Talk:Cleveland Browns relocation controversy

"Cleveland Browns relocation to Baltimore"

While I appreciate the efforts to find a more NPOV title for this article, "Cleveland Browns relocation to Baltimore" is certainly not it. The new title implies that the Browns were actually relocated to Baltimore, a notion that the City of Cleveland, the current Cleveland Browns organization, and the NFL categorically reject. (See sources in article.) We need to find another title. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree...I don't think having the word "controversy" implies POV. It was a controversy and continues to be somewhat of a controversy in how it is interpreted. The move of the Sonics to Oklahoma City is similar, but not totally the same since the NBA still considers the Thunder to be the same team as the Sonics as far as I know and IF (no guarantee like the Browns had) a new Seattle team is established, they will "share" a history with the Thunder. I'd also like to add to what Jeff said, the Baltimore Ravens also would reject that as they consider themselves legally a 1996 "expansion team" (even though we all know they aren't like any OTHER expansion team in history!) --JonRidinger (talk) 02:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs more references

As with any article that is about a "Controversy", this one need more verified citations than from just three references. This subject can be very heated as like the debates on Talk:Cleveland Browns#Article should be split into Cleveland Browns (1946-1995) and Cleveland Browns and Talk:Baltimore Ravens. As those discussions imply, there are some people who still view the pre-1996 Browns and the current Ravens as one continuous franchise – not the official position viewed by the settlement by Cleveland and the NFL that the Browns were 'deactivated' for three years and the Ravens are technically a 1996 expansion team. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and there are people who believe that the World Trade Center was not destroyed by hijacked commercial aircraft. That doesn't mean that their views should be given anything close to equal weight, or-- more germanely-- that sufficient reliable sources can be found to validate their views. In any case, that's not what is at the heart of this "controversy". Rather, the article chronicles the dispute between the party of Art Modell and the Browns organization, and the party of the City of Cleveland and Browns fans. I will agree that there should be more citations to that end. I would even agree that the article as is could be better titled. (Though I vehemently disagree with efforts to title this article anything that implies the Browns were relocated, as that is not factually correct.) Let's not manufacture "facts" to fit the title of this article, or in a misguided attempt to achieve a "neutral point of view". -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again I concur with JeffBillman. The controversy in this article isn't so much whether the Ravens are an expansion team (as legally recognized by the NFL, Cleveland Browns, and Baltimore Ravens themselves) but about the controversy that ensued once Art Modell had announced the Browns were moving and its results, which were unprecedented at the time (guarantee of "replacement" team with original history and colors). The result of this controversy was another controversy: whether the current Browns are a continuation of the franchise started in 1946 or if they are a new team. In terms of the second controversy, it's more a "fan" controversy since as I mentioned, the Cleveland Browns are legally considered to be the same team regardless of what we think, which is why the title cannot reflect the POV that the Browns franchise was actually moved to Baltimore. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

New title

I was thinking of a new title for this article. What do you think of City of Cleveland v. Cleveland Browns, et al.? (Please note that this is not a formal move request. It's just a straw poll, at this point, to gauge whether there is a more appropriate title for the article.) -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the current title summarizes what it was quite well. The Browns were going to relocate, but legally "didn't." The move itself was controversial given the support base in Cleveland and the aftermath has also been controversial given the legal vs. practical argument of whether the Browns "moved" or not and the whole Old Browns/New Browns debate. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you might be right. I just don't want to have to again go through the inane argument that we should give credence to the morons poor misguided individuals who think that the Browns moved to Baltimore. ;-) Also, though, I wonder if mention of the case might spur editors to include more reliable sources. -- JeffBillman (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of titles, I just discovered that Baltimore Browns redirects to the Ravens article (and has done so for quite a while). That doesn't seem right. Would it be a good idea to point it to this article, should it be nominated for deletion, or would it be best to leave it alone? - Eureka Lott 05:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to drop another doppelganger on you, but in 1954 baseball's St. Louis Browns relocated to Baltimore: they switched to the town's traditional name of Orioles. It's quite an impressive coincidence, and I'd say that they have equal rights to any Baltimore Browns handle. WHPratt (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Then "Baltimore Browns" would need to redirect to "Baltimore Orioles" or to a disambiguation page, definitely not to Baltimore Ravens. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a tough one. I'd lean towards just deleting it since it's more of a sidenote in Browns history (and the Ravens' "background" history) than anything. The Ravens were never known as the Baltimore Browns nor were the Browns, though I've heard it used in regular conversation when the move is discussed (along with "Old Browns") in referring to the Ravens. I'd probably leave as is, though, since it's rarely if ever used as a term. If I redirected it, I'd redirect it to History of the Cleveland Browns since it's much more a part of the Browns history (legally) than the Ravens, or it could have a small page of its own to explain its background. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Delete. Non-notable title for a team that never actually existed; along the lines of "Oklahoma City Sonics", "Washington National League" (1974 attempt to move the San Diego Padres to Washington, DC), "Columbus Whalers" (Peter Karmanos' threat to move Hartford's NHL team to Columbus, Ohio before settling upon the Raleigh-Durham, NC area), "Tampa Bay White Sox" (would-be relocated team before the expansion Rays were granted a franchise), and so on in other professional leagues. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Oklahoma City SuperSonics does exist, and points to Seattle SuperSonics relocation to Oklahoma City. It is, however, the only similar example of which I'm aware. Most scenarios (like "Milwaukee Pilots", "Phoenix Jets", and your other examples) haven't been created. - Eureka Lott 02:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"Baltimore Browns"

Per the discussion here, I changed the Baltimore Browns redirect (which redirected to the Baltimore Ravens) to a disambiguation page leading readers to the St. Louis Browns page or this page. -- JeffBillman (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Any Clevelanders or Ohioans out there who knows anything about this controversy?

Some sections of this article (see "Early stages of the move" and "Aftermath") are totally devoid of citations. I'm pretty sure I'm not the best person to be the one looking for citations for this article (I've never even been to Cleveland). So if any of you Clevelanders happen to have access old newspaper clippings of this controversy, can you guys let us know?

Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Legal status of players' contracts who were signed to the Browns

It would be interesting to know what the legal status of the players' contracts with the Browns would have been at the time, had any new Raven decided they didn't want to relocate to Baltimore. Having signed with the Browns the NFL would HAVE TO go deal with the players' union if some player refused to play. Of course, I don't know what the players' union contract says about such a situation. Or if any language regarding such quirks is embedded in each player's individual contract. It would seem to me, that if the NFL considered Baltimore a new franchise; an expansion, and the Browns left behind, that any of those "relocated" players could have just up and signed with another team, the one they signed with no longer in being. This is interesting stuff, imo. 72.129.148.164 (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes the relecation controversy continues to be an intresting suject specially if the (New) Browns manage go deep in the playoffs this year. The article itself should probably have the last roster of Browns 1995 and first Ravens 1996. With that said I don't know the legalities but I think any player or staff that disagreed with Model should have been allowed the option to sign with the New Browns in 1999. and the new Browns spared to going through the typical growing pangs of expansion team as much as possible. I also think it has probably weighted the new Clevaland Browns down for the most part lAST two decades having to carry the original Browns records, when trying to find its own footing and indentity. DoctorHver (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cleveland Browns relocation controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110316164743/http://www.baltimoreravens.com/Ravenstown/Marching_Ravens/History.aspx to http://www.baltimoreravens.com/Ravenstown/Marching_Ravens/History.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100125103456/http://nbcsports.msnbc.com:80/id/4696126 to http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/4696126/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)