ownership Operations
Donna Podolak	Executive Assistant
Marikka Pretz-Anderson	Manager, Legal Affairs
Theresa Dunham	Executive Assistant
Cari Savage	Executive Assistant ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...........Sounds kind of legal to me.

 

 

Yes, while this is all correct....that does not mean that the Cleveland Browns constitute "Cleveland Football".  I mean...there are the Gladiators that are Cleveland....and there could be USFL or XFL...or some attempted competing league that could locate a team here.

Hell....this market could be ripe for a competing league to put a team here....give the shite we have had to endure around here this entire Millenium.

[The Gipper]

5 minutes ago, boo fagley said:

There is no point in having NFL games in Mexico and the UK other than to gauge fan interest and expand. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/nfl/nfl-releases-schedule-for-2018-games-in-london/ar-AAuyWPw

Dividing the pot? Do you have any idea how much money is in London, Mexico City or Toronto? Toronto hosts a plethora of Canadian company headquarters. People with deep pockets that will pay for luxury boxes that go directly in the owners pockets. The owners share the gate receipts of the poor slobs sitting in the endzone eating popcorn. The real money is in luxury boxes and the people who will pay for them via long term contracts. TV money as well. 

The NFL wants new stadiums. Thats why the Rams moved and the Chargers and the Raiders. Pavlovs dog. T

The NFL can expand its product into those markets...without expanding its number of teams.   It can have a game in Mexico...and a couple 3 games in London without having more than 32 teams.  It can sell it product on TV in those places.   (I assume some UK network and some Mexican network pays broadcast rights...and they can sell all the jerseys and paraphenalia it wants....that does not mean it is workable to have a team there. So...they can still squeeze money out of those markets without expanding there.

But, yes...the NFL wants new stadiums.    It says it still has a few "unresolved" stadium issues.  Not sure where those are supposed to be.  They resolved both Oakland and San Diego by moving out.  There wasn't really a stadium problem in St. Louis...that owner...and other NFL owners just wanted to slobber all over the LA marketby putting a team there.   Perhaps, at this point the only "unresolved" stadium issue is Buffalo.

But hell fire....per this article....the biggest stadium issues are empty seats.:

http://thebiglead.com/2017/09/13/the-nfl-is-seriously-concerned-with-empty-stadiums/

But one of them is at the new 49ers stadium.  Maybe Jimmy G starting there will resolve that.  The other two are in LA....but the NFL should just shatdafakap over that because that is a situation of their own making because they knew that LA was an apathetic market. 

And hey...when you have a half empty stadium near the end of a fairly close playoff game...maybe the NFL should be worried about that!  (yes...I am talking the Steelers game).  

In a sense, yes, they should be concerned about Cleveland...but not about its fan base showing up.   But about the team that is being fielded...and the coaching and ownership.  We have a higher turnout rate at 0-16 than half the teams in the playoffs.  The Cleveland market is not a problem for the NFL...it is the Cleveland owner/coach situation.

 

[Dutch Oven]

I love cold, snowy football. Football in the mud, and in the rain. Love it.

That being said, Cleveland as a city goofed up by not building a retractable dome stadium like Indianapolis.

 

[Ghoolie]

1) Anyone who thinks "The Browns Aren't Going Anywhere" most likely never earned $125,000 a year at any time in their life. Football teams are a commodity, and to think the NFL is loyal to anyone but the owners, is to be a simpleton. Gipper likes to call people FRAKs (or some such horseschidt), but in fact, MOST fans today, are indeed transient, newcomers, change with the wind fans. The NFL knows this.

2) The NFL is not looking to expand. If they were, the Raiders would have remained in Oakland, and the Vegas Rollers would have been born. For a variety of reasons we all know, the audience and the dollars for the NFL have shrunk, and are continuing to shrink. There is no reversing or revitalizing the NFL. 32 owners have only 2 tools with which they can return their shrinking revenue stream.

a) Retract the number of teams (Very expensive for the 30 owners who remain, and very profitable for 2 owners who take the buyout)

Move some teams around to create new excitement

Like it or not, the Cleveland Browns franchise is a subject of these kinds of speculations among the NFL power brokers as we speak. 1 - 31, fans not showing up, a 0 - 16 parade, an owner facing jail time, a demographic that shows a dwindling fan of Browns fans, and an increasing number of Steeler and Bengals fans in NE Ohio.

If you fuktards actually think the Browns are in a great position of solidity, you are out of your fukcing minds.

[mjp28]

1 hour ago, Dutch Oven said:

I love cold, snowy football. Football in the mud, and in the rain. Love it.

That being said, Cleveland as a city goofed up by not building a retractable dome stadium like Indianapolis.

 

Big time they missed out on a HUGE super bowl week with the Canton HOF, game, rock n roll HOF, Cleveland and the rest of Ohio  benefits and business spinoff. 

Just look at the summer Indians and enclosed Cavaliers championship game HUGE positive results. Even the highly successful Republican convention came off without a hitch.

........oh well maybe they'll get it right in the next BROWNS stadium. 

[Ghoolie]

1 hour ago, The Gipper said:

 In a sense, yes, they should be concerned about Cleveland...but not about its fan base showing up.   But about the team that is being fielded...and the coaching and ownership.  We have a higher turnout rate at 0-16 than half the teams in the playoffs.  The Cleveland market is not a problem for the NFL...it is the Cleveland owner/coach situation.

 

Actually, not true. At a 87.3 % turnout rate, the Browns rank 30 of 32 teams at percentage of the seats filled.

The Cleveland market IS a problem for the NFL. Don't think for a moment they aren't looking at it.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/attendance

[mjp28]

2 minutes ago, Ghoolie said:

Actually, not true. At a 87.3 % turnout rate, the Browns rank 30 of 32 teams at percentage of the seats filled.

The Cleveland market IS a problem for the NFL. Don't think for a moment they aren't looking at it.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/attendance

And I thought that The Ghool didn't like charts, facts and numbers 

.....-but- he has this wrong it's the 1-31 that has driven the home numbers down not the fans, region, state, whatever. Ohio always was a football nuts state from pee-wee football on up.