Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

SI Article--Only in Baltimore...Same Old Modell.

1 view

Skip to first unread message

Glenn Channell

unread,

Aug 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/8/96

From the August 12, Sports Illustrated, "Inside the NFL"
by Kelly Whiteside:

RAVENOUS FOR FOOTBALL

To Baltimore Colts fans who had been singing the blues for 12 years,
the Ravens' preseason opener was sweet music.

After Baltimore Colts owner Bob Irsay packed up his team and bolted to
Indianapolis under the cover of darkness that snowy March night in 1984,
the Baltimore Colts Band played on. Its members kept on practicing every
Wednesday; kept performing at parades, other NFL games and the Preakness;
kept playing "Let's Go You Baltimore Colts!" even though the fight was
over and NFL teams were being awarded to cities (Charlotte! Jacksonville!)
with no pro football tradition. The band became a symbol of Baltimore's
love affair with its Colts.

Last Saturday when the band's bus pulled into the parking lot at Memorial
Stadium, the Colts' old home, for the Baltimore Ravens' first exhibition
game, the 200 elated musicians yelled, "We're home!" Not exactly. But the
NFL is indeed back in Baltimore and 63,804 fans, the largest crowd in
Memorial Stadium history, witnessed its homecoming as the Ravens beat the
Philadelphia Eagles 17-9.

[63,804 is the largest crowd ever in Memorial Stadium?!? What
happened to all the support Baltimore supposedly had? The Browns drew
that in a bad week. Also, if the city of Baltimore has the record for
sellouts as one person from Baltimore has claimed, they need to look at
what a 'sellout' means. Clearly Baltimore didn't fill the stadium if
63,804 could fit. By Modell's definition of a sellout, the old high would
not have even been big enough to lift the local blackout (remember games
in Cleveland in sub-zero weather that drew 70,000 and still weren't shown
on local TV???) --GMC]

As the band marched onto the field to a standing ovation, tears of joy
streamed down John Ziemann's cheeks. Ziemann, the band's president and
a member since 1962, met his wife, Charlene, on the Memorial Stadium turf
in 1968, when she was a cheerleader (she now instructs the flagline, and
their 16 yeard-old son, Christopher, is a member of the color guard).
Given that the Colts have been part of so many Baltimoreans' lives, fans
generally view the Ravens--those Cleveland Browns transplanted by Art
Modell--as the New Colts."It will take a generation or so [before the
Ravens establish their own identity]," says Ziemann. "When we think of
the Colts, we think of Baltimore. When my youngest son, Patrick, who is
12, thinks of the Colts, he thinks of Indianapolis." Rest assured,
Baltimore Colts fans, Ziemann's band is now the official band of the
Ravens (but won't change its name until the last game of the 1997 season).
The fight song's melody will remain the same; only the words will be
changed.

[Couple of comments here. A band? a color guard? a flag corp? a fight
song? What is this, a college team??? Ironic that this is the same
Art Modell who refused to have cheerleaders in Cleveland to save money,
saying "when people come to the game, I want them to watch the game, not
women on the sideline..." Also glad to see that the Colts fans are
completely ignoring the fact that it's hypocritical to hate Irsay and
accept Modell... -- GMC]

Another throwback to the Colts' era is Ravens head coach Ted Marchibroda
who was Baltimore's coach from 1975 to '79. Can Marchibroda work a little
of his magic on the Ravens? This team went 5-11 last year, but quick
turnarounds are his specialty [THIS team didn't go 5-11 last year. The
Browns did, and with all of the players deserting, this team bears little
resemblance to the Browns of last year. If anything, they got worse--GMC]
He took Baltimore to the playoffs a year after a 2-12 season in '74, and
last year he guided Indianapolis, a .500 team in '94, to within a Hail
Mary pass of the Super Bowl. [Come On. A .500 team is essentially a
playoff contending team anyway. Besides I'd personally give the Colts'
new offensive and defensive coordinators more credit for the turn around
than the head coach.--GMC]

When the ravens ran out of the tunnel last Saturday they looked nothing
like the Colts--or the Browns--for that matter. They wore black pants and
white jerseys with funky-looking purple numbers. The team's nickname
comes from the famous poem written by Baltimore's Edgar Allan Poe, though
fans looking to establish traditions haven't delved into that rich trove
of ideas just yet. [Why is the media determined to propagate this fiction?
Poe had nothing to do with Baltimore!!! He spent about two months there,
all of it drunk, did none of his writing there, died there, and was given
a public burial there because he was broke! Hardly the representative
most of us would pick for our city...--GMC] Will Memorial Stadium be
known as the House of Ushers? Will tight end Frank Hartley be nicknamed
Tell-Tale Hartley? Nevermore. So far, only the Raven Caw noisemakers have
caught on. ["Fan in a can" -- GMC] The stadium sound system also blasts a
*caaaaaw* recording, which, as left tackle Tony Jones says, "sounds like
they're choking the bird." [<G> Right on T. We miss you!! -GMC].

For the next two seasons the Ravens will play at Memorial Stadium while
awaiting the completion of their $200 million, 68,400-seat home in the
shadow of Orioles Park at Camden Yards. Modell abandoned creaky Cleveland
Stadium because of the sweetheart deal Baltimore gave him [finally, a true
reason--GMC]--the stadium is being financed largely by tax revenue and
state lottery proceeds. Almost 58,000 season tickets have been sold, and
Modell will have to kick in only $24 million to build the Ravens' new
stadium. [Of course, of the 58,000, many are upset because the system to
issue tickets assigned many to endzone seats and even broke up groups of
4 into four widely spaced single seats.--GMC]

Baltimore fans were willing to shell out big bucks for season tickets.
Dennis Clampitt, a 32-year-old cable splicer for Baltimore Gas and
Electric, took out a $6,000 bank loan to pay for his pair. Clampitt is
the type of fan who recites the Colts-quiz scene from the movie "Diner"
the type who gets "goose bumps walking into this place again." And he is
not alone. Walk down any aisle in Memorial Stadium and you'll find
someone just like him.

That may explain why Modell, the most vilified owner in sports, is
considered a hero in Baltimore. [Hypocrisy and lack of morals may explain
it too -- GMC]. Euphoric fans--they call themselves Raven Maniacs--are
overjoyed to have a team again. [...and apparently it doesn't matter
that it wasn't their team. Oh well, I'm sure the honeymoon will end in
a few years...--GMC}

*Only in Baltimore....* When Modell addressed the crowdat midfield before
the first game, he was greeted with applause. Fans screamed "Thanks, Art!"
They chanted his name. "The last time I received an ovation like that was
when I left town," the 71 year-old Modell cracked later. "The last time
I was this happy was when I bought the Browns 35 years ago. I'm happy
because I'm being embraced by the community and so is the team. This is a
renewal for Art Modell, a new era. It's more than just a preseason game."
[Translation for the people not speaking Modell-ese: "They bought it! I
can't believe the stupid dolts bought it! I screwed one city, got paid
$50 million by another for the chance to do the same to them!"--GMC]

Still, others haven't been taken in by his charm [Satan had charm too--GMC]
They realize that Modell didn't move the Browns to Baltimore because he
felt sorry for jilted Colts fans [Of course not. He blocked expansion
in Baltimore to set up just such a cash cow money opportunity--GMC]; he
moved to make a ton of money. "He's no better than Irsay," says Wayne Wise,
a season-ticket holder from Glenelg, Md. "Cleveland made him, and then he
did them wrong." [Another PERFECT example of the lack of morals involved.
Here's a guy that says "I know Cleveland got screwed, but so what? We have
football now."--GMC]

*Only in Baltimore...* Vinny Testaverde, probably the most maligned
quarterback in football, is treated like the second coming of Johnny
Unitas. Just about every kid who wore a Ravens jersey last Saturday
wore Testaverde's number 12. [That's because, sadly, he may be the
closest thing the team has to a star player...--GMC]

*Only in Baltimore...* The team's fans don't notice that the front-office
troika--vice-presidents David Modell and Ozzie Newsome and financial
officer Pat Moriarty--bear close resemblance to the Three Stooges [Careful,
SI, you may be looking at a defamation of character lawsuit from the
estate of Moe Howard for this statement--GMC] First, they gave rookie
offensive tackle Jonathan Ogden an unbelievably generous contract: a
$6.79 million signing bonus and a $15.4 million salary over seven years,
an unprecendented amount for the fourth pick in the draft and more than
the New york Jets offered wideout Keyshawn Johnson, the No. 1 pick. Then,
citing salary-cap concerns, the Ravens cut veteran linebacker Pepper
Johnson and receiver Andre Rison. And when the Ravens signed Indianapolis
receiver Floyd Turner, who, with Calvin Williams, will try to replace
Rison, they failed to file the appropriate paperwork with the NFL, for
which they could be fined or docked a draft pick [Only because the NFL
caved. The rights to Turner should have reverted to the Colts as per
the NFL rules....--GMC] The fans don't seem to notice these front-office
bungles because all that matters right now is that football is back.
[They will. Give them a couple of years, but they will.--GMC]

So it was a wonderful end to a new beginning on Saturday when a rookie
from nearby Lanham, Md., turned out to be the star. Receiver Jermaine
Lewis, the team's fifth-round pick out of Maryland, returned a punt 75
yards down the left sideline with 2:08 remaining to put the Ravens up by
eight.

At the end of the game the fans cheered as if it were 1958 and Unitas had
just beaten the New York Giants in sudden death for the NFL title. The
usually undemonstrative Testaverde tipped his baseball cap and pointed
appreciatively at the crowd. Several players threw their sweaty gloves,
towels, and wrist bands to a throng gathered near their lockerroom
entrance.

A few minutes later receiver Michael Jackson [Dyson? Jackson?--GMC]
who scored the first touchdown in Ravens history, explained why he had
then handed the ball to a fan sitting behind the end zone. "It's the
least I could do," said Jackson. "They've waited 12 years for this."
[And of course he couldn't during a real game because he'll let the
fans down like he did in Cleveland when he fails to catch the ball
(Again)--GMC]

**************************************************************************

Sorry for the length of the post, but there were some real classic
observations in the story, and I didn't want to take them out of context.
The way I read this, the writer tried to be objective, but couldn't
help noticing the fans bought into the Modell BS...

Glenn

P.S. All of my comments during the text of the article are enclosed in
brackets [...] and followed by my initials. The rest is the author's
words...

Joshua Kraushaar

unread,

Aug 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/9/96

>Last Saturday when the band's bus pulled into the parking lot at Memorial
>Stadium, the Colts' old home, for the Baltimore Ravens' first exhibition
>game, the 200 elated musicians yelled, "We're home!" Not exactly. But the
>NFL is indeed back in Baltimore and 63,804 fans, the largest crowd in
>Memorial Stadium history, witnessed its homecoming as the Ravens beat the
>Philadelphia Eagles 17-9.

> [63,804 is the largest crowd ever in Memorial Stadium?!? What
>happened to all the support Baltimore supposedly had? The Browns drew
>that in a bad week. Also, if the city of Baltimore has the record for
>sellouts as one person from Baltimore has claimed, they need to look at
>what a 'sellout' means. Clearly Baltimore didn't fill the stadium if
>63,804 could fit. By Modell's definition of a sellout, the old high would
>not have even been big enough to lift the local blackout (remember games
>in Cleveland in sub-zero weather that drew 70,000 and still weren't shown
>on local TV???) --GMC]

Glenn, please get your facts straight before you post. It's something
called stadium capacity. Memorial Stadium (as of now) holds 63,804
people. The stands were 100% filled with Ravens fans. In 1983 (and
before), Memorial Stadium only held about 61,000 fans. Why the
difference? Because, the Stadium Authority added about 2,000 seats
(not sure about the exact number, but around that) in order to fit all
the Ravens fans in Mem. Stadium for the next two years.

I could say: "Hey, who's saying the Indians have such great fan
support? The Orioles average about 45,500 fans per game, while the
Indians only average about 42,000." The answer is obvious. The
stadium capacity at Jacobs Field is only around 42,500, while Camden
Yards holds about 47,500. Ditto for Municipal Stadium and Memorial
Stadium. Trust me, if Memorial Stadium could hold as many people as
Municipal Stadium, it would still be a sell-out.

>For the next two seasons the Ravens will play at Memorial Stadium while
>awaiting the completion of their $200 million, 68,400-seat home in the
>shadow of Orioles Park at Camden Yards. Modell abandoned creaky Cleveland
>Stadium because of the sweetheart deal Baltimore gave him [finally, a true

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>reason--GMC]

Exactly! Unfortunately, in these days, football is a business. Now,
I see you admit that Baltimore gave Modell the *better* business deal.
Like I have said many a time, I don't agree with what Modell did. I
am in agreement that what he did was despicable.

But, unfortunately, a Modell-type owner, is the norm in the NFL today.
As "GreedWatch" posted recently, most owners are greedy, and would do
the same [as Modell did] if they were offered a better deal. I'm glad
Glenn pointed this out, because [I think; correct me if I'm wrong]
many of you said that Cleveland gave him an equally nice deal.

>--the stadium is being financed largely by tax revenue and
>state lottery proceeds. Almost 58,000 season tickets have been sold, and
>Modell will have to kick in only $24 million to build the Ravens' new
>stadium. [Of course, of the 58,000, many are upset because the system to
>issue tickets assigned many to endzone seats and even broke up groups of
>4 into four widely spaced single seats.--GMC]

All I can say is, I don't hear any Ravens fans complaining. Your last
statement [about widely spaced single seats] must be very isolated,
because I haven't heard any media coverage on this. (Of course,
you'll probably tell me it's a media conspiracy! :^)

>Baltimore fans were willing to shell out big bucks for season tickets.
>Dennis Clampitt, a 32-year-old cable splicer for Baltimore Gas and
>Electric, took out a $6,000 bank loan to pay for his pair. Clampitt is
>the type of fan who recites the Colts-quiz scene from the movie "Diner"
>the type who gets "goose bumps walking into this place again." And he is
>not alone. Walk down any aisle in Memorial Stadium and you'll find
>someone just like him.

There goes Glenn's Oliver Stone-like theory that most fans there
didn't root for the Ravens.

>That may explain why Modell, the most vilified owner in sports, is
>considered a hero in Baltimore. [Hypocrisy and lack of morals may explain
>it too -- GMC].

You guys have said that you'd accept Modell back, over waiting two
years for a new Browns team. Does that mean that you have a lack of
morals, since you'd have him back (if he kept the team in Cleveland)?

> Euphoric fans--they call themselves Raven Maniacs--are
>overjoyed to have a team again. [...and apparently it doesn't matter
>that it wasn't their team. Oh well, I'm sure the honeymoon will end in
>a few years...--GMC}

I'm saving some of your clippings, and see if your prophecies come
true. I doubt it. Honestly, Baltimore fans are semi-ignorant when
they ignore Modell's tracks, so to speak. It seems some of the
Baltimore media just doesn't get that this team was "stolen" from
Cleveland.

I keep hearing ads that say, "Let's get revenge on the Irsays when the
Ravens go to Indy!" And as much as I defend the Ravens (in Browns
fans' opinions), it drives me crazy, because the team that Baltimore
has was stolen, just like the Irsays stole the Colts.

But, I still think Baltimore will always like Modell.

>*Only in Baltimore....* When Modell addressed the crowdat midfield before
>the first game, he was greeted with applause. Fans screamed "Thanks, Art!"
>They chanted his name. "The last time I received an ovation like that was
>when I left town," the 71 year-old Modell cracked later. "The last time
>I was this happy was when I bought the Browns 35 years ago. I'm happy
>because I'm being embraced by the community and so is the team. This is a
>renewal for Art Modell, a new era. It's more than just a preseason game."
>[Translation for the people not speaking Modell-ese: "They bought it! I
>can't believe the stupid dolts bought it! I screwed one city, got paid
>$50 million by another for the chance to do the same to them!"--GMC]

Oh, come on. How will Modell "screw" Baltimore? Seriously. Many
Browns fans have said that, "you'll [Baltimoreans] see what Modell
will do to you; just like he did to us." What exactly do you think
Art Modell will do to "screw" Baltimore?

> "He's no better than Irsay," says Wayne Wise,
>a season-ticket holder from Glenelg, Md. "Cleveland made him, and then he
>did them wrong." [Another PERFECT example of the lack of morals involved.
>Here's a guy that says "I know Cleveland got screwed, but so what? We have
>football now."--GMC]

Of course, my feeling from discussing this issue with you is that if
the Bucs (or any other team with a cash-hungry owner) move to
Cleveland, you'll support them. There are a few exceptions, most
notably Jerry Canterbury, but the majority of Browns fans *would*
support an existing team. Would you have a lack of morals?
I guess 70,000+ people who would fill up the new Browns stadium would.
(Glenn, would you support a pre-existing team?)

>*Only in Baltimore...* Vinny Testaverde, probably the most maligned
>quarterback in football, is treated like the second coming of Johnny
>Unitas. Just about every kid who wore a Ravens jersey last Saturday
>wore Testaverde's number 12. [That's because, sadly, he may be the
>closest thing the team has to a star player...--GMC]

Ever seen Jon Ogden play?

Joshua Kraushaar
joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com

GO ORIOLES IN '96!!!
GO PHILS IN '96!!!
AND HOW 'BOUT DEM CUBBIES!

Glenn Channell

unread,

Aug 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/9/96

joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>>For the next two seasons the Ravens will play at Memorial Stadium while
>>awaiting the completion of their $200 million, 68,400-seat home in the
>>shadow of Orioles Park at Camden Yards. Modell abandoned creaky Cleveland
>>Stadium because of the sweetheart deal Baltimore gave him [finally, a true
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>reason--GMC]

>Exactly! Unfortunately, in these days, football is a business. Now,
>I see you admit that Baltimore gave Modell the *better* business deal.
>Like I have said many a time, I don't agree with what Modell did. I
>am in agreement that what he did was despicable.

>But, unfortunately, a Modell-type owner, is the norm in the NFL today.
>As "GreedWatch" posted recently, most owners are greedy, and would do
>the same [as Modell did] if they were offered a better deal. I'm glad
>Glenn pointed this out, because [I think; correct me if I'm wrong]
>many of you said that Cleveland gave him an equally nice deal.

I don't remember anyone here saying Cleveland offerred Modell
a deal to match what he got from Baltimore. That would be a ridiculous
assertion. However, the city DID give him everything he said publicly
he needed. In addition, when we mentioned that Art was offerred a spot
in Gateway and he turned it down, Val and others emphasized the original
offer was for a smaller stadium. That's irrelevant. Modell didn't say
"the stadium's too small for my needs, but I do need a new stadium."
Rather than just insisting on a larger stadium he said "I don't need
or want a new stadium. I just want to renovate the old one." The
city should not be criticized (IMO) for meeting Modell's expressed
wishes. If Modell wanted 150 million or whatever to renovate the old
stadium, why should the city pay $200 million for a new one? Trust
me, Cleveland has MUCH better things to spend the money on than an
owner who doesn't WANT a new stadium (The public schools, for example).

>All I can say is, I don't hear any Ravens fans complaining. Your last
>statement [about widely spaced single seats] must be very isolated,
>because I haven't heard any media coverage on this. (Of course,
>you'll probably tell me it's a media conspiracy! :^)

No, I'll tell you that you missed it. It was in the paper and
posted here. I don't have the article off-hand, but I'm sure someone
does...

>You guys have said that you'd accept Modell back, over waiting two
>years for a new Browns team. Does that mean that you have a lack of
>morals, since you'd have him back (if he kept the team in Cleveland)?

I never said that. In fact, everyone here has said that Modell
would NEVER be accepted in the city of Cleveland again. I don't know
where you came up with that. Besides, accepting OUR team back is not what
I'd call immoral...

His management interference will keep you out of the Super Bowl
for one thing. Also, he probably won't do it (since he'll die before
the need arises), but don't be surprised if at the tail end of the lease
David Modell high tails it out of town...

>Of course, my feeling from discussing this issue with you is that if
>the Bucs (or any other team with a cash-hungry owner) move to
>Cleveland, you'll support them. There are a few exceptions, most
>notably Jerry Canterbury, but the majority of Browns fans *would*
>support an existing team. Would you have a lack of morals?
>I guess 70,000+ people who would fill up the new Browns stadium would.
>(Glenn, would you support a pre-existing team?)

That depends on the situation. I stated that I would support
any team that qualified for a move based on the NFL relocation criteria.
That didn't happen in this case. Modell violated a legally binding
lease in order to move. If the same happened, I most certainly would
NOT support them. If the Browns had met the relocation criteria, I would
have been upset, but at least I could rationalize the move...

>Ever seen Jon Ogden play?

Yeah, and how many superstar offensive linemen are there?
Besides, ever see him play at guard? If you buy Modell's line, that's
where he'll play...

Joshua Kraushaar

unread,

Aug 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/9/96

lans...@vnet.net (John Lansford) wrote:

>joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) wrote:

>>> [63,804 is the largest crowd ever in Memorial Stadium?!? What
>>>happened to all the support Baltimore supposedly had? The Browns drew
>>>that in a bad week.

>>Glenn, please get your facts straight before you post. It's something

>>called stadium capacity. Memorial Stadium (as of now) holds 63,804
>>people. The stands were 100% filled with Ravens fans. In 1983 (and
>>before), Memorial Stadium only held about 61,000 fans. Why the
>>difference? Because, the Stadium Authority added about 2,000 seats
>>(not sure about the exact number, but around that) in order to fit all
>>the Ravens fans in Mem. Stadium for the next two years.

>FYI, Josh, the owner of the Baltimore team refused to join into being
>part of Jacobs' Field because it was too small. He wanted a huge
>stadium capable of holding over 70,000 fans, and I believe JF only was
>going to hold around 60,000. IOW, about the size of the current one
>he's inhabiting. More hypocrisy from him. Just in case that part of
>the team's history escaped you.

Methinks you are a bit lost on facts. The days of football teams
playing in baseball stadiums is over. It would be a disgrace, IMO, to
paint "yard lines" on the infield of Jacobs Field. (This is coming
from a baseball purist.) The new baseball stadiums are now just
baseball-only. And BTW, Jacobs Field only holds 42,000, not 60,000.

>>Exactly! Unfortunately, in these days, football is a business. Now,
>>I see you admit that Baltimore gave Modell the *better* business deal.
>>Like I have said many a time, I don't agree with what Modell did. I
>>am in agreement that what he did was despicable.

>But you'll go watch a game in Baltimore. More hypocrisy.

Actually, I won't. I've never been to a football game in my life.
The prices are too high. I'll watch the Ravens on TV, though (along
with the Redskins). Looks like you're willing to flame w/o getting
the facts straight. Oh well; it's not the first time this has
happened.

>>But, unfortunately, a Modell-type owner, is the norm in the NFL today.
>>As "GreedWatch" posted recently, most owners are greedy, and would do
>>the same [as Modell did] if they were offered a better deal. I'm glad
>>Glenn pointed this out, because [I think; correct me if I'm wrong]
>>many of you said that Cleveland gave him an equally nice deal.

>No, Cleveland offered him a deal less than what Baltimore gave him.

Exactly. If you were a new NFL owner and city A said, "Hey, Mr.
Lansford, I'll give you a brand new stadium, and you'll end up with a
profit of $100 million (say)." And then (the mayor of) City B comes
and says, "I'll beat City A's offer and give you a new stadium, and
you're guaranteed a profit of $150 million." (Both stadiums would
sell out, BTW.) Which offer would you take? Honest.

> In
>fact, another reason he said he took the Baltimore deal was because he
>knew Cleveland couldn't meet it.

Exactly. Baltimore's offer was irresistable, as you basically state.

> By then the offer could have been
>BETTER than what Baltimore gave him; he'd still have left.

>>
>>All I can say is, I don't hear any Ravens fans complaining. Your last
>>statement [about widely spaced single seats] must be very isolated,
>>because I haven't heard any media coverage on this. (Of course,
>>you'll probably tell me it's a media conspiracy! :^)

>It got plenty of coverage when it first came out. Perhaps you just
>didn't see it, because I saw it in at least three locations (AP, SI,
>ABJ).

You're probably right. But, like I said, I haven't heard one Ravens
fan complain.

>>You guys have said that you'd accept Modell back, over waiting two
>>years for a new Browns team. Does that mean that you have a lack of
>>morals, since you'd have him back (if he kept the team in Cleveland)?

>I doubt anyone said that. We said we wanted the TEAM back, not the
>sorry ass owner.

So, like I've said, you should be glad that Modell is gone, and you'll
get a new Browns team in two years.

> Those who've said they'd take the owner back with the
>team are in a minority here.

That's what I'd think; but your feedback to me indicated otherwise.

>>Oh, come on. How will Modell "screw" Baltimore? Seriously. Many
>>Browns fans have said that, "you'll [Baltimoreans] see what Modell
>>will do to you; just like he did to us." What exactly do you think
>>Art Modell will do to "screw" Baltimore?

>It's in his blood, Josh. Take the time and look what he did in
>Cleveland. That kind of behavior doesn't change just because he's in a
>new city. In fact, he's already started it. Remember the Cleveland
>company he hired over a local one to help renovate the stadium? Look
>at what he's already done with the team by paying Ogden a huge salary
>and leaving the team with no decent RB. Open your eyes and read his
>owner history. It will wake you up.

Are you talking about the team's success? For example, do you think
he'll over-pay free agents, and/or draft poorly, and make the Ravens
consistently mediocre? Or do you think he will irk Baltimoreans by
having bad public relations?

>>Of course, my feeling from discussing this issue with you is that if
>>the Bucs (or any other team with a cash-hungry owner) move to

>>Cleveland, you'll support them.,,, Would you have a lack of morals?

>>I guess 70,000+ people who would fill up the new Browns stadium would.
>>(Glenn, would you support a pre-existing team?)

>I would, simply because you can't equate the two teams moving.
>Baltimore stole a team that was doing very well in Cleveland, despite
>the owner's claim to bankruptcy (I see he's backed off that now).
>Whatever team comes to Cleveland has to meet the NFL's guidelines on
>moving and the NFL apparently intends to give the current home city
>every chance to keep that team. Should a team actually become the New
>Browns, it will be because their current home does not support them.

Oh, come on! What will you say when the Bucs move here and you have
irate Bucs fans posting obscenities in this newsgroup. I can just
imagine. "Well, we had our team stolen from us, so it's only fair.."
Of course, you forgot that Baltimore was an extremely successful
franchise, just as successful as the Browns were, yet none of you feel
sorry for Baltimore losing its team *13* years ago.

>>Ever seen Jon Ogden play?

>People don't go to football games to see offensive linemen play.

Ah, but they make the players around them much better. Emmitt Smith
wouldn't be the player he is if he didn't have the great offensive
line that he does in Dallas. Name me one active RB that thrives with
a team that has a mediocre offensive line. They may not get the
hype, but they sure make the players around them better.

John Lansford

unread,

Aug 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/9/96

joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) wrote:

>> [63,804 is the largest crowd ever in Memorial Stadium?!? What
>>happened to all the support Baltimore supposedly had? The Browns drew
>>that in a bad week.

>Glenn, please get your facts straight before you post. It's something

>called stadium capacity. Memorial Stadium (as of now) holds 63,804
>people. The stands were 100% filled with Ravens fans. In 1983 (and
>before), Memorial Stadium only held about 61,000 fans. Why the
>difference? Because, the Stadium Authority added about 2,000 seats
>(not sure about the exact number, but around that) in order to fit all
>the Ravens fans in Mem. Stadium for the next two years.

FYI, Josh, the owner of the Baltimore team refused to join into being

part of Jacobs' Field because it was too small. He wanted a huge
stadium capable of holding over 70,000 fans, and I believe JF only was
going to hold around 60,000. IOW, about the size of the current one
he's inhabiting. More hypocrisy from him. Just in case that part of
the team's history escaped you.

>Exactly! Unfortunately, in these days, football is a business. Now,

>I see you admit that Baltimore gave Modell the *better* business deal.
>Like I have said many a time, I don't agree with what Modell did. I
>am in agreement that what he did was despicable.

But you'll go watch a game in Baltimore. More hypocrisy.

>But, unfortunately, a Modell-type owner, is the norm in the NFL today.

>As "GreedWatch" posted recently, most owners are greedy, and would do
>the same [as Modell did] if they were offered a better deal. I'm glad
>Glenn pointed this out, because [I think; correct me if I'm wrong]
>many of you said that Cleveland gave him an equally nice deal.

No, Cleveland offered him a deal less than what Baltimore gave him. In

fact, another reason he said he took the Baltimore deal was because he

knew Cleveland couldn't meet it. By then the offer could have been

BETTER than what Baltimore gave him; he'd still have left.
>

It got plenty of coverage when it first came out. Perhaps you just

didn't see it, because I saw it in at least three locations (AP, SI,
ABJ).

>You guys have said that you'd accept Modell back, over waiting two

>years for a new Browns team. Does that mean that you have a lack of
>morals, since you'd have him back (if he kept the team in Cleveland)?

I doubt anyone said that. We said we wanted the TEAM back, not the
sorry ass owner. Those who've said they'd take the owner back with the

team are in a minority here.

>Oh, come on. How will Modell "screw" Baltimore? Seriously. Many

>Browns fans have said that, "you'll [Baltimoreans] see what Modell
>will do to you; just like he did to us." What exactly do you think
>Art Modell will do to "screw" Baltimore?

It's in his blood, Josh. Take the time and look what he did in

Cleveland. That kind of behavior doesn't change just because he's in a
new city. In fact, he's already started it. Remember the Cleveland
company he hired over a local one to help renovate the stadium? Look
at what he's already done with the team by paying Ogden a huge salary
and leaving the team with no decent RB. Open your eyes and read his
owner history. It will wake you up.

>Of course, my feeling from discussing this issue with you is that if

>the Bucs (or any other team with a cash-hungry owner) move to

>Cleveland, you'll support them.,,, Would you have a lack of morals?

>I guess 70,000+ people who would fill up the new Browns stadium would.
>(Glenn, would you support a pre-existing team?)

I would, simply because you can't equate the two teams moving.

Baltimore stole a team that was doing very well in Cleveland, despite
the owner's claim to bankruptcy (I see he's backed off that now).
Whatever team comes to Cleveland has to meet the NFL's guidelines on
moving and the NFL apparently intends to give the current home city
every chance to keep that team. Should a team actually become the New
Browns, it will be because their current home does not support them.

>Ever seen Jon Ogden play?

People don't go to football games to see offensive linemen play. Plus,
having one of the largest offensive linemen salaries doesn't put him
at "star" status either. Right now that's all he's got as a pro
athlete.

John Lansford

ArtBtz

unread,

Aug 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/9/96

Joshua continues:

> Oh, come on. How will Modell "screw" Baltimore? Seriously.
> Many Browns fans have said that, "you'll [Baltimoreans] see
> what Modell will do to you; just like he did to us." What exactly
> do you think Art Modell will do to "screw" Baltimore?

His name is David, and right now he's eyeing the Super Ultra Executive
Vice President's office.

ArtBtz
Sorry, it was just too easy

ArtBtz

unread,

Aug 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/9/96

Joshua K writes:

> You guys have said that you'd accept Modell back, over
> waiting two years for a new Browns team.

I don't think I've heard anyone offer that viewpoint, Joshua. Mostly what
I have heard here is vilification of Modell. If what you are referring to
are some of Mayor's Whites statements during the Jihad, then you should
take into account the gamemanship which was going on in that time.

Aren't you the one who was running around here proclaiming that Browns
fans were loathsome because some supposedly threatened Uncle Scums
worthless life? Which one was it, Josh?

>Does that mean that you have a lack of morals, since
> you'd have him back (if he kept the team in Cleveland)?

Your facts are incorrect, therefore your conclusion is bogus.

Try again.

ArtBtz
I'm giving Josh one more chance before he gets the UPCS treatment

GrumnGoose

unread,

Aug 9, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/9/96

All of you Clevelanders and your "Post-Mortem" rationalizations are really
quite amusing. Why don't you concentrate on moving forward instead of
picking apart the present? Gee, it must be really tough to sit back and
analyze an article and pull out whatever negatives exist. It's
understandable that you hate Modell, and the organization, but why do you
think it's necessary to throw jabs at all the people of Baltimore just b/c
they happen to be excited about football?

In article <4uduke$l...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu
(Glenn Channell) writes:

Gee, maybe Memorial Stadium doesn't hold 70,000 people! Maybe if we
counted 7,000 people in the parking lot, our fans could be as good as
Cleveland's? Did you really think that just b/c Cleveland Stadium holds
70K, that every stadium must hold that much.

>As the band marched onto the field to a standing ovation, tears of joy
>streamed down John Ziemann's cheeks. Ziemann, the band's president and
>a member since 1962, met his wife, Charlene, on the Memorial Stadium turf

>in 1968, when she was a cheerleader (she now instructs the flagline, and
>their 16 yeard-old son, Christopher, is a member of the color guard).
>Given that the Colts have been part of so many Baltimoreans' lives, fans
>generally view the Ravens--those Cleveland Browns transplanted by Art
>Modell--as the New Colts."It will take a generation or so [before the
>Ravens establish their own identity]," says Ziemann. "When we think of
>the Colts, we think of Baltimore. When my youngest son, Patrick, who is
>12, thinks of the Colts, he thinks of Indianapolis." Rest assured,
>Baltimore Colts fans, Ziemann's band is now the official band of the
>Ravens (but won't change its name until the last game of the 1997
season).
>The fight song's melody will remain the same; only the words will be
>changed.
>
>[Couple of comments here. A band? a color guard? a flag corp? a fight
>song? What is this, a college team???

Actually it's called home team spirit. Anything wrong with that?

Ironic that this is the same
>Art Modell who refused to have cheerleaders in Cleveland to save money,
>saying "when people come to the game, I want them to watch the game, not
>women on the sideline..." Also glad to see that the Colts fans are
>completely ignoring the fact that it's hypocritical to hate Irsay and
>accept Modell... -- GMC]

As I, and many other Baltimoreans have stated, Even though we don't agree
with Irsay and the Colts organization, it doesn't mean that we hate the
city of Indianapolis and the team. I know I and many other Baltimoreans
were rooting for Indy in the game last year. And it DOESN'T mean that we
don't want to go into Indy and kick their asses this October either.

<snip>

>
>For the next two seasons the Ravens will play at Memorial Stadium while
>awaiting the completion of their $200 million, 68,400-seat home in the
>shadow of Orioles Park at Camden Yards. Modell abandoned creaky
Cleveland
>Stadium because of the sweetheart deal Baltimore gave him [finally, a
true
>reason--GMC]--the stadium is being financed largely by tax revenue and
>state lottery proceeds. Almost 58,000 season tickets have been sold, and
>Modell will have to kick in only $24 million to build the Ravens' new
>stadium. [Of course, of the 58,000, many are upset because the system to
>issue tickets assigned many to endzone seats and even broke up groups of
>4 into four widely spaced single seats.--GMC]

The ticket problem was a simple computer programming error, and it was
reconciled within ONE week. Most fans that were interviewed actually said
that their new seats were better than their originals. The amount of
things that the Ravens have accomplished in the past 5 months is nothing
short of amazing. What little time they've had, they made the most of it.
It's been a rush process, but the best that could be expectedThe Ravens
organization has done nothing short of bending over backwards to
accomodate the city and the fans at every juncture. I wave no flags for
the Modell's, but they've shown nothing but goodwill towards Baltimore.
Art is far from saintly, but until he proves he's a bad owner, we'll
continue to support him.

>
>Baltimore fans were willing to shell out big bucks for season tickets.
>Dennis Clampitt, a 32-year-old cable splicer for Baltimore Gas and
>Electric, took out a $6,000 bank loan to pay for his pair. Clampitt is
>the type of fan who recites the Colts-quiz scene from the movie "Diner"
>the type who gets "goose bumps walking into this place again." And he is
>not alone. Walk down any aisle in Memorial Stadium and you'll find
>someone just like him.
>
>That may explain why Modell, the most vilified owner in sports, is
>considered a hero in Baltimore. [Hypocrisy and lack of morals may
explain
>it too -- GMC]. Euphoric fans--they call themselves Raven Maniacs--are
>overjoyed to have a team again. [...and apparently it doesn't matter
>that it wasn't their team. Oh well, I'm sure the honeymoon will end in
>a few years...--GMC}

I can't wait to see what happens when Clevenland gets the Bucs, or the
Cardinals, or whomever. Right now you may cry "Expansion Only" but when
the only alternative is relocation, your politicians and all of the
Clevelanders will be getting in line to support the organization. And I'm
sure that stadium will still sell out on Sundays, even with some of the
"militant style" Browns fans holding on to their principles.

>Still, others haven't been taken in by his charm [Satan had charm
too--GMC]
>They realize that Modell didn't move the Browns to Baltimore because he
>felt sorry for jilted Colts fans [Of course not. He blocked expansion
>in Baltimore to set up just such a cash cow money opportunity--GMC]; he
>moved to make a ton of money. "He's no better than Irsay," says Wayne
Wise,
>a season-ticket holder from Glenelg, Md. "Cleveland made him, and then
he
>did them wrong." [Another PERFECT example of the lack of morals
involved.
>Here's a guy that says "I know Cleveland got screwed, but so what? We
have
>football now."--GMC]

And so will your fans

Actually it's the only one that was produced this early in the season

I really don't see what you guys have against Vinny. Last year he was
having a great year, but you hard-headed "Bernie-Backers" just can't stop
living in the past. This guy was Player of the Month and Browns Fans want
to bench him. What a great move that was. That (and the move disruption)
explains the 5-11 season. This team has a great receiving core, solid D,
and a good front line. While we don't expect playoffs, we sure as hell
aren't going to have a 5-11 season.

>Sorry for the length of the post, but there were some real classic
>observations in the story, and I didn't want to take them out of context.
>The way I read this, the writer tried to be objective, but couldn't
>help noticing the fans bought into the Modell BS...

Maybe you don't realize this since your on the other side of the table...
But the only "fashionable" stance on the Modell/Ravens move is to disagree
with it. Where were all of these people when all of the other teams were
moving? And please don't give me that "Our Fans are Better" mentality.
No city deserves a team taken from them.

>Glenn
>
>P.S. All of my comments during the text of the article are enclosed in
>brackets [...] and followed by my initials. The rest is the author's
>words...

I wish your new franchise luck in the future, and can't wait to meet on
the playing field.

"Think about the future and Treasure the Past"
-Jimmy Buffett

-From the Bird Cage
-Sect 21 Row 45 Seat 21

Glenn Channell

unread,

Aug 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/10/96

joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>lans...@vnet.net (John Lansford) wrote:

>>joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) wrote:

>>>> [63,804 is the largest crowd ever in Memorial Stadium?!? What

>Methinks you are a bit lost on facts. The days of football teams

>playing in baseball stadiums is over. It would be a disgrace, IMO, to
>paint "yard lines" on the infield of Jacobs Field. (This is coming
>from a baseball purist.) The new baseball stadiums are now just
>baseball-only. And BTW, Jacobs Field only holds 42,000, not 60,000.

No, actually it's you who doesn't have a grasp on the facts. No one
ever claimed JF holds 60,000. However, when the original plan for a dual
purpose stadium arose, it would have held 60,000. When Art refused to
become part of the Gateway project, the stadium design/size was adjusted
to reflect the baseball only nature of what is now JF.

>Exactly. If you were a new NFL owner and city A said, "Hey, Mr.
>Lansford, I'll give you a brand new stadium, and you'll end up with a
>profit of $100 million (say)." And then (the mayor of) City B comes
>and says, "I'll beat City A's offer and give you a new stadium, and
>you're guaranteed a profit of $150 million." (Both stadiums would
>sell out, BTW.) Which offer would you take? Honest.

But Art Modell does not fit this hypothetical profile. Consider
the actual situation. An established owner with unprecedented fan support
(even admitted by Art tonight on ESPN), who is consistently in the top
echelon revenue-wise despite playing in a relatively small market. An
owner who asks for, and receives a plan to renovate the stadium as per his
request prior to the end of his existing lease. Now, another city comes
and says "violate your lease and come play for us. We'll give you a
deal that no city in the league can match at the cost of betraying the
fans that have supported you through numerous bad management and personnel
decisions" Now which would you take? My answer is different between the
two situations...
Anyway you want to justify it, what Art AND the city of Baltimore
did was not only immoral, but also illegal...

>So, like I've said, you should be glad that Modell is gone, and you'll
>get a new Browns team in two years.

And like I said, most fans aren't too upset at Modell leaving.
It's the loss of the team that upset us. If Modell had sold the team, we
would be without him, and no one would have cared that much...

>Are you talking about the team's success? For example, do you think
>he'll over-pay free agents, and/or draft poorly, and make the Ravens
>consistently mediocre? Or do you think he will irk Baltimoreans by
>having bad public relations?

Yes to both questions. He's done both already.

>Oh, come on! What will you say when the Bucs move here and you have
>irate Bucs fans posting obscenities in this newsgroup. I can just
>imagine. "Well, we had our team stolen from us, so it's only fair.."
>Of course, you forgot that Baltimore was an extremely successful
>franchise, just as successful as the Browns were, yet none of you feel
>sorry for Baltimore losing its team *13* years ago.

That doesn't compare with what he said. If Baltimore had taken
a team that met the NFL guidelines, the local fans would be upset, but
there would be no real basis for objecting. Besides, you're wrong. I
DO feel sorry for Baltimore for what happened 13 years ago (although it
doesn't compare to what happened to Cleveland), but I feel even sorrier
for what they did. The actions of baltimore could have been justified
had they attempted to get the Colts back, but to say someone screwed us,
so we're gonna screw someone else is immature, naive, and just plain stupid.

>Ah, but they make the players around them much better. Emmitt Smith
>wouldn't be the player he is if he didn't have the great offensive
>line that he does in Dallas. Name me one active RB that thrives with
>a team that has a mediocre offensive line. They may not get the
>hype, but they sure make the players around them better.

But the original comment was in reference to star potential, not
playing ability (they are NOT the same). Besides, are you claiming that
Jonathan Ogden will make a superstar out of Vinnie, Leroy Hoard, and
Earnest Hunter???

Jerry Canterbury

unread,

Aug 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/10/96

grumn...@aol.com (GrumnGoose) wrote:

Actually, before I get into what he wrote, I'll say that, although I might not
agree with what you've said, you've said it well, in a well-thought out manner.

Also, I won't bother to rebut your points one-by-one. The sun's shining today,
I think I'll spend some time outside rather than typing away all day.

But this one I did have to comment upon:

>Where were all of these people when all of the other teams were
>moving? And please don't give me that "Our Fans are Better" mentality.

Again: it's not our job to fight everyone else's battles for them. We did it
first. And, some folks here did support the Seahawks group when they asked for
assistance. In fact, because of the Browns fans' efforts, a lot of the
groundwork was laid for the Seahawks fans.

>No city deserves a team taken from them.

Indeed. So why would you support such a team?

Jerry Canterbury, jcan...@worldweb.net
http://www.worldweb.net/~jcanterb

John Lansford

unread,

Aug 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/10/96

joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) wrote:

> The new baseball stadiums are now just
>baseball-only. And BTW, Jacobs Field only holds 42,000, not 60,000.

I believe the plan was to add bleacher seats, which would have
increased the capacity of Jacobs Field for football. Anyway, the plan
was back in 1989, not today. What is standard today wasn't back then.

>>But you'll go watch a game in Baltimore. More hypocrisy.
>
>Actually, I won't. I've never been to a football game in my life.
>The prices are too high. I'll watch the Ravens on TV, though (along
>with the Redskins).

For someone who has posted information on the Ravens in this group,
constantly defended the move, and made disparaging remarks about
Cleveland in general, you certainly sound like a Baltimore fan.

Hmmm, if you aren't a Baltimore Ravens fan, why constantly talk about
them? The only other reason I can come up with is you like to needle
us Browns' fans. In other words, an energy creature.

I would point out I still had three years on my lease in Cleveland and
I was not available to discuss moving my team until then. Meanwhile, I
would have been in discussion with city officials about upgrading or
renovating my existing stadium in time for when my lease expired.

Running off to another city just because they offer me more money is
exactly like a player wanting to renegotiate his contract because
others are getting paid more money. It's an example of a lack of
ethics; you agreed to keep a team somewhere for a certain length of
time, or a player agrees to play for a certain team for a given amount
of money. Until that time is up you are OBLIGATED to uphold your part
of the bargain.

Anything else is dishonest.

>Exactly. Baltimore's offer was irresistable, as you basically state.

What's to stop him from going somewhere else if they offer an even
larger amount of money before his lease is up? Your agreement and
acceptance of his behavior simply indicates to me your ethics aren't
much better than his...

>So, like I've said, you should be glad that Modell is gone, and you'll
>get a new Browns team in two years.

We are glad he's gone. We wanted him to either sell the team or take
an existing/expansion team to Baltimore. The feeling is we were robbed
of our team and it was Baltimore who did the stealing.

>That's what I'd think; but your feedback to me indicated otherwise.

Let's see it, then if you have such information.

Both. He's already done both to Baltimore and he'll keep doing it.

I'd say "where were you when you had opportunities to keep the Bucs?".
They have had multiple chances to keep the Bucs; the owner has worked
with TB officials and given them many chances to keep them there. Time
after time, the officials and the taxpayers have said they do not want
to pay to keep their team.

That's a hell of a lot more than what Browns fans had a chance to do.

> Name me one active RB that thrives with
>a team that has a mediocre offensive line.

Chris Warren.
The Patriots' rookie RB last year.
Larry Centers
The Falcons' RB last year

Enough RB's for you?

John Lansford

Glenn Channell

unread,

Aug 10, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/10/96

lans...@vnet.net (John Lansford) writes:

>> Name me one active RB that thrives with
>>a team that has a mediocre offensive line.

>Chris Warren (Seattle Seahawks).
>The Patriots' rookie RB last year (Curtis Martin). .
>Larry Centers (Arizona Cardinals).
>The Falcons' RB last year (Craig Heyward)

Joshua Kraushaar

unread,

Aug 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/11/96

chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Glenn Channell) wrote:

>joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>>lans...@vnet.net (John Lansford) wrote:

>>>joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) wrote:

>>>>> [63,804 is the largest crowd ever in Memorial Stadium?!? What

>>Methinks you are a bit lost on facts. The days of football teams
>>playing in baseball stadiums is over. It would be a disgrace, IMO, to
>>paint "yard lines" on the infield of Jacobs Field. (This is coming
>>from a baseball purist.) The new baseball stadiums are now just
>>baseball-only. And BTW, Jacobs Field only holds 42,000, not 60,000.

> No, actually it's you who doesn't have a grasp on the facts. No one
>ever claimed JF holds 60,000. However, when the original plan for a dual
>purpose stadium arose, it would have held 60,000.

Which Cleveland [sic] business official came up with this plan?
60,000 people in a [new] baseball stadium?!?!

> When Art refused to
>become part of the Gateway project, the stadium design/size was adjusted
>to reflect the baseball only nature of what is now JF.

You probably should be thanking Modell for refusing to be part of that
plan. First of all, football/baseball stadiums are becoming obsolete,
and the proposed stadium would probably get pretty ugly (field & all)
in September.

You'd basically be seeing a newer version of the Oakland-Alameda
County Coliseum.

>>Exactly. If you were a new NFL owner and city A said, "Hey, Mr.
>>Lansford, I'll give you a brand new stadium, and you'll end up with a
>>profit of $100 million (say)." And then (the mayor of) City B comes
>>and says, "I'll beat City A's offer and give you a new stadium, and
>>you're guaranteed a profit of $150 million." (Both stadiums would
>>sell out, BTW.) Which offer would you take? Honest.

> But Art Modell does not fit this hypothetical profile. Consider
>the actual situation. An established owner with unprecedented fan support
>(even admitted by Art tonight on ESPN), who is consistently in the top
>echelon revenue-wise despite playing in a relatively small market.

Yet, Baltimore offered a better deal. With the same fan support
Cleveland had. He was playing in a stadium that resembled a sewer.
Many NFL players had complained about playing in it. Baltimore gave
him a better deal.

(Yes, I *know* they offered him to share JF, but like I said, Modell
[like most other owners], wanted a football-only stadium, which
Baltimore gave him.)

> An
>owner who asks for, and receives a plan to renovate the stadium as per his
>request prior to the end of his existing lease.

A very inconvenient plan, as you mentioned above. Sharing a football
stadium with a baseball team? Unheard of. At least in the '90s. And
Municipal Stadium needed more than just renovation.

> Now, another city comes
>and says "violate your lease and come play for us. We'll give you a
>deal that no city in the league can match at the cost of betraying the
>fans that have supported you through numerous bad management and personnel
>decisions"

You forgot to mention that the "new city" would support you, despite
the fact you have made some bad management decisions. Cleveland is
superior to Baltimore [in terms of football fans], in no way. And
Baltimore's overall offer was better.

> Now which would you take? My answer is different between the
>two situations...

I wouldn't move my team, but Offer B is better, when you look at the
big picture (i.e. stadium situatuon, overall cash package). Most
other NFL owners would have moved, as well, if Baltimore came to one
of them.

(FWIW, I don't see any Bud Adams bashers in this ng...)

> Anyway you want to justify it, what Art AND the city of Baltimore
>did was not only immoral, but also illegal...

Illegal, no. Immoral, yes.

>B
>>So, like I've said, you should be glad that Modell is gone, and you'll
>>get a new Browns team in two years.

> And like I said, most fans aren't too upset at Modell leaving.
>It's the loss of the team that upset us.

But, you'd have to accept Modell *and* the team. And you said that
you'd rather wait two years.

> If Modell had sold the team, we
>would be without him, and no one would have cared that much...

But that wasn't the option..

>>Oh, come on! What will you say when the Bucs move here and you have
>>irate Bucs fans posting obscenities in this newsgroup. I can just
>>imagine. "Well, we had our team stolen from us, so it's only fair.."
>>Of course, you forgot that Baltimore was an extremely successful
>>franchise, just as successful as the Browns were, yet none of you feel
>>sorry for Baltimore losing its team *13* years ago.

> That doesn't compare with what he said. If Baltimore had taken
>a team that met the NFL guidelines, the local fans would be upset, but
>there would be no real basis for objecting.

How does the Cleveland move not affect NFL guidelines? Tagliabue
surely accepted the move, without much care.

> Besides, you're wrong. I
>DO feel sorry for Baltimore for what happened 13 years ago (although it
>doesn't compare to what happened to Cleveland),

Why not?

> but I feel even sorrier
>for what they did. The actions of baltimore could have been justified
>had they attempted to get the Colts back, but to say someone screwed us,
>so we're gonna screw someone else is immature, naive, and just plain stupid.

>>Ah, but they make the players around them much better. Emmitt Smith
>>wouldn't be the player he is if he didn't have the great offensive
>>line that he does in Dallas. Name me one active RB that thrives with
>>a team that has a mediocre offensive line. They may not get the
>>hype, but they sure make the players around them better.

> But the original comment was in reference to star potential, not
>playing ability (they are NOT the same). Besides, are you claiming that
>Jonathan Ogden will make a superstar out of Vinnie, Leroy Hoard, and
>Earnest Hunter???

Not a superstar; but a good player, yes.

Glenn Channell

unread,

Aug 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/11/96

joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Glenn Channell) wrote:

>>joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>>>lans...@vnet.net (John Lansford) wrote:

>>>>joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) wrote:

>>>>>> [63,804 is the largest crowd ever in Memorial Stadium?!? What

>> No, actually it's you who doesn't have a grasp on the facts. No one

>>ever claimed JF holds 60,000. However, when the original plan for a dual
>>purpose stadium arose, it would have held 60,000.

>Which Cleveland [sic] business official came up with this plan?
>60,000 people in a [new] baseball stadium?!?!

No, it was a 60,000 seat dual purpose stadium. The design was
not done, so I would imagine, as with nearly all dual-purpose stadiums,
the 60,000 referred to the football seating, and the baseball seating
was probably smaller...

>> When Art refused to
>>become part of the Gateway project, the stadium design/size was adjusted
>>to reflect the baseball only nature of what is now JF.

>You probably should be thanking Modell for refusing to be part of that
>plan. First of all, football/baseball stadiums are becoming obsolete,
>and the proposed stadium would probably get pretty ugly (field & all)
>in September.

That doesn't change the fact that an offer was made and Modell stated
he needed renovations, and NOT a new stadium. The advntages/disadvantages
of the offer could have been discussed through negotiation, but Modell
refused to do that...

>> But Art Modell does not fit this hypothetical profile. Consider
>>the actual situation. An established owner with unprecedented fan support
>>(even admitted by Art tonight on ESPN), who is consistently in the top
>>echelon revenue-wise despite playing in a relatively small market.

>Yet, Baltimore offered a better deal. With the same fan support
>Cleveland had. He was playing in a stadium that resembled a sewer.
>Many NFL players had complained about playing in it. Baltimore gave
>him a better deal.

...and yet Art Modell had a legally binding contract with the city
of Cleveland. That makes what Art Modell and BALTIMORE did not only
immoral, but also illegal. Your comment "with the same fan support" is
assuming facts not in evidence by the way...

>(Yes, I *know* they offered him to share JF, but like I said, Modell
>[like most other owners], wanted a football-only stadium, which
>Baltimore gave him.)

If art Modell had SAID "I want a football only stadium" or had
said "your plan is inadequate, here's what I need", your argument may have
merit. However, he DID NOT. He said "all I need is a plan to RENOVATE
THE OLD STADIUM". Comparing the offers depends upon Cleveland being
given the chance to compete. Modell never gave Cleveland that chance.

>> An
>>owner who asks for, and receives a plan to renovate the stadium as per his
>>request prior to the end of his existing lease.

>A very inconvenient plan, as you mentioned above. Sharing a football

No. You're confusing the Gateway project (which included a plan
for a dual purpose stadium) with the renovation plan, which was the result
of Modell's comments concerning the Gateway project.

>stadium with a baseball team? Unheard of. At least in the '90s. And
>Municipal Stadium needed more than just renovation.

Convenience doesn't matter. Modell never said the plan didn't meet
his needs. Besides, Muni. Stadium DID NOT need more than renovations.
There are some problems with the restroom facilities, the visiting
locker room needs work, and luxury boxes were to be added, but other than
that, CMS is fine... The point is Modell asked for a plan to renovate CMS.
The city gave him EXACTLY what he asked for, ON HIS TIMETABLE. Then,
rather than negotiating the specifics, he illegally moved to Baltimore
because of the ILLEGAL offer they made him.

>> Now, another city comes
>>and says "violate your lease and come play for us. We'll give you a
>>deal that no city in the league can match at the cost of betraying the
>>fans that have supported you through numerous bad management and personnel
>>decisions"

>You forgot to mention that the "new city" would support you, despite
>the fact you have made some bad management decisions. Cleveland is
>superior to Baltimore [in terms of football fans], in no way. And
>Baltimore's overall offer was better.

Baltimore's offer was also illegal, as was Modell's acceptance
of it. Besides, for most businessmen, there are such concepts as loyalty
and ethics...

>> Now which would you take? My answer is different between the
>>two situations...

>I wouldn't move my team, but Offer B is better, when you look at the
>big picture (i.e. stadium situatuon, overall cash package). Most
>other NFL owners would have moved, as well, if Baltimore came to one
>of them.

You don't know that...

>(FWIW, I don't see any Bud Adams bashers in this ng...)

I don't know the specifics of the Oilers situation. I DO know,
however, that THAT IS NOT OUR FIGHT!!! No one from Houston came and asked
us to help, and from what I've seen, they haven't fought for their team.
That lends Bud Adams' claims of no support some credibility. The bottom
line, however, is that if the people of Houston don't care, why should we?

>> Anyway you want to justify it, what Art AND the city of Baltimore
>>did was not only immoral, but also illegal...

>Illegal, no. Immoral, yes.

ILLEGAL--YES!!! Look up the law regarding interference with an
existing contract. The "lease" we've referred to included a clause
requiring the Browns to play ALL of their home games in CMS until the
end of the lease. Modell violated that clause as a direct result of the
offer by the city of Baltimore. THAT IS ILLEGAL, AND SO IS THE OFFER
WHICH CAUSED THE BREACH OF CONTRACT!!!

>But, you'd have to accept Modell *and* the team. And you said that
>you'd rather wait two years.

First, we wouldn't have to accept Modell back. At this point,
Modell could be forced to sell the team... I also NEVER said that I'd
rather wait two years... I DID say I'd rather wait two years than take
a relocated franchise, but that is not the same thing...

>> That doesn't compare with what he said. If Baltimore had taken
>>a team that met the NFL guidelines, the local fans would be upset, but
>>there would be no real basis for objecting.

>How does the Cleveland move not affect NFL guidelines? Tagliabue
>surely accepted the move, without much care.

Read the NFL relocation guidelines. If you don't have a copy,
e-mail me and I'll send you a copy. The move from Cleveland DID NOT
meet these guidelines. The guidelines SHOULD have been binding, but
the NFL has no backbone to face down one of its own. Cleveland's
lawsuit was based upon the fact that these guidelines were not met, and
the lawsuits were settled as part of the deal. That does NOT indicate
that the guidelines were met...

>Why not?

Let's see. For one thing, Irsay had been openly considering
other sites while Modell said "as long as I own this franchise it will
remain in Cleveland". There are other differences as have been discussed
repeatedly in this group, so I won't reiterate them all here. If there are
no other reasons, the NFL guidelines that were violated were not in effect
13 years ago...

Glenn

Joshua Kraushaar

unread,

Aug 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/11/96

lans...@vnet.net (John Lansford) wrote:

>joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) wrote:

>> The new baseball stadiums are now just
>>baseball-only. And BTW, Jacobs Field only holds 42,000, not 60,000.

>I believe the plan was to add bleacher seats, which would have

>increased the capacity of Jacobs Field for football. Anyway, the plan
>was back in 1989, not today. What is standard today wasn't back then.

Actually, designs for OPACY, and New Comiskey Park were already being
designed in 1989. So, in short, you're wrong.

>>>But you'll go watch a game in Baltimore. More hypocrisy.
>>
>>Actually, I won't. I've never been to a football game in my life.
>>The prices are too high. I'll watch the Ravens on TV, though (along
>>with the Redskins).

>For someone who has posted information on the Ravens in this group,

>constantly defended the move, and made disparaging remarks about
>Cleveland in general, you certainly sound like a Baltimore fan.

I am... a *huge* Orioles fan, and a casual Ravens fan. I *never* made
disparaging remarks about the city of Cleveland, but if you want to
lie to make a point, go right ahead.

>Hmmm, if you aren't a Baltimore Ravens fan, why constantly talk about
>them?

Hmm... maybe because I am a fan, just not a die-hard Ravens fan. And
I like the Patriots and Redskins more than the Ravens. And to make
sure people know the truth -- not biased Cleveland opinions -- about
the Ravens move.

> The only other reason I can come up with is you like to needle
>us Browns' fans. In other words, an energy creature.

You seem to be needled more than others. Do you..
Never mind.

>I would point out I still had three years on my lease in Cleveland and

>I was not available to discuss moving my team until then.

*Plenty* of moves are made while an owner still has a lease on a
stadium. Just look it up, shouldn't be too hard.

> Meanwhile, I
>would have been in discussion with city officials about upgrading or
>renovating my existing stadium in time for when my lease expired.

Moving to another stadium, yes. Like I said in another post, not to a
baseball stadium (like the city of Cleveland offered Modell), but to a
football-only stadium. And Municipal Stadium is too dingy to
renovate. It's one of the ugliest stadiums (don't take this as an
attack; you had great fans there, to make Municipal Stadium look a tad
better) in football, not to mention baseball.

>Running off to another city just because they offer me more money is
>exactly like a player wanting to renegotiate his contract because
>others are getting paid more money. It's an example of a lack of
>ethics; you agreed to keep a team somewhere for a certain length of
>time, or a player agrees to play for a certain team for a given amount
>of money.

I agree with the above. But, the way Cleveland treated Modell during
his long tenure with the Browns, IMO, was abysmal. I mean, they built
a new basketball stadium (Gund Arena), when their old basketball
stadium was actually pretty nice. Yet, when it came down to getting a
new football stadium, or getting a new basketball stadium, Cleveland
chose the latter.

Modell *does* have a point when he says Cleveland wasn't very
hospitable to him.

> Until that time is up you are OBLIGATED to uphold your part
>of the bargain. Anything else is dishonest.

What bargain? Stadium lease? Read what I wrote above.

>>Exactly. Baltimore's offer was irresistable, as you basically state.

>What's to stop him from going somewhere else if they offer an even

>larger amount of money before his lease is up? Your agreement and
>acceptance of his behavior simply indicates to me your ethics aren't
>much better than his...

What I'm saying is that (about) 80% of the NFL owners would have
considered relocation based on the situation. It's not just Modell.
You might as well just blame the state of the NFL.

>>So, like I've said, you should be glad that Modell is gone, and you'll
>>get a new Browns team in two years.

>We are glad he's gone. We wanted him to either sell the team or take

>an existing/expansion team to Baltimore.

But, that's not your choice.

> The feeling is we were robbed
>of our team and it was Baltimore who did the stealing.

Feelings do get in the way of facts, eh?

>>That's what I'd think; but your feedback to me indicated otherwise.

>Let's see it, then if you have such information.

Look in some of the late-June DejaNews posts. I posted the same
question (would you rather have Modell & the Browns or a new team in
two years?), and you said you'd accept Modell, despite all his
bonehead personnel decisions, and all.

>I'd say "where were you when you had opportunities to keep the Bucs?".

And I'd say: "Where were you when you had opportunities to keep the
Browns? You [Cleveland politicans] gave Cleveland a basketball
stadium, a baseball stadium, and a rock-and-roll hall of fame, while
ignoring giving Modell a football-only stadium."

>They have had multiple chances to keep the Bucs; the owner has worked
>with TB officials and given them many chances to keep them there. Time
>after time, the officials and the taxpayers have said they do not want
>to pay to keep their team.

But the fans in Tampa do. Just like in Cleveland. Officials in
Cleveland didn't show much interest in keeping the Browns (by giving
Art a new football-only stadium) until he announced the move.

>That's a hell of a lot more than what Browns fans had a chance to do.

Well, no it's not..

>> Name me one active RB that thrives with
>>a team that has a mediocre offensive line.

>Chris Warren.
>The Patriots' rookie RB last year.

Ever heard of Bruce Armstrong?

>Larry Centers

Rushing-wise?

>The Falcons' RB last year

Ironhead Heyward? Pretty mediocre rusher, if you ask me.

One out of 30 RBs. I think that proves my point.

Joshua Kraushaar

unread,

Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96

>Joshua K writes:

>> You guys have said that you'd accept Modell back, over
>> waiting two years for a new Browns team.

>I don't think I've heard anyone offer that viewpoint, Joshua.

Here's what I'll do, guys. Right *now*, I'm going to look in DejaNews
for messages where you did say that you'd accept *Modell* back. I
remember some of you saying this quite clearly.

> Mostly what
>I have heard here is vilification of Modell.

That is *certainly* true. Which is why it kinda shocked me when you
said you'd accept Modell back. (Possibly assuming he wouldn't move
the team...)

> If what you are referring to
>are some of Mayor's Whites statements during the Jihad, then you should
>take into account the gamemanship which was going on in that time.

No, it was your statements. Browns fans. And if Mayor White said
that he'd welcome Modell, then that further enhances my point.
(Well, not much, since White has shown that Cleveland is pretty
incompetent when dealing with Modell.)

>Aren't you the one who was running around here proclaiming that Browns
>fans were loathsome because some supposedly threatened Uncle Scums
>worthless life? Which one was it, Josh?

Maybe I'm over-tired after getting back from vacation, but how are
these two things related? Do you mean, how can I say that you would
accept Modell if you gave death threats to him?

A) This was *after* the move; I think Browns fans realized the battle
was lost, when the threats [supposedly, as some of you pointed out]
arrived in Modell's mail.

B) I didn't say you'd welcome Modell with open arms. (At least *you*
didn't say that.) You guys told me that you'd live with Modell's
bonehead moves, because you wanted to see the *Browns* play now.

C) These were only a few Browns fans. While I sometimes question
Browns fans' rabidness (no pun intended) in this ng, all I said was
that we shouldn't even "joke" about what a few [sic] Browns fans did,
threatening Modell's life. It's not funny in Modell's case, or in
Irsay's case.

(Searching in DejaNews....)

>>Does that mean that you have a lack of morals, since
>> you'd have him back (if he kept the team in Cleveland)?

>Your facts are incorrect, therefore your conclusion is bogus.

>Try again.

>ArtBtz
>I'm giving Josh one more chance before he gets the UPCS treatment

Joshua Kraushaar

unread,

Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96

art...@aol.com (ArtBtz) wrote:

>Joshua continues:

>> Oh, come on. How will Modell "screw" Baltimore? Seriously.
>> Many Browns fans have said that, "you'll [Baltimoreans] see
>> what Modell will do to you; just like he did to us." What exactly
>> do you think Art Modell will do to "screw" Baltimore?

>His name is David, and right now he's eyeing the Super Ultra Executive
>Vice President's office.

Still haven't answered the question.

Since, I never closely followed the Browns (& its management) before
1995, what *exactly* did Modell do that was so idiotic?

Joshua Kraushaar

unread,

Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96

>>Which Cleveland [sic] business official came up with this plan?
>>60,000 people in a [new] baseball stadium?!?!

> No, it was a 60,000 seat dual purpose stadium. The design was
>not done, so I would imagine, as with nearly all dual-purpose stadiums,
>the 60,000 referred to the football seating, and the baseball seating
>was probably smaller...

Never saw the design for it (if there was one), but it sounds like
that plan would be bound for disaster. Look what they're doing in
Oakland. I mean, Modell probably indirectly helped the city of
Cleveland by turning down that proposal. Why did he turn it down,
BTW? Was it because [my speculation] that he wanted a football-only
stadium?

>>> When Art refused to
>>>become part of the Gateway project, the stadium design/size was adjusted
>>>to reflect the baseball only nature of what is now JF.

>>You probably should be thanking Modell for refusing to be part of that
>>plan. First of all, football/baseball stadiums are becoming obsolete,
>>and the proposed stadium would probably get pretty ugly (field & all)
>>in September.

> That doesn't change the fact that an offer was made and Modell stated
>he needed renovations, and NOT a new stadium.

I guess you have 'Reason #456 why Modell is an idiot'.

He actually thought Municipal Stadium could be fixed by merely
renovations?! But, I have also seen quotes by Modell that say that he
wanted a new stadium.

> The advntages/disadvantages
>of the offer could have been discussed through negotiation, but Modell
>refused to do that...

That original offer (of JF/Gateway) plan sounded pretty miserable. If
I were Modell (shudder...), I wouldn't negotiate *unless* you could
guarantee me a football-only stadium.

>>> But Art Modell does not fit this hypothetical profile. Consider
>>>the actual situation. An established owner with unprecedented fan support
>>>(even admitted by Art tonight on ESPN), who is consistently in the top
>>>echelon revenue-wise despite playing in a relatively small market.

>>Yet, Baltimore offered a better deal. With the same fan support
>>Cleveland had. He was playing in a stadium that resembled a sewer.
>>Many NFL players had complained about playing in it. Baltimore gave
>>him a better deal.

> ...and yet Art Modell had a legally binding contract with the city
>of Cleveland. That makes what Art Modell and BALTIMORE did not only
>immoral, but also illegal. Your comment "with the same fan support" is
>assuming facts not in evidence by the way...

As to your latter point, the evidence is in the attendance for Colts
games at Memorial Stadium (before Irsay shopped the team) and that
Mem. Stadium is already sold out for the '96-'97 season. Maybe I'm
missing something, but *every* professional sports team has a contract
with some stadium, yet you see many franchise moves. The Astros &
Oilers both have years left on their lease at the AstroDome.

Let's go back in time a little bit. Clark Griffith surely had a lease
at Griffith Stadium back in the '60s, but because of poor attendance
(as well as poor team play), they moved to Minnesota (and later,
Texas).

I'm no lawyer, but when I look at all the movement in sports
franchises, owners always move when they're in the midst of leasing a
stadium/arena. Unless, there was a special provision in the lease of
Muncipal Stadium.

>>(Yes, I *know* they offered him to share JF, but like I said, Modell
>>[like most other owners], wanted a football-only stadium, which
>>Baltimore gave him.)

> If art Modell had SAID "I want a football only stadium" or had
>said "your plan is inadequate, here's what I need", your argument may have
>merit.

Can you read Modell's mind? Sometimes, the media doesn't tell you the
whole story, and Modell (at least recently) had been quoted as wanting
a football-only stadium. Maybe not in 1989, but Modell surely wanted
a football-only stadium, as of 1994-1995.

> However, he DID NOT. He said "all I need is a plan to RENOVATE
>THE OLD STADIUM".

Originally, perhaps. But, recently Modell had asked for a
football-only stadium. Unless ESPN SportsZone is an Internet
conspiracy supporting Art Modell.

> Comparing the offers depends upon Cleveland being
>given the chance to compete. Modell never gave Cleveland that chance.

He gave Cleveland that chance, and they came up with (in Modell's
opinion) sub-par offers. I can't argue with him. From what you've
told me, I wouldn't be too excited about Cleveland's proposals for a
new stadium.

While staying in my cabin (at Shenandoah N. Park this weekend), I was
scanning the AM dial with my digital walkman. And I thought I'd tune
in to the Tribe game. Unfortunately, the Tribe pre-game didn't start
until 10:00, and at that moment, it was around 9:40. Some guy (on
WKNR-1220, BTW) was talking about the Browns, and the offers made to
Modell. And the feedback from *Cleveland* was that that basically
low-balled Modell.

Many callers agreed that Municipal Stadium was a dump. Two callers
said Modell had the right to move. The rest (about 6-7 others)
disagreed, and were upset like you. But, they also partially blamed
the city of Cleveland, as well. I thought the conversation was quite
interesting, and not totally in-line with what you guys said. Was
anyone listening to that?

>>> An
>>>owner who asks for, and receives a plan to renovate the stadium as per his
>>>request prior to the end of his existing lease.

>>A very inconvenient plan, as you mentioned above. Sharing a football

> No. You're confusing the Gateway project (which included a plan
>for a dual purpose stadium) with the renovation plan, which was the result
>of Modell's comments concerning the Gateway project.

So, in other words, after Modell turned down the "inconvenient" (IMO)
Gateway Project, *Cleveland* decided the next option was to renovate
Municipal Stadium? Or was it Modell who decided that? And was
Cleveland open to giving Modell a totally new, football-only stadium?
Or did Cleveland even consider giving Modell that?

>>stadium with a baseball team? Unheard of. At least in the '90s. And
>>Municipal Stadium needed more than just renovation.

> Convenience doesn't matter. Modell never said the plan didn't meet
>his needs. Besides, Muni. Stadium DID NOT need more than renovations.

Players think so. I heard a Falcons player on a CNN special about the
Browns move a few months ago. He said the facilities there were
(direct quote), "horrendous". Many players have echoed this
sentiment, including Browns players.

>There are some problems with the restroom facilities, the visiting
>locker room needs work, and luxury boxes were to be added, but other than
>that, CMS is fine...

This is like saying: "Well, sir, this newly built house should meet
you needs perfectly! It doesn't have any bathrooms, only one bedroom,
no kitchen, no dining room, no coat room, no den, but other than that,
this house is great!" From what I've seen and heard about Municipal
Stadium, you're greatly understating its problems.

> The point is Modell asked for a plan to renovate CMS.
>The city gave him EXACTLY what he asked for, ON HIS TIMETABLE. Then,
>rather than negotiating the specifics, he illegally moved to Baltimore
>because of the ILLEGAL offer they made him.

I can't recall the specifics of what I read last November, but I'm
pretty sure you're leaving out a lot. I believe that Cleveland was
*not* being very open to Modell, and after snags in negotiations,
Modell left. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what ESPN reported,
as well as the 'Washington Post'.

>>> Now, another city comes
>>>and says "violate your lease and come play for us. We'll give you a
>>>deal that no city in the league can match at the cost of betraying the
>>>fans that have supported you through numerous bad management and personnel
>>>decisions"

>>You forgot to mention that the "new city" would support you, despite
>>the fact you have made some bad management decisions. Cleveland is
>>superior to Baltimore [in terms of football fans], in no way. And
>>Baltimore's overall offer was better.

> Baltimore's offer was also illegal, as was Modell's acceptance
>of it.

Where do you get this 'illegal' stuff? How come when other teams
move, it isn't illegal, even when they [other teams] have a lease in
progress?

> Besides, for most businessmen, there are such concepts as loyalty
>and ethics...

This doesn't apply to most NFL owners. Where have you been the last
10 years (namely in the NFL, and in the NHL as well.)? Loyalty is
hardly a factor in sports these days?

As bad as Modell may be, he's the NFL (and other sports) norm these
days for an owner. You don't seem to realize this. Jack Kent Cooke
speculated moving the Redskins to L.A. last year. You don't get much
more loyal when it comes to Redskins fans. And he was thinking of
moving the Redskins!

>>> Now which would you take? My answer is different between the
>>>two situations...

>>I wouldn't move my team, but Offer B is better, when you look at the
>>big picture (i.e. stadium situatuon, overall cash package). Most
>>other NFL owners would have moved, as well, if Baltimore came to one
>>of them.

> You don't know that...

All the facts indicate that. Just ask WatchDawg. He posted some
analysis on the greed of NFL owners.

>>(FWIW, I don't see any Bud Adams bashers in this ng...)

> I don't know the specifics of the Oilers situation. I DO know,
>however, that THAT IS NOT OUR FIGHT!!! No one from Houston came and asked
>us to help, and from what I've seen, they haven't fought for their team.

But if you believe so much in stopping relocation, you should start by
helping Houston retain their team (as did Seattle). Your team is lost
for the next two years now. The Oilers could possibly stills stay in
Houston. If you believe so much in the general cause of preventing
teams from moving, why don't you help them out over there?
Letters/e-mail go a long way, trust me.

You don't realize the impact of something until it happens to you.
This cliche applies to most Browns fans. I took a peek in the Browns
ng, before the announcement was made that Modell was going to move the
team. No complaining that LA lost *both* of their NFL franchises, one
of which was supported very well. No complaining about Tampa possibly
losing its franchise. Hell, there wasn't even a single complaint
about Modell. But the second, it happens to you, you get furious.

That's usually part of human nature. That is, being naive until
something happens to you. Most people are guilty of it. But, stop
saying "oh... it isn't/wasn't my responsibility," when your main
complaint is (or at least *should* be) about preventing *all*
franchises from moving. You obviously weren't too concerned before
the Browns moved.

>That lends Bud Adams' claims of no support some credibility. The bottom
>line, however, is that if the people of Houston don't care, why should we?

The fans of Houston *do* care. Who's to tell you whether they care or
don't? Look at their attendance before 1994.

>>> Anyway you want to justify it, what Art AND the city of Baltimore
>>>did was not only immoral, but also illegal...

>>Illegal, no. Immoral, yes.

> ILLEGAL--YES!!! Look up the law regarding interference with an
>existing contract. The "lease" we've referred to included a clause
>requiring the Browns to play ALL of their home games in CMS until the
>end of the lease. Modell violated that clause as a direct result of the
>offer by the city of Baltimore. THAT IS ILLEGAL, AND SO IS THE OFFER
>WHICH CAUSED THE BREACH OF CONTRACT!!!

I think you're mistaken here. Like I mentioned before, how come all
other franchises that have moved had a lease in place at the time? If
this lease is so binding, then Modell couldn't have had the
opportunity to move to a brand-new stadium. Maybe I'm wrong, but I
think that you are allowed to move a team, even if you have a lease.
Other teams have done it.. (most leases are about 20-year deals, I
believe.), and I don't see what is so special in the Browns' scenario.

>>But, you'd have to accept Modell *and* the team. And you said that
>>you'd rather wait two years.

> First, we wouldn't have to accept Modell back. At this point,
>Modell could be forced to sell the team... I also NEVER said that I'd
>rather wait two years... I DID say I'd rather wait two years than take
>a relocated franchise, but that is not the same thing...

Some of you said you'd have Modell back, rather than waiting two years
for a new franchise [no matter how it comes; not indicated in my
question]. I'll be looking in DejaNews to prove some of you wrong.

>>> That doesn't compare with what he said. If Baltimore had taken
>>>a team that met the NFL guidelines, the local fans would be upset, but
>>>there would be no real basis for objecting.

>>How does the Cleveland move not affect NFL guidelines? Tagliabue
>>surely accepted the move, without much care.

> Read the NFL relocation guidelines. If you don't have a copy,
>e-mail me and I'll send you a copy. The move from Cleveland DID NOT
>meet these guidelines. The guidelines SHOULD have been binding, but
>the NFL has no backbone to face down one of its own. Cleveland's
>lawsuit was based upon the fact that these guidelines were not met, and
>the lawsuits were settled as part of the deal. That does NOT indicate
>that the guidelines were met...

You'd think that any league (or ownership of a company) would contest
the relocation. It makes Tagliabue look bad if people see all these
teams moving places. If he stood up against Modell, he'd get a lot of
respect from fans. It would seem like a no-lose situation. Of
course, it's no-lose, unless Tagliabue would lose another lawsuit.

But, Glenn, send me the guidelines. I'd be interested to read them.

Glenn Channell

unread,

Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96

joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

><deletia>

>>>Which Cleveland [sic] business official came up with this plan?
>>>60,000 people in a [new] baseball stadium?!?!

>> No, it was a 60,000 seat dual purpose stadium. The design was
>>not done, so I would imagine, as with nearly all dual-purpose stadiums,
>>the 60,000 referred to the football seating, and the baseball seating
>>was probably smaller...

>Never saw the design for it (if there was one), but it sounds like
>that plan would be bound for disaster. Look what they're doing in
>Oakland. I mean, Modell probably indirectly helped the city of
>Cleveland by turning down that proposal. Why did he turn it down,
>BTW? Was it because [my speculation] that he wanted a football-only
>stadium?

His only statement was 'I don't need a new stadium. I only
need the old stadium renovated by the end of my lease.'

>He actually thought Municipal Stadium could be fixed by merely
>renovations?! But, I have also seen quotes by Modell that say that he
>wanted a new stadium.

There were no quotes by Modell saying he needed a new stadium
until AFTER he announced the move...

>As to your latter point, the evidence is in the attendance for Colts
>games at Memorial Stadium (before Irsay shopped the team) and that
>Mem. Stadium is already sold out for the '96-'97 season. Maybe I'm
>missing something, but *every* professional sports team has a contract
>with some stadium, yet you see many franchise moves. The Astros &
>Oilers both have years left on their lease at the AstroDome.

First off, the browns have many more fans than stadium attendance
shows, as evidenced by more than 200 chapters of the Browns Backers nation-
wide. That IS more than any other team. I don't know the membership
numbers off-hand, but I'm sure someone can tell you them... Also, this
year's attendance is questionable due to the "new stadium" factor. Talk to
me again when the Ravens have had 3 or 4 straight losing seasons. Finally,
just because several teams have moved DOESN'T mean it's legal. Besides,
do their leases have a clause which requires them to play in that specific
stadium, or is it merely a rental agreement?

>I'm no lawyer, but when I look at all the movement in sports
>franchises, owners always move when they're in the midst of leasing a
>stadium/arena. Unless, there was a special provision in the lease of
>Muncipal Stadium.

Like the one that said the team MUST play all of its home games
in CMS???

>Can you read Modell's mind? Sometimes, the media doesn't tell you the
>whole story, and Modell (at least recently) had been quoted as wanting
>a football-only stadium. Maybe not in 1989, but Modell surely wanted
>a football-only stadium, as of 1994-1995.

What he wanted I don't know. What he publicly stated I DO. I
saw an interview in which he SAID ON VIDEOTAPE. I DO NOT WANT A NEW
STADIUM. I ONLY NEED RENOVATION OF CMS BY THE END OF MY LEASE!!!

The first time I heard Modell mention a new stadium was when
he announced the move... With the building of JF, CMS WAS a football
only stadium by the way.

>Originally, perhaps. But, recently Modell had asked for a
>football-only stadium. Unless ESPN SportsZone is an Internet
>conspiracy supporting Art Modell.

Define recently. He did in early to mid November...

>So, in other words, after Modell turned down the "inconvenient" (IMO)
>Gateway Project, *Cleveland* decided the next option was to renovate
>Municipal Stadium? Or was it Modell who decided that? And was

After the city made the Gateway offer. MODELL said Renovation Only.

>Cleveland open to giving Modell a totally new, football-only stadium?
>Or did Cleveland even consider giving Modell that?

I don't know what Cleveland was open to. Modell doesn't either.
He never mentioned a new stadium at all...

>But if you believe so much in stopping relocation, you should start by
>helping Houston retain their team (as did Seattle). Your team is lost
>for the next two years now. The Oilers could possibly stills stay in
>Houston. If you believe so much in the general cause of preventing
>teams from moving, why don't you help them out over there?
>Letters/e-mail go a long way, trust me.

For one thing, I STILL haven't been asked by any organized Oilers
effort. The Save Our Seahawks campaign asked us to help, and I did. I
am also still involved with the SOS in terms of franchise free-agency in
general. The specific case of the Oilers is their fight until they ask me
to join...

>You don't realize the impact of something until it happens to you.
>This cliche applies to most Browns fans. I took a peek in the Browns
>ng, before the announcement was made that Modell was going to move the
>team. No complaining that LA lost *both* of their NFL franchises, one
>of which was supported very well. No complaining about Tampa possibly

The Raiders moved BACK to Oakland. I view this as the city
of Oakland getting their team BACK, not L.A. losing THEIR team. The
rams weren't supported...

>The fans of Houston *do* care. Who's to tell you whether they care or
>don't? Look at their attendance before 1994.

I'm looking at their reaction to the attempted move and their
actions to try and prevent it. Until they prove otherwise, the lack
of effort on their part indicates that they don't care enough to try.

>> ILLEGAL--YES!!! Look up the law regarding interference with an
>>existing contract. The "lease" we've referred to included a clause
>>requiring the Browns to play ALL of their home games in CMS until the
>>end of the lease. Modell violated that clause as a direct result of the
>>offer by the city of Baltimore. THAT IS ILLEGAL, AND SO IS THE OFFER
>>WHICH CAUSED THE BREACH OF CONTRACT!!!

>I think you're mistaken here. Like I mentioned before, how come all
>other franchises that have moved had a lease in place at the time? If
>this lease is so binding, then Modell couldn't have had the
>opportunity to move to a brand-new stadium. Maybe I'm wrong, but I
>think that you are allowed to move a team, even if you have a lease.
>Other teams have done it.. (most leases are about 20-year deals, I
>believe.), and I don't see what is so special in the Browns' scenario.

I don't know if the other moves are illegal or not, because I
haven't looked at what their leases said. However, I DO know that the
lease signed by Modell required his team to play all of their home games
in Cleveland until the end of the lease. There is no escape clause.
Modell violated it. That's called breach of contract, and IS ILLEGAL.
The city of Baltimore enticed Modell to come by offering such a sweetheart
deal, knowing that in order for the move to take place, Art Modell needed
to break his lease. That is ALSO ILLEGAL. It's interference with a
legally binding contract.
e

>Some of you said you'd have Modell back, rather than waiting two years
>for a new franchise [no matter how it comes; not indicated in my
>question]. I'll be looking in DejaNews to prove some of you wrong.

Even if that's true, don't respond to MY posts with a *you said
this* unles *I* said it. I certainly DID NOT!!!

John Lansford

unread,

Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96

chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Glenn Channell) wrote:

> His only statement was 'I don't need a new stadium. I only
>need the old stadium renovated by the end of my lease.'
>
>>He actually thought Municipal Stadium could be fixed by merely
>>renovations?! But, I have also seen quotes by Modell that say that he
>>wanted a new stadium.
>
> There were no quotes by Modell saying he needed a new stadium
>until AFTER he announced the move...

Glenn,
Josh is deliberately using the owner's quotes selectively to
prove what he wishes to believe. He's decided that if he has to accept
the owner's lies in order to justify his support of the Ravens, then
that is what he will do. He was here when the debate over the owner's
move was going on; he's seen the reports, the facts, the time lines.

IMO he's no better than Bernie or the other no-brain Ravens' fans who
come over here to tweak our noses. There's no need to debate him over
this topic; the only reason he's here is to either "enlighten" us over
the REAL reason why the Browns are now called the Ravens, or because
he likes to rub salt into our wounds.

> Maybe I'm
>>missing something, but *every* professional sports team has a contract
>>with some stadium, yet you see many franchise moves. The Astros &
>>Oilers both have years left on their lease at the AstroDome.
>

The Oilers aren't moving until their lease is up, Josh. I can't think
of another football team that had the support of the Browns that moved
in the middle of a lease.

> What he wanted I don't know. What he publicly stated I DO. I
>saw an interview in which he SAID ON VIDEOTAPE. I DO NOT WANT A NEW
>STADIUM. I ONLY NEED RENOVATION OF CMS BY THE END OF MY LEASE!!!
>
> The first time I heard Modell mention a new stadium was when
>he announced the move... With the building of JF, CMS WAS a football
>only stadium by the way.
>
>
>>Originally, perhaps. But, recently Modell had asked for a
>>football-only stadium. Unless ESPN SportsZone is an Internet
>>conspiracy supporting Art Modell.
>
> Define recently. He did in early to mid November...

Like I said, Glenn, Josh is using selective memory and the owner's
recent lies to justify the unjustifiable. But hey! He's got a team
after 13 years and that makes everything better!

The ethics of Baltimore make me sick.

>>But if you believe so much in stopping relocation, you should start by
>>helping Houston retain their team (as did Seattle). Your team is lost
>>for the next two years now. The Oilers could possibly stills stay in
>>Houston. If you believe so much in the general cause of preventing
>>teams from moving, why don't you help them out over there?
>>Letters/e-mail go a long way, trust me.
>
>
> For one thing, I STILL haven't been asked by any organized Oilers
>effort. The Save Our Seahawks campaign asked us to help, and I did. I
>am also still involved with the SOS in terms of franchise free-agency in
>general. The specific case of the Oilers is their fight until they ask me
>to join...

The Oilers' recent exhibition game played to just over 12,000 fans
this weekend. There were about 12 fans that showed up at a Save Our
Oilers rally a few months ago. There has been very little support for
keeping that team in Houston, much like the lack of support LA gave
the Rams. While I think moving to Nashville is a step down for them,
if their home city won't fight to keep them I have no problem with
them moving.

John Lansford

unread,

Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96

joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) wrote:

>Actually, designs for OPACY, and New Comiskey Park were already being
>designed in 1989. So, in short, you're wrong.

And Charlotte's stadium, the Rams' stadium, the Falcons' stadium,
Jacksonville's, and Nashville's were all designed this decade. In
short, I'm correct. No football stadiums were designed in the 80's
that I can think of. Probably because no one really thought any of
them would move...

>I am... a *huge* Orioles fan, and a casual Ravens fan. I *never* made
>disparaging remarks about the city of Cleveland, but if you want to
>lie to make a point, go right ahead.

Every time you claim the Browns' owner moved because of a lack of
civic support, it's a disparaging remark. When you tout the Ravens'
owner's lies as truth to people who know better, it's a slap in all
our faces. Like I have said before, you selectively take the owner's
recent comments as the highest gospel on why he moved, even though he
never made these comments when they mattered, which was before he
moved.

>Hmm... maybe because I am a fan, just not a die-hard Ravens fan. And
>I like the Patriots and Redskins more than the Ravens. And to make
>sure people know the truth -- not biased Cleveland opinions -- about
>the Ravens move.

The "truth" from the Ravens' owner! What a concept! Go peddle your
snakeoil to gullible people in the Ravens' topic, Josh. You sound more
and more like a candidate for his PR man than someone trying to tell
us the "truth".

>You seem to be needled more than others. Do you..

Go ahead. Finish that sentence.

>Never mind.

Smart boy.

>*Plenty* of moves are made while an owner still has a lease on a
>stadium. Just look it up, shouldn't be too hard.

Since it isn't "too hard", why don't you provide examples? The only
one I can think of right offhand was the Seahawks' attempted move, and
see what happened there. The Oilers aren't moving until after their
contract expires.

>Moving to another stadium, yes. Like I said in another post, not to a
>baseball stadium (like the city of Cleveland offered Modell), but to a
>football-only stadium. And Municipal Stadium is too dingy to
>renovate. It's one of the ugliest stadiums (don't take this as an
>attack; you had great fans there, to make Municipal Stadium look a tad
>better) in football, not to mention baseball.

Don't put words in my mouth, Josh. I said I (as the Browns' owner)
would have negotiated with the city for a new stadium at the end of my
lease. Had renovation of the existing one been possible and it met my
needs, that would have been acceptable as well. Considering that the
owner claimed that renovation was acceptable and he NEVER mentioned a
new stadium before he moved, I do not fault the city for only
providing what they thought he wanted.

>I agree with the above. But, the way Cleveland treated Modell during
>his long tenure with the Browns, IMO, was abysmal. I mean, they built
>a new basketball stadium (Gund Arena), when their old basketball
>stadium was actually pretty nice. Yet, when it came down to getting a
>new football stadium, or getting a new basketball stadium, Cleveland
>chose the latter.
>
>Modell *does* have a point when he says Cleveland wasn't very
>hospitable to him.

Selective quotes yet again. He was invited to join the Gateway project
and he refused. He... oh forget it. You have bought his line of goods
and won't listen to what really happened.

>Look in some of the late-June DejaNews posts. I posted the same
>question (would you rather have Modell & the Browns or a new team in
>two years?), and you said you'd accept Modell, despite all his
>bonehead personnel decisions, and all.

Not I. He can rot in Baltimore for all I care.

>And I'd say: "Where were you when you had opportunities to keep the
>Browns? You [Cleveland politicans] gave Cleveland a basketball
>stadium, a baseball stadium, and a rock-and-roll hall of fame, while
>ignoring giving Modell a football-only stadium."

Wahh, wahh, wahh, Josh. Go try and compare apples and oranges. I guess
the Bucs aren't one of the newsgroups you follow, otherwise you would
realize your attempted comparison of the two teams is ludicrous.

>>They have had multiple chances to keep the Bucs; the owner has worked
>>with TB officials and given them many chances to keep them there. Time
>>after time, the officials and the taxpayers have said they do not want
>>to pay to keep their team.
>
>But the fans in Tampa do. Just like in Cleveland. Officials in
>Cleveland didn't show much interest in keeping the Browns (by giving
>Art a new football-only stadium) until he announced the move.

>>That's a hell of a lot more than what Browns fans had a chance to do.
>
>Well, no it's not..

Well yes it is except to Baltimore fans.

>>> Name me one active RB that thrives with
>>>a team that has a mediocre offensive line.
>
>>Chris Warren.
>>The Patriots' rookie RB last year.
>
>Ever heard of Bruce Armstrong?

Armstrong makes up the entire offensive line for the Patriots? Wow,
what a big man.

>>Larry Centers
>Rushing-wise?

1000 yards rushing a few years ago. On a team that barely won 7 games.

>>The Falcons' RB last year
>Ironhead Heyward? Pretty mediocre rusher, if you ask me.

I believe he ran for over 1000 yards last year.

>One out of 30 RBs. I think that proves my point.

You only wanted one. I gave you four. I think that disproves your
point. Go enjoy your Baltimore team; you can prove nothing here but
your ignorance.

John Lansford

DawgDave99

unread,

Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96

In article <4um27l$b...@news2.cais.com>, joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com
(Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>A) This was *after* the move; I think Browns fans realized the battle
>was lost, when the threats [supposedly, as some of you pointed out]
>arrived in Modell's mail.
>

Noone ever saw any proof of death threats! Why didn't Modell show these
"letters", "faxes" or other death threats? He *claimed* to have received
death threats, but he never produced any evidence.

>B) I didn't say you'd welcome Modell with open arms. (At least *you*
>didn't say that.) You guys told me that you'd live with Modell's
>bonehead moves, because you wanted to see the *Browns* play now.
>

It would have been preferable to keep the Browns with Modell, AT THE TIME,
than losing the team altogether. Now that he's gone, we wouldn't have him
back.

>C) These were only a few Browns fans. While I sometimes question
>Browns fans' rabidness (no pun intended) in this ng, all I said was
>that we shouldn't even "joke" about what a few [sic] Browns fans did,
>threatening Modell's life. It's not funny in Modell's case, or in
>Irsay's case.
>
>

It's not funny, nor has it ever been substantiated

DD99

K Bear 4

unread,

Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96

~ joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>Moving to another stadium, yes. Like I said in another post, not to
>a baseball stadium (like the city of Cleveland offered Modell), but
>to a football-only stadium.

I'll address these views now, but I'll broaden my scope in a
future post. What you always discard off the bat, is what Uncle
Artful requested. Yes, he rejected involvement in the Gateway
project. However, when the discussion came up for a future
stadium, he requested renovation. He said, to paraphrase, "I like
Cleveland Stadium. I love the history. I'd prefer that it be
renovated."
Let's suppose, hypothetically, that your employer is going to
reward you for your loyalty and hard work. Since you're a huge asset
to the company, he's going to foot the bill for a car of your choice.
All he says is, "What do you want? How about a brand new state-of-
the-art Lexus?" You reply, "Well, actually, I have a '57 Chevy in
decent condition that I'm very attached to. I love the history in that
car. For your offer, I would like you to restore it to mint condition."
How would you feel if he took your '57 Chevy, and gave you a
Lexus? I know I wouldn't be happy about it. If the employer wanted
me to stay with the company, he would get me what I requested. It's
not a -great- analogy, but the point is there.

>And Municipal Stadium is too dingy to renovate. It's one of the
>ugliest stadiums (don't take this as an attack; you had great fans
>there, to make Municipal Stadium look a tad better) in football, not
>to mention baseball.

You prove here that you're not aware of what the renovation
would have done. You're probably thinking renovated bathrooms,
and a little structural replacement. You're probably thinking that to
the eye, it would still be the same old, dingy stadium. Let me
enlighten you, if I may.
To save space, "would have been" will be replaced by "would
be." The bathrooms would be replaced, and more would be added.
The roof would be removed all together. The locker rooms would be
enlarged and replaced. The seats would be replaced, and
reconfigured. They'd be moved closer to the field, resembling a
rectangle shape, like seen in the football-only stadiums. The present
football/baseball "bowl" shaped seating would be no more. Most of
the structural concrete would be either replaced or reinforced,
depending on the condition. Lots of TV monitors would be installed
throughout the concourse, which itself, would also be replaced. A
jumbo-tron would be added to the scoreboard. Additional Loges
would be added, and the current ones would be replaced. The
outside of the stadium would get a huge face-lift.
In short, suppose someone from France dropped by last year
and saw the stadium. Then they come back 5 years from now and
saw the renovated stadium. The first question would be when the
new stadium was built. It would look nothing like it does now,
inside or out. So why all the trouble? Why not just build a new one?
Simple. Construction costs. Renovation would save a bundle on
material alone. All in all, around $100 million would be saved.
With most of what's there being replaced, you'd have a new stadium,
for the most part, with a much smaller price tag. Besides that,
Modell requested it.

Dave Hoffman- just tellin it like.. it.. is.

Joshua Kraushaar

unread,

Aug 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/12/96

lans...@vnet.net (John Lansford) wrote:

>joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) wrote:

>>Actually, designs for OPACY, and New Comiskey Park were already being
>>designed in 1989. So, in short, you're wrong.

>And Charlotte's stadium, the Rams' stadium, the Falcons' stadium,
>Jacksonville's, and Nashville's were all designed this decade. In
>short, I'm correct. No football stadiums were designed in the 80's
>that I can think of. Probably because no one really thought any of
>them would move...

I was talking about *baseball* stadiums, John. The new design for
baseball (and baseball-only) stadiums were designed in the late '80s.
So, this football *and* baseball stadium was already obsolete in 1989.

>>I am... a *huge* Orioles fan, and a casual Ravens fan. I *never* made
>>disparaging remarks about the city of Cleveland, but if you want to
>>lie to make a point, go right ahead.

>Every time you claim the Browns' owner moved because of a lack of
>civic support, it's a disparaging remark.

Who's the "you"? I have *never* said that the Browns fans moved
because of lack of fan support. I *have* said they moved because of
lack of political support, and Baltimore would offer Modell the same
fan support.

I'd love to have a good argument with you, John, but if you have to
put words in my mouth, I don't think this is possible.

> When you tout the Ravens'
>owner's lies as truth to people who know better, it's a slap in all
>our faces.

All I said was Modell (indirectly, probably) was smart to turn down
the Gateway Project, since the stadium would probably become obslote
in the near future. If it is true that Modell wanted to make a
serious deal to renovate Municipal Stadium, then he is an idiot. I
have seen and heard about Municipal Stadium a lot, and IMO, it is
un-expandable.

I had heard on ESPN that it will be turned into some wildlife area of
refuge. I'm not sure about the specifics about this, though.

> Like I have said before, you selectively take the owner's
>recent comments as the highest gospel on why he moved,

Actually, I *asked* you (actually, I asked Glenn) what exactly
happened, since I didn't feel as educated as Browns fans would. And
he told me the information about what Cleveland offered Modell. My
comments have mostly been related to the information I have received.

> even though he
>never made these comments when they mattered, which was before he
>moved.

Maybe I'm naive about the media, but wouldn't any news station report
this. I mean, many commentators spoke out against the move, but they
*never* ripped Modell for lying about what he wanted, after the fact.

You'd think someone would "catch" that mistake, except for Browns
fans. I mean, objective media (or mediots....) people. And I may be
wrong, but *during the stadium negotiations*, I believe I heard Modell
requesting for a new stadium. From what you say, this isn't true.

Maybe Cleveland had told Modell (privately) that the Gateway Plan was
the *only* way Cleveland could give Modell a new stadium. Maybe that
is why Modell immediately asked to renovate Municipal Stadium. Or
maybe I'm looking for something that isn't there. Maybe Modell is a
greedy, no-good owner, after all.

But, this whole situation doesn't make sense. Modell *does* have a
reason to move; if he got such great fan support, he would have no
reason to move. There must have been something Modell couldn't stand
about Baltimore. Negative press, perhaps? I mean, a greedy owner
*loves* fan support, which in turn, brings in more cash from the gate.
Explain this to me. *Why* would Modell want to move to Cleveland?
Was Baltimore a better business deal?

>>Hmm... maybe because I am a fan, just not a die-hard Ravens fan. And
>>I like the Patriots and Redskins more than the Ravens. And to make
>>sure people know the truth -- not biased Cleveland opinions -- about
>>the Ravens move.

>The "truth" from the Ravens' owner! What a concept! Go peddle your
>snakeoil to gullible people in the Ravens' topic, Josh.

I *love* it when Mr. Lansford's message is mostly composed of personal
bashing. It's just another way to avoid the facts.

> You sound more
>and more like a candidate for his PR man than someone trying to tell
>us the "truth".

See above.

>>*Plenty* of moves are made while an owner still has a lease on a
>>stadium. Just look it up, shouldn't be too hard.

>Since it isn't "too hard", why don't you provide examples?

Here goes:

Quebec (Nordiques)
Brooklyn (Dodgers)
Washington (Senators)
LA Raiders/Rams
Bears speculating to move to Gary, Ind.
Orioles in their move to OPACY
Ditto for Texas Rangers
Kansas City A's --> Oakland
Phillies move from Shibe Park to Veterans Stadium
Ditto for Pittsburgh from Forbes Field to 3 Rivers

*All* these selected teams had leases with their original stadium.
Good enough for you, John?

> The only
>one I can think of right offhand was the Seahawks' attempted move, and
>see what happened there.

Actually, it wasn't because of the stadium situation. Again, it was
because of the cash.

> The Oilers aren't moving until after their
>contract expires.

Coincidental. Most stadiums have 20+ year deals; would a team wait 20
years before they move to a new city?

>>Moving to another stadium, yes. Like I said in another post, not to a
>>baseball stadium (like the city of Cleveland offered Modell), but to a
>>football-only stadium. And Municipal Stadium is too dingy to
>>renovate. It's one of the ugliest stadiums (don't take this as an
>>attack; you had great fans there, to make Municipal Stadium look a tad
>>better) in football, not to mention baseball.

>Don't put words in my mouth, Josh. I said I (as the Browns' owner)
>would have negotiated with the city for a new stadium at the end of my
>lease.

You'd be in the minority, John. Look at my examples.

> Had renovation of the existing one been possible and it met my
>needs, that would have been acceptable as well. Considering that the
>owner claimed that renovation was acceptable and he NEVER mentioned a
>new stadium before he moved, I do not fault the city for only
>providing what they thought he wanted.

Okay, see above. Were you a Cleveland official when the stadium
situation was being negotiated? That's what I love about many people
(on the 'Net, esp.). They say they *know* about the situation based
on loose media reports. And then, they draw conclusions from the
media reports. Is it *possible* that Cleveland privately told Modell
that (after Modell turned down the Gateway Project) he'd have to
accept renovation to Municipal Stadium? Yes. Maybe not likely, but
possible. Yet, you're not even willing to look at that possiblility
because of your *Cleveland* Browns background.

For example, having watched and studied baseball for much of my life,
I can tell you many fans say that "such-and such is a clubhouse
cancer". When that fan has *never* been in a major league clubhouse
in his/her life. I mean, take Jeff Kent, for example. Clevelanders
kept on complaining that Kent was a clubhouse cancer, much worse than
Baerga's darling personality. When this is based on reports from the
*New York* media, who like most mediots, like to select their favorite
players and praise them in the paper. Jeff Kent isn't very open to
the media, but that doesn't make him a cancer. Yet, the media isn't
willing to sit down with Kent, and get to know him better.

It's similar, IMO, in this Modell stadium situation. The Cleveland
media reports the generalities of the negotiations between Modell.
But as you (pl.) know, Modell has made countless bonehead moves while
in Cleveland. Why would the Cleveland media do a favor for Modell?
If there were *rumors* that Cleveland was unwilling to give Modell a
new stadium, after the Gateway Plan, why would they report the rumors
unless they were substantiated?

It might be a stretch, but IMO, it's a strong possibility. We don't
*know* what went on during the negotiations. FWIW, we also don't know
what goes on in Modell's mind. He might have considered moving the
team 15 years ago, but he decided not to. We don't know.

>>And I'd say: "Where were you when you had opportunities to keep the
>>Browns? You [Cleveland politicans] gave Cleveland a basketball
>>stadium, a baseball stadium, and a rock-and-roll hall of fame, while
>>ignoring giving Modell a football-only stadium."

>Wahh, wahh, wahh, Josh. Go try and compare apples and oranges. I guess
>the Bucs aren't one of the newsgroups you follow, otherwise you would
>realize your attempted comparison of the two teams is ludicrous.

Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what "small sample size"
is. We have about 20 (at most) regular Browns posters in *this*
newsgroup. We know how many fans the Browns packed in in Municipal
Stadium. 20/70,000 is *much* less than 1%. You can't draw
conclusions about fan support from Usenet. It's not that hard to
figure out.

>>>Chris Warren.
>>>The Patriots' rookie RB last year.
>>
>>Ever heard of Bruce Armstrong?

>Armstrong makes up the entire offensive line for the Patriots? Wow,
>what a big man.

It's called 'running through holes'. Your offensive line doesn't just
make one *huge* hole.

>>>Larry Centers
>>Rushing-wise?

>1000 yards rushing a few years ago. On a team that barely won 7 games.

A few years ago, with a pretty decent o-line. I'm talking about good
o-line's *now*, and in comparison with RBs *now*.

>>>The Falcons' RB last year
>>Ironhead Heyward? Pretty mediocre rusher, if you ask me.

>I believe he ran for over 1000 yards last year.

Look at yds/carry. That's more indicative of a RBs skills in relation
to an offensive line.

>>One out of 30 RBs. I think that proves my point.

>You only wanted one. I gave you four. I think that disproves your
>point. Go enjoy your Baltimore team; you can prove nothing here but
>your ignorance.

Take your flames to alt.john.lansford.flames. I'd like to talk about
Modell's business moves in a polite, non-flaming manner. If you're
unwilling to do that, I guess your argument is pretty worthless.

Sorry for the long post, guys. After getting back from vacation, I've
had *a lot* of spare time on my hands.

Glenn Channell

unread,

Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96

chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Glenn Channell) writes:

>joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>>lans...@vnet.net (John Lansford) wrote:

>>Here goes:

>>Quebec (Nordiques)
>>Brooklyn (Dodgers)
>>Washington (Senators)
>>LA Raiders/Rams

> I don't know the specifics of each of these moves, so I'll
>accept your assertion that they all had valid leases at the time.
>The next logical question, however, is the nature of the lease
>itself. Did the lease have an escape clause of some sort (minimum
>revenue/attendance or whatever)? Was it merely a rental agreement?
>(i.e. you must pay X dollars per year) Or, did the lease, as in the
>Cleveland lease, have a clause which required ALL of the home games to
>be played in the stadium? Modell's lease had the latter. In addition,
>Modell's attempt to circumvent the lease by having his Stadium Corp.
>allow the Browns out of the lease was not legal since the lease ALSO
>had a clause giving the city the right to veto any cancellation of the
>lease...

>>Bears speculating to move to Gary, Ind.

> Speculation--DIDN'T happen...

>>Orioles in their move to OPACY
>>Ditto for Texas Rangers
>>Kansas City A's --> Oakland
>>Phillies move from Shibe Park to Veterans Stadium
>>Ditto for Pittsburgh from Forbes Field to 3 Rivers

> *ALL* of these 5 are moves within the same city. That raises the
>question of with whom the lease was signed. If the lease was between the
>city and the team, obviously the city will allow the team to move from an
>old city-owned stadium to a NEW city-owned stadium. The city of Cleveland
>NEVER let Modell out of his lease (at least until the deal was struck).

Oops. Sorry. The KC to OAK move should be analyzed by my first
paragraph rather than the second since it isn't in the same city...

Glenn Channell

unread,

Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96

joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>lans...@vnet.net (John Lansford) wrote:

>All I said was Modell (indirectly, probably) was smart to turn down
>the Gateway Project, since the stadium would probably become obslote
>in the near future. If it is true that Modell wanted to make a
>serious deal to renovate Municipal Stadium, then he is an idiot. I
>have seen and heard about Municipal Stadium a lot, and IMO, it is
>un-expandable.

Given the details of the "renovations" which have been posted
here by someone else (I don't remember who, but it was today or
yesterday), it WAS possible. Besides, I've been to the public areas of
CMS, and with the exception of the restroom facilities, it was not a
bad place to watch football. Old, yes, but that doesn't mean inadequate.

>I had heard on ESPN that it will be turned into some wildlife area of
>refuge. I'm not sure about the specifics about this, though.

Actually the talk has been to put CMS in Lake Erie to create a
freshwater reef in an attempt to promote fishing and marine life (if
marine is a proper term...). What does this have to do with the issue
at hand? Since the stadium is going to be bulldozed, they found a more
useful thing to do with the structural concrete. Rather than breaking it
up for gravel or just throwing it in a pile somewhere, they decided (on
the advice of some environmentalists) to use it to stimulate the ecology
of the lake... I'm also not sure if this is the final solution or just
a proposal, but that doesn't really matter.

>Actually, I *asked* you (actually, I asked Glenn) what exactly
>happened, since I didn't feel as educated as Browns fans would. And
>he told me the information about what Cleveland offered Modell. My
>comments have mostly been related to the information I have received.

And he's referring to your assertion that Modell asked for a new
stadium. He did, but AFTER he announced the relocation.

>Maybe I'm naive about the media, but wouldn't any news station report
>this. I mean, many commentators spoke out against the move, but they
>*never* ripped Modell for lying about what he wanted, after the fact.

That's assuming that stadium talks are national news. Clearly, if
Art Modell had come out and said "I'll move if I don't get a new football-
only stadium", THAT is national news (see NE, HOU, SEA, etc.) However,
Art Modell never said that. He DID say "As long as I own this franchise,
the team will remain in Cleveland" He was called on it by Roy Firestone
of ESPN. He also said ON VIDEOTAPE that he did not want a new stadium.
He mentioned history and tradition and then asked for renovations. He
WAS given that. You're assuming that every statement made by Art Modell
would have national interest, and that's ridiculous. His statements WERE
of local interest, and there is no reason to suspect the local press of a
biased reporting. If Modell had demanded a new stadium, the local press
certainly would have reported that...

There's a lot I can't stand about Baltimore. You probably
mean Cleveland, but that indicates you're ASSUMING he left because he
didn't like Cleveland. I don't think that's true. In Cleveland he
was in debt due to his own poor management decisions. In Baltimore,
he gets an unprecedented stadium deal (new stadium, rent free, ALL the
money, $50 million bonus, the ability to rape the fans with PSL's, etc.)
His decision IMO had nothing to do with Cleveland. Baltimore gave up
EVERYTHING in order to get Modell, and he knew Cleveland wouldn't do the
same. Even if the stadium deal were identical, it is unlikely that
Cleveland would have given him $50 million to cover his bad business
dealings. In addition, his son was very vocal about not liking Cleveland
(I don't really know why), and IMO Art moved in order to take much of the
heat for El Cig. In addition, since Art is getting old, there is probably
going to be the issue of probate taxes in the future for his son...

>*loves* fan support, which in turn, brings in more cash from the gate.
>Explain this to me. *Why* would Modell want to move to Cleveland?
>Was Baltimore a better business deal?

I don't think Modell wanted to move to Cleveland. From a strictly
financial point of view, disregarding the legality and/or morality of the
move, Baltimore did offer Modell a better deal. The problem is we should
not separate the moral/legal issues, and also Modell never gave Cleveland
a chance at competing. He insisted he was never considering a move. Like
it or not, any deal a city strikes with an owner can be beat by a city
without a team if that city has no regard for its own financial well-being
and ethics. How much taxpayer money is being laid out by Baltimore and
the state of Maryland? How much of that will they recover? They get NO
revenue from the stadium for at least 30 years...

>Here goes:

>Quebec (Nordiques)
>Brooklyn (Dodgers)
>Washington (Senators)
>LA Raiders/Rams

I don't know the specifics of each of these moves, so I'll

accept your assertion that they all had valid leases at the time.
The next logical question, however, is the nature of the lease
itself. Did the lease have an escape clause of some sort (minimum
revenue/attendance or whatever)? Was it merely a rental agreement?
(i.e. you must pay X dollars per year) Or, did the lease, as in the
Cleveland lease, have a clause which required ALL of the home games to
be played in the stadium? Modell's lease had the latter. In addition,
Modell's attempt to circumvent the lease by having his Stadium Corp.
allow the Browns out of the lease was not legal since the lease ALSO
had a clause giving the city the right to veto any cancellation of the
lease...

>Bears speculating to move to Gary, Ind.

Speculation--DIDN'T happen...

>Orioles in their move to OPACY
>Ditto for Texas Rangers
>Kansas City A's --> Oakland
>Phillies move from Shibe Park to Veterans Stadium
>Ditto for Pittsburgh from Forbes Field to 3 Rivers

*ALL* of these 5 are moves within the same city. That raises the

question of with whom the lease was signed. If the lease was between the
city and the team, obviously the city will allow the team to move from an
old city-owned stadium to a NEW city-owned stadium. The city of Cleveland
NEVER let Modell out of his lease (at least until the deal was struck).

>Coincidental. Most stadiums have 20+ year deals; would a team wait 20
>years before they move to a new city?

Is it coincidental, or did the owner realize that he had EVERY
legal right to move after the lease expired? I think it is more reasonable
to assume the latter, but that is a matter of opinion...

>You'd be in the minority, John. Look at my examples.

To mimic your later argument about quality running backs,
you mentioned 11 teams in three sports. That comes to a total of
12 owners (including Modell) out of approximately 90. I'm curious
to know how that puts John in the minority. The only way your
statement is valid is if you ASSUME what the others will do, and you
have no way of knowing that...

>It's similar, IMO, in this Modell stadium situation. The Cleveland
>media reports the generalities of the negotiations between Modell.
>But as you (pl.) know, Modell has made countless bonehead moves while
>in Cleveland. Why would the Cleveland media do a favor for Modell?
>If there were *rumors* that Cleveland was unwilling to give Modell a
>new stadium, after the Gateway Plan, why would they report the rumors
>unless they were substantiated?

The same reason they report rumors of moves, trades, etc...

>Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what "small sample size"
>is. We have about 20 (at most) regular Browns posters in *this*
>newsgroup. We know how many fans the Browns packed in in Municipal
>Stadium. 20/70,000 is *much* less than 1%. You can't draw
>conclusions about fan support from Usenet. It's not that hard to
>figure out.

No. My conclusions about the Tampa Bay situation are drawn
from the same sources as my conclusions about the Houston situation:
from the ACTIONS of the fans in question. Cleveland and Seattle have
BOTH shown that fan protest and action can accomplish something, and
yet there is no organized objection from either Tampa or Houston. What
do you think that means? IMO, it's indicative of a fan base that doesn't
care enough to DO something about it. Yes, there are individuals who
are hurt, but judging from the lack of popular response, those individuals
must be in the minority...
I don't ASSUME anything about the fans in those cities. I DO
however, draw conclusions from their actions...

>It's called 'running through holes'. Your offensive line doesn't just
>make one *huge* hole.

And one offensive lineman cannot consistently provide holes to
run through. If he creates a hole, the defense can easily throw more
defenders at that spot than he can block...

>>>>Larry Centers
>>>Rushing-wise?

>>1000 yards rushing a few years ago. On a team that barely won 7 games.

>A few years ago, with a pretty decent o-line. I'm talking about good
>o-line's *now*, and in comparison with RBs *now*.

How do you evaluate a good offensive line? Your argument is going
something like this. RB is successful because he has a good OL. The OL
must be good because RB is successful. That seems like a circular argument
to me and neglects outrightthe talents of the running back. If you're
argument explains the situation, tell me why Jerome Bettis had a 1000-yd
rookie season followed by a mediocre to terrible sophomore campaign with
the same OL...

>Look at yds/carry. That's more indicative of a RBs skills in relation
>to an offensive line.

I don't know what Heyward's Yds/carry was, but the Falcons certainly
didn't give him the ball every down...

Glenn Channell

unread,

Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96

chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Glenn Channell) writes:
>joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>>Look at yds/carry. That's more indicative of a RBs skills in relation
>>to an offensive line.

OK. Here goes. I looked up Craig Heywards numbers from last
year...

1083 yards on 236 carries = 4.6 yds/carry

That sounds pretty good to me. Here's some other 1000 yard rushers from
last year:

E. Smith: 4.7
C. Warren: 4.3
R. Watters: 3.8
B. Sanders: 4.8
C. Martin: 4.0
M. Faulk: 3.7
R. Salaam: 3.6
E. Rhett: 3.6
T. Davis: 4.7
T. Allen: 3.9
T. Thomas: 3.8
R. Hampton: 3.9
H. Williams: 4.4
E. Bennett: 3.4
G. Hearst: 3.8

Using your metric, Craig Heyward, the guy you said isn't any good, is
the 4th best running back in the league behind Emmitt Smith, Barry Sander,
and Terrell Davis of Denver. This is despite the poor offensive line...

K Bear 4

unread,

Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96

~ joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>Players think so. I heard a Falcons player on a CNN special about
>the Browns move a few months ago. He said the facilities there
>were (direct quote), "horrendous". Many players have echoed this
>sentiment, including Browns players.

I've heard more praise about the stadium than criticism from
players on all teams. The most common opinions refer to the
history. "It's an honor to play there. Jim Brown, Dick Lane, George
Blanda, Tony Dorsett, Fran Tarkenton, ect. played on that field."
I've seen the inside of the locker rooms, and they -are-
horrendous. They're small, and very outdated. Same with the
shower stalls. It does have a good point that most other stadiums
don't have anymore. It's got a very long tunnel from the locker room
to the field. As Brian Sipe said, it would get the players pumped up
like nothing else. Reason: He said when you're in the locker room,
you can barely here the crowd noise at all. As you walk down the
tunnel, the cheers get increasingly louder and louder, and when you
come out onto the field, the erupting crowd hits you like a freight
train. As he said, if you're not ready to play a game after that
experience, you'll never be.
The stadium has its tangible bad points, but it also has
its intangible good points. Maybe I'm a purist, but I think football
players are paid to play football, not be interior decorators.

Dave Hoffman-

K Bear 4

unread,

Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96

~~ joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:
>>But if you believe so much in stopping relocation, you should start
>>by helping Houston retain their team (as did Seattle). Your team
>>is lost for the next two years now. The Oilers could possibly stills
>>stay in Houston. If you believe so much in the general cause of
>>preventing teams from moving, why don't you help them out over
>>there? Letters/e-mail go a long way, trust me.

~ chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Glenn Channell) writes:
> For one thing, I STILL haven't been asked by any organized
>Oilers effort. The Save Our Seahawks campaign asked us to help,
>and I did. I am also still involved with the SOS in terms of
>franchise free-agency in general. The specific case of the Oilers is
>their fight until they ask me to join...

Just a little to add here. I've posted something about this a
little while ago, so I'll be brief. Organized efforts are more
productive than sporadic efforts. SOB (Save Our Browns) organized
a plan, and participants followed it. We feel that we were effective
at what we were trying to do.
When the Seahawks came to us requesting help, they also
had an organized plan. We knew exactly how they wanted us to help
out, and I did my part as well.
The Oilers and Buccaneers also asked for help, but their
request was different. They were not organized at all. They
basically said to save their team for them. If you have people doing
this, people doing that, and people doing the other thing, you will not
be effective at your fight. You have to be organized, and all
involved must be on the same page. You all can't do your own thing
to be effective. The Oilers and Bucs have never come here with a
specific plan. So individual, sporadic actions wouldn't do anything.

Dave Hoffman-

Douglas Hayden

unread,

Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96

On Stardate 11 Aug 1996 22:57:57 GMT, Glenn Channell stated:

: >I wouldn't move my team, but Offer B is better, when you look at the

: >big picture (i.e. stadium situatuon, overall cash package). Most
: >other NFL owners would have moved, as well, if Baltimore came to one
: >of them.

: You don't know that...

Actually, I do know Mike Brown decided to do everything he could to keep
the Bengals down south. Now Cincy will keep their team and get a new
stadium out of the deal. I think there were a couple others that
Baltimore tried to court. Yo Watch Dawg, can ya lend a hand? :)

: >(FWIW, I don't see any Bud Adams bashers in this ng...)

: I don't know the specifics of the Oilers situation. I DO know,
: however, that THAT IS NOT OUR FIGHT!!! No one from Houston came and asked
: us to help, and from what I've seen, they haven't fought for their team.
: That lends Bud Adams' claims of no support some credibility. The bottom
: line, however, is that if the people of Houston don't care, why should we?

Whatever Houston's doing must be right - I really thought the Oilers
would be in Nashville before the Modells wound up in Baltimore. Any
news on the Oilers, WD?

: >But, you'd have to accept Modell *and* the team. And you said that

: >you'd rather wait two years.

: First, we wouldn't have to accept Modell back. At this point,
: Modell could be forced to sell the team... I also NEVER said that I'd
: rather wait two years... I DID say I'd rather wait two years than take
: a relocated franchise, but that is not the same thing...

Where does it say we'd welcome back Uncle Scum with open arms? If the
Crows ever came to play at the new CMS against the new Browns, Uncle
Scum and Boy Sherman would need more protection than Fort Knox!

: >How does the Cleveland move not affect NFL guidelines? Tagliabue

: >surely accepted the move, without much care.

: Read the NFL relocation guidelines. If you don't have a copy,
: e-mail me and I'll send you a copy. The move from Cleveland DID NOT
: meet these guidelines. The guidelines SHOULD have been binding, but
: the NFL has no backbone to face down one of its own. Cleveland's
: lawsuit was based upon the fact that these guidelines were not met, and
: the lawsuits were settled as part of the deal. That does NOT indicate
: that the guidelines were met...

Fun part is - the Rams move didn't meet the guidelines either. So
Frontiere greased the No Fan Loyalty's palms and trotted over to St.
Louis. According to that standard, most of the $$$ Baltimore forked
over to Uncle Scum would have gone straight to the NFL. Yet no charge
was issued and now the Rams are steaming and want their money back. And
you thought they were having fun over in baseball...

: >Why not?

: Let's see. For one thing, Irsay had been openly considering
: other sites while Modell said "as long as I own this franchise it will
: remain in Cleveland". There are other differences as have been discussed
: repeatedly in this group, so I won't reiterate them all here. If there are
: no other reasons, the NFL guidelines that were violated were not in effect
: 13 years ago...

Actually, they were. The guidelines went up shortly after Davis v. NFL
and Irsay was the first to use and abuse them.

----------
Doug Hayden, calling all Watch Dawgs...
It's a Czar world after all...
----------

Joshua Kraushaar

unread,

Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96

chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Glenn Channell) wrote:

>joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>>lans...@vnet.net (John Lansford) wrote:

>>All I said was Modell (indirectly, probably) was smart to turn down
>>the Gateway Project, since the stadium would probably become obslote
>>in the near future. If it is true that Modell wanted to make a
>>serious deal to renovate Municipal Stadium, then he is an idiot. I
>>have seen and heard about Municipal Stadium a lot, and IMO, it is
>>un-expandable.

> Given the details of the "renovations" which have been posted
>here by someone else (I don't remember who, but it was today or
>yesterday), it WAS possible.

It was possible, but it sounds very inconvenient. The proposed
renovations (as posted here by KBear 4, whom I thank) sound like more
of a wishful thinking plan, more than a realistic plan. IMO, you
could make Municipal Stadium look relatively nice in comparison with
what the original CMS looked like, but it still wouldn't meet up to
the standards for today's modern outside stadiums.

Also, where would the Browns play if Municipal Stadium was being so
greatly renovated? Is there another stadium capable of handling
60,000+ football fans in the Cleveland metro. area. Based on what K
Bear 4 posted about the immense renovations, you'd think that it would
take a long time to complete, and it would have to be closed to the
public.

> Besides, I've been to the public areas of
>CMS, and with the exception of the restroom facilities, it was not a
>bad place to watch football. Old, yes, but that doesn't mean inadequate.

Of course, this is from a Cleveland point of view. If I was a
Cleveland Browns fan, I'd probably say the same thing. That's the
same thing Baltimoreans say about Memorial Stadium. While MS is no
sewer, it sure isn't the most beautiful stadium around. But some
Baltimoreans would be hesitant to move out of MS to go to a newer,
better stadium, which is currently being constructed.

>>I had heard on ESPN that it will be turned into some wildlife area of
>>refuge. I'm not sure about the specifics about this, though.

> Actually the talk has been to put CMS in Lake Erie to create a
>freshwater reef in an attempt to promote fishing and marine life (if
>marine is a proper term...). What does this have to do with the issue
>at hand?

Never said it did; though usually most non-used stadiums are turned
into parking lots, or businesses, or whatever. I just thought it was
an interesting note.

> Since the stadium is going to be bulldozed, they found a more
>useful thing to do with the structural concrete. Rather than breaking it
>up for gravel or just throwing it in a pile somewhere, they decided (on
>the advice of some environmentalists) to use it to stimulate the ecology
>of the lake... I'm also not sure if this is the final solution or just
>a proposal, but that doesn't really matter.

That's good... I never used this in any way to bash CMS.

>>Actually, I *asked* you (actually, I asked Glenn) what exactly
>>happened, since I didn't feel as educated as Browns fans would. And
>>he told me the information about what Cleveland offered Modell. My
>>comments have mostly been related to the information I have received.

> And he's referring to your assertion that Modell asked for a new
>stadium. He did, but AFTER he announced the relocation.

And I'm saying, how do you know that? There have been *many*
reports, not just in Baltimore, but nationally, that Modell had
mentioned to Cleveland officials, that he would like a new stadium.
Perhaps it wasn't financially possible for Cleveland to do at the time
-- especially, with the Gund and RAR hall-of Fame -- so, they asked
Modell to consider renovating. (This is part speculation -- but it
seems more likely that it was a *joint* agreement that they would
concentrate on renovating CMS, not just Modell's decision.) He
apparently accepted, since the city of Cleveland had basically told
Modell that he'd be guaranteed a "better" stadium, but not until we
finish Gund, JF, Rock-and Roll- HAll of Fame, since he didn't want to
be part of the Gateway Project (which I have stated would be a big
mistake for the city of Cleveland). And negotiations (which, BTW,
involves cash going to Modell) obviously weren't going the way Modell
wanted it. He [probably] felt that with all the time Cleveland took
to make sure they had other nice attractions, he was getting a raw
deal. Cleveland wasn't giving him all the amenities that they had
given the other attractions. And the Cleveland officials, *including*
Mayor White, have basically admitted to this.

What I don't get is when Modell is publicly blasting the Cleveland
government (on ESPN, and other national media outlets), why Cleveland
officials don't come out and say, "Yo, Art! Stop the lying, will
you?" *Never* has any Cleveland official said something like this.
This would lead me (or anyone) to indicate that they *indeed* weren't
nearly as generous to Art Modell as they were to the other
stadiums/museums that were being created in the '80s/'90s.

Cleveland isn't willing to think (which is natural...) that the
Cleveland officials bungled things up. I kind of feel that this
sitauation is like the Juwan Howard situation. Washington made Howard
*several* offers, probably more offers than the other competing teams.
But, the offers were considerably lower than the other team's. The
Bullets slowly raised the price from their initial offer, but even
their final price was still lower than the *original* offer of the
other teams.

(Now Juwan came back to the Bullets, and I'm elated, and life is good
in Washington! Anyways....)

I think this is similar to the Browns situation. Cleveland, at first,
gave Modell a very mediocre situation. In "contract" terms, they
low-balled him. From what you tell me, Modell wasn't willing to
accept only 55,000 fans in a smaller baseball/football stadium. That
seems like a reasonable complaint. Name me all the football stadiums
that hold 55,000 or less. Modell would probably lose money, because
despite getting consistent sellouts, the mean attendance would be one
of the *lowest* in the NFL, due to stadium capacity.

Then, Cleveland upped the offer a little bit, but I think Modell felt
the negotiations weren't going anywhere, and Cleveland didn't offer
what Modell wanted. During these [long-term] "snags", Baltimore comes
along, and says, "Hey! We see Cleveland's giving you a lot of
problems with this stadium thing. We'll give you a new stadium, [with
same fan support; implied], and give you a cash-packed deal, which
will guarantee you will make money." Modell thinks, "Hey... I gave
Cleveland my chance. They haven't offered me a reasonable contract,
and Baltimore (in their *first* try) gave me a great offer! I might
as well move!"

That's the way I see it. Sorry for being so long-winded. To end my
point, I will quote Juwan Howard when he thought he was leaving the
Bullets for the Heat. For those of you who don't know, Juwan is one
of those true class sports figures. He helps out in the community, he
is personable, charitable, and bright. Everyone loves him. Yet, he
said when leaving the Bullets:

"Juwan had to do what was the best for Juwan. In this case, it was
going to the Heat. I thank the Bullets for how they helped my career,
and I wish them the best of luck."

What was Washington's response to Howard supposedly leaving? Were
they bashing Howard for being a greedy player? Not at all. From
listening to WTEM-570 all week when Howard bolted for the Heat, 99% of
the callers blamed Bullets management (in parallel to Cleveland
officials) for not giving Juwan the offer that matched the Heat.
Hardly anyone blamed Juwan for accepting more money.

I think this applies for Art Modell, as well. Art Modell had to do
what was best for Art Modell. He went bankrupt in Cleveland, and
still stayed there. Despite making some idiotic personnel moves, he
contributed a lot (as admitted by Terry Pluto) to local businesses.
He liked Cleveland. Now, I'm not comparing Modell to Juwan Howard,
but you've got to realize sports is a business, and Modell made the
best business decision.

Because I covered a lot in these paragraphs, I'm going to delete a lot
of the upcoming paragraphs because I think I already covered these
issues above.

>>Here goes:

>>Quebec (Nordiques)
>>Brooklyn (Dodgers)
>>Washington (Senators)
>>LA Raiders/Rams

I'll have to research this matter a bit more. But, what do you think
a lease is? It means you have to play your home games in
such-and-such stadium for 'n' years.

> Modell's lease had the latter. In addition,
>Modell's attempt to circumvent the lease by having his Stadium Corp.
>allow the Browns out of the lease was not legal since the lease ALSO
>had a clause giving the city the right to veto any cancellation of the
>lease...

I think you're overrated the purpose of a lease. It's more of a
stadium issue, not a team issue. Like I said, I'll research the
matter a bit more.

>>Bears speculating to move to Gary, Ind.

> Speculation--DIDN'T happen...

But, during those speculations, *no one* mentioned that the Bears
still had a lease with Soldier Field.

>>Orioles in their move to OPACY
>>Ditto for Texas Rangers
>>Kansas City A's --> Oakland
>>Phillies move from Shibe Park to Veterans Stadium
>>Ditto for Pittsburgh from Forbes Field to 3 Rivers

So, you're saying it's totally Cleveland's choice to what Modell does?
From what you have in your parentheses, does that mean Cleveland let
Modell out of his lease when the deal was struck?

>>You'd be in the minority, John. Look at my examples.

> To mimic your later argument about quality running backs,
>you mentioned 11 teams in three sports. That comes to a total of
>12 owners (including Modell) out of approximately 90. I'm curious
>to know how that puts John in the minority.

Well, there are only so many teams that have moved from one city to
another. I think it's less than 90, especially in modern stadium
situations (i.e post 1930). John named four RBs, (at least) two of
which were invalid.

<snip>

>>It's similar, IMO, in this Modell stadium situation. The Cleveland
>>media reports the generalities of the negotiations between Modell.
>>But as you (pl.) know, Modell has made countless bonehead moves while
>>in Cleveland. Why would the Cleveland media do a favor for Modell?
>>If there were *rumors* that Cleveland was unwilling to give Modell a
>>new stadium, after the Gateway Plan, why would they report the rumors
>>unless they were substantiated?

> The same reason they report rumors of moves, trades, etc...

Not to praise Modell, though. Why would they report an
unsubstantiated rumor saying Modell didn't do so bad after all, after
crucifying him in the paper previously? That would be embarrassing to
your paper.

>>Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what "small sample size"
>>is. We have about 20 (at most) regular Browns posters in *this*
>>newsgroup. We know how many fans the Browns packed in in Municipal
>>Stadium. 20/70,000 is *much* less than 1%. You can't draw
>>conclusions about fan support from Usenet. It's not that hard to
>>figure out.

> No. My conclusions about the Tampa Bay situation are drawn
>from the same sources as my conclusions about the Houston situation:
>from the ACTIONS of the fans in question. Cleveland and Seattle have
>BOTH shown that fan protest and action can accomplish something,

Whoah... I might agree with you that Houston and TB don't have the
best fan support, but to say that the Seahawks did. Come on! The
Seahawks had *never* drawn great amount of crowds in the KingDome, and
you put them in a class with Cleveland? I mean, Los Angeles is a
*much* better city for football (attendance-wise); it's not like
Behring was moving them to Nashville.

> and
>yet there is no organized objection from either Tampa or Houston.

Not much objection from Seattle, either, yet many of you add to your
"resume" that "I was a part of Save our Seahawks". The Seahawks had
about the same *attendance* as the Oilers did. That is a fact. I
think the only time the Seahawks fans showed more anger over possibly
losing their team was on the 'Net. And that was based on about 8-10
fans.

> I don't ASSUME anything about the fans in those cities. I DO
>however, draw conclusions from their actions...

What actions did Seahawks fans do that differ from Oilers/Bucs fans?
Look at attendance, Glenn. Facts speak louder than actions.

>>It's called 'running through holes'. Your offensive line doesn't just
>>make one *huge* hole.

> And one offensive lineman cannot consistently provide holes to
>run through. If he creates a hole, the defense can easily throw more
>defenders at that spot than he can block...

Well, the OL can consistenly provide holes, if he has a favorable
matchup. If you have a top OL, you'll get favorable matchups much of
the time. And it's not like the Ravens have other poor offensive
linemen. Tony Jones and Steve Everitt are two other solid offensive
linemen.

Of course, you could argue that the Ravens are playing Ogden and Jones
out of position.

>>>>>Larry Centers
>>>>Rushing-wise?

>>>1000 yards rushing a few years ago. On a team that barely won 7 games.

>>A few years ago, with a pretty decent o-line. I'm talking about good
>>o-line's *now*, and in comparison with RBs *now*.
>
> How do you evaluate a good offensive line? Your argument is going
>something like this. RB is successful because he has a good OL. The OL
>must be good because RB is successful.

It's *more* of the first point. Take a look at RBs that play for
different teams in their career. You'll see a significant increase
(esp. in yds/carry) in rushing with the better offensive line. A
great offensive line makes an average RB, a good RB. Look out for
Jerome Bettis this year. He has been miserable recently, with a
mediocre OL for the Rams, and he is going to one of the best offensive
lines in football.

And also, it's not just Ogden. The entire Ravens OL is quite good.

> That seems like a circular argument
>to me and neglects outrightthe talents of the running back.

If you look at the statistics rationally, it doesn't. There are
exceptions, but they are more "the exception, rather than the rule".

> If you're
>argument explains the situation, tell me why Jerome Bettis had a 1000-yd
>rookie season followed by a mediocre to terrible sophomore campaign with
>the same OL...

Injuries have a *big* part to do with that... Take Baerga, for
example in baseball.

>>Look at yds/carry. That's more indicative of a RBs skills in relation
>>to an offensive line.

> I don't know what Heyward's Yds/carry was, but the Falcons certainly
>didn't give him the ball every down...

You posted the numbers, and he did have a solid season in terms of
yds/carry. But, career-wise (I'm pretty sure), he has been pretty
average in terms of rushing. He's kinda like the Gary Disarcina of
football.

Glenn Channell

unread,

Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96

joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Glenn Channell) wrote:

>>joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>>>lans...@vnet.net (John Lansford) wrote:

I don't know how long the proposed renovations would have
taken, but they would certainly take less time than starting from
nothing. In addition, the team could play in the same stadium they'll
play in if the Browns return before the new stadium is built: the
Horseshoe in Columbus. I know that's not in the Cleveland metro.
area, but so what? I think another possibility could be the Hall
of Fame stadium in Canton, but I don't know its capacity...

You haven't read Michael White's comments to the owners in
Atlanta have you? Didn't you ever listen to what was said after
Modell announced the move? The Cleveland gov't DID SAY THAT!!!
NOW they're not saying it because they have moved on and have more
important things to focus on than Modell's spin-doctoring...

>This would lead me (or anyone) to indicate that they *indeed* weren't
>nearly as generous to Art Modell as they were to the other
>stadiums/museums that were being created in the '80s/'90s.

All right. First, the Science Museum and R&R HOF cannot be
considered. Both came from funds that could NOT be used for sports
franchises. The Science Museum was funded primarily from a grant
for education. No matter how great football is, there's no way the
city could have justified building a new stadium with education funds.
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame was granted to Cleveland in the early
1980's, and funding for that came from private donations to a large
extent, including donations from Art Modell. Again, that money has
been in place for YEARS, and could not have been used for sports
anyway.
That leaves a comparison of Modell's situation to the situations
of the Cavs and Indians. Fact #1 is that he WAS offered a chance to
get in on the same deal. He refused. Fact #2 is that regardless of
what was offered, he had no right to move until AFTER 1998, when his
lease expired. Yes, the city decided to move the Cavs into downtown.
Richfield was originally selected as the site since they THOUGHT it
would draw people from Akron as well as Cleveland. They were wrong.
The Indians were given the same treatment as Modell. If he had
accepted, there would not have been a baseball-only stadium as well.
Theoretically, the Indians could have turned down the offer, Modell
could have accepted, and the result would have been a new football-only
stadium. There's no way of knowing since that didn't happen. Fact #3
is that Modell said he wanted renovations. Trust me, if Modell had gone
public with a statement 'I need a new stadium in order to keep the Browns
in Cleveland. Here's my financial reports. Your politicians are
refusing even to negotiate on a new stadium.', there would have been
a serious push for a new stadium for Modell, and he knows it. Yes,
people would have called Modell a greedy SOB, and they would have
criticized his financial decisions, but if given that ultimatum, the
fans would have forced the city to negotiate as you seem to claim they
never did.
By your own logic, Modell never said anything about the city
refusing to talk about stadium needs until AFTER the move, so I guess
that must mean it didn't happen...

>Cleveland isn't willing to think (which is natural...) that the
>Cleveland officials bungled things up. I kind of feel that this
>sitauation is like the Juwan Howard situation. Washington made Howard
>*several* offers, probably more offers than the other competing teams.
>But, the offers were considerably lower than the other team's. The
>Bullets slowly raised the price from their initial offer, but even
>their final price was still lower than the *original* offer of the
>other teams.

An interesting analogy. Let's take it one step further. The
other 'team' did something against the league rules in both cases, and
only the NBA had the backbone to enforce their rules...

>I think this is similar to the Browns situation. Cleveland, at first,
>gave Modell a very mediocre situation. In "contract" terms, they
>low-balled him. From what you tell me, Modell wasn't willing to
>accept only 55,000 fans in a smaller baseball/football stadium. That
>seems like a reasonable complaint. Name me all the football stadiums
>that hold 55,000 or less. Modell would probably lose money, because
>despite getting consistent sellouts, the mean attendance would be one
>of the *lowest* in the NFL, due to stadium capacity.

Like that matters. The size could have been negotiated. Besides,
Modell claims he was losing money despite one of the LARGEST attendances
in football...

>"Juwan had to do what was the best for Juwan. In this case, it was
>going to the Heat. I thank the Bullets for how they helped my career,
>and I wish them the best of luck."

Of course, Juwan was also legally a free agent. That means his
leaving was well within his rights. Art Modell's actions would more
accurately be related to Howard moving after 5 years out of the 7 year
contract that he signed...

>What was Washington's response to Howard supposedly leaving? Were
>they bashing Howard for being a greedy player? Not at all. From
>listening to WTEM-570 all week when Howard bolted for the Heat, 99% of
>the callers blamed Bullets management (in parallel to Cleveland
>officials) for not giving Juwan the offer that matched the Heat.
>Hardly anyone blamed Juwan for accepting more money.

(See Above)

>I'll have to research this matter a bit more. But, what do you think
>a lease is? It means you have to play your home games in
>such-and-such stadium for 'n' years.

No. A basic lease requires that you pay X dollars for the
use of a property. For example, I currently rent an apartment. I'm
required by my lease to pay $325 a month. There is no statement in my
lease which requires me to LIVE there. Art Modell's 'lease' HAD such a
clause...

>I think you're overrated the purpose of a lease. It's more of a
>stadium issue, not a team issue. Like I said, I'll research the
>matter a bit more.

Please do so. A lease is a legally binding contract, and ALL
parties are required to comply with ALL of the terms of the lease. Any
violation of ANY clause is a breach of contract.

>So, you're saying it's totally Cleveland's choice to what Modell does?
>From what you have in your parentheses, does that mean Cleveland let
>Modell out of his lease when the deal was struck?

Yes. Once the deal was struck, Cleveland agreed to not enforce
the terms of the lease. In essence, they allowed Modell to violate the
lease.

>Not to praise Modell, though. Why would they report an
>unsubstantiated rumor saying Modell didn't do so bad after all, after
>crucifying him in the paper previously? That would be embarrassing to
>your paper.

Because if Modell demanded a new stadium it would: (1) make
Modell look like a greedy SOB, and (2) have an extreme relevance to
Cleveland Sports. Both make it newsworthy in Cleveland.

>Whoah... I might agree with you that Houston and TB don't have the
>best fan support, but to say that the Seahawks did. Come on! The
>Seahawks had *never* drawn great amount of crowds in the KingDome, and
>you put them in a class with Cleveland? I mean, Los Angeles is a
>*much* better city for football (attendance-wise); it's not like
>Behring was moving them to Nashville.

Read my post again. I said I supported Seattle because their
fans came to us with an organized plan and asked us to help. I said
that from their lack of actions, the fans in Tampa and Houston apparently
don't care enough to DO something about it. I never said Seattle drew
great crowds...

>> and
>>yet there is no organized objection from either Tampa or Houston.

>Not much objection from Seattle, either, yet many of you add to your
>"resume" that "I was a part of Save our Seahawks". The Seahawks had
>about the same *attendance* as the Oilers did. That is a fact. I
>think the only time the Seahawks fans showed more anger over possibly
>losing their team was on the 'Net. And that was based on about 8-10
>fans.

And there haven't even been that many Houston fans that have
publicly asked me for help, on the internet, in the papers, in the
media, or in any other way that I can be contacted...

elizabeth ann coulter

unread,

Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96

I know Art Modell isnt the greatest owner in the world and David is a
total jerk, but the reason the Browns are gone is because of Mayor
White. Art Modell did do alot in charities and such for Cleveland. The
Indians were the joke and got a new place. Caviliers were ok,but no way
did they cause bigtime excietment and they got plenty. Die hard Browns
fans thought the stadium was great but it was the joke of the nfl. If
White stood up for the Browns when he needed to the Browns fans would
be bitching about the head coach right now. I work for gov and believe
me there was plenty said for along time before they left behind closed
doors and White and certain councelmen were there. I dont care for
Modell, but he was forced to leave and with a new stadium and team
Cleveland football will be alot better off then if they staid and David
Modell takes over.

DawgDave99

unread,

Aug 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/13/96

In article <4uokrg$q...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu
(Glenn Channell) writes:

> Or, did the lease, as in the
>Cleveland lease, have a clause which required ALL of the home games to
>be played in the stadium? Modell's lease had the latter.

Not only that, but there was language in the agreement, that said that the
city of Cleveland had to give permission for the lease to be broken.

DD99

Mike Bogdan

unread,

Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96

joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) wrote:

Ok, Josh and Glenn, I'm throwing in my two cents.

[Note: I'm deleting as I go, responding as I please]

>chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Glenn Channell) wrote:

>>joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>It was possible, but it sounds very inconvenient. The proposed
>renovations (as posted here by KBear 4, whom I thank) sound like more
>of a wishful thinking plan, more than a realistic plan. IMO, you
>could make Municipal Stadium look relatively nice in comparison with
>what the original CMS looked like, but it still wouldn't meet up to
>the standards for today's modern outside stadiums.

Josh, I heard that these renovations were pretty radical. Tearing down
most of CMS and rebuilding it. The foundation would stay. CMS would look
brand new on the outside.

And gee, what are stadium standards today, Josh? Club seats, PSLs, and
loges. This is where the money is, not just by having 78,000 screaming
fans in the place. We pretty much proved that.

>Also, where would the Browns play if Municipal Stadium was being so
>greatly renovated? Is there another stadium capable of handling
>60,000+ football fans in the Cleveland metro. area. Based on what K
>Bear 4 posted about the immense renovations, you'd think that it would
>take a long time to complete, and it would have to be closed to the
>public.

Ohio State. They've got a nice 90,000 seat horseshoe I'm sure would be
sold out even though it's in Columbus. We love our football in Ohio.

Note to Josh: The new stadium will be built on the same site as CMS.

>>>Actually, I *asked* you (actually, I asked Glenn) what exactly
>>>happened, since I didn't feel as educated as Browns fans would. And
>>>he told me the information about what Cleveland offered Modell. My
>>>comments have mostly been related to the information I have received.

>> And he's referring to your assertion that Modell asked for a new
>>stadium. He did, but AFTER he announced the relocation.

>And I'm saying, how do you know that? There have been *many*
>reports, not just in Baltimore, but nationally, that Modell had
>mentioned to Cleveland officials, that he would like a new stadium.

Please, I want to see the proof. I know for a fact the man did not ask for
a new stadium. 1991: Renovate.

>Perhaps it wasn't financially possible for Cleveland to do at the time
>-- especially, with the Gund and RAR hall-of Fame -- so, they asked
>Modell to consider renovating. (This is part speculation -- but it
>seems more likely that it was a *joint* agreement that they would
>concentrate on renovating CMS, not just Modell's decision.)

Accepted as speculation. Who knows what the man has said to your press
about his past.

> He apparently accepted, since the city of Cleveland had basically told
>Modell that he'd be guaranteed a "better" stadium, but not until we
>finish Gund, JF, Rock-and Roll- HAll of Fame, since he didn't want to
>be part of the Gateway Project (which I have stated would be a big
>mistake for the city of Cleveland). And negotiations (which, BTW,
>involves cash going to Modell) obviously weren't going the way Modell
>wanted it. He [probably] felt that with all the time Cleveland took
>to make sure they had other nice attractions, he was getting a raw
>deal. Cleveland wasn't giving him all the amenities that they had
>given the other attractions. And the Cleveland officials, *including*
>Mayor White, have basically admitted to this.

I want to see proof of Mayor White admitting this.

Josh, you need a history lesson on the City of Cleveland. The city started
the Gateway project (Jacobs field and Gund) back in 84. The city won the
Rock Hall of Fame in 86. Arthur B. Modell has known about these projects
for a very long time. He just didn't wake up one day and say to Pat,
"They're neglecting me!!!" I'm sure he could have worked out something in
a decade. And this was when we were high on the Bernie Kosar years. We
would have thrown gobs of money at the man.

Geographical note to Josh: The Cavs played in a place called Richfield,
which is nowhere near Cleveland. It's actually closer to Akron. Don't you
think the Cleveland Cavaliers should be playing in Cleveland? They did
before they moved out to Richfield. Time to welcome the team back home.

[Even though, IMO, Gund SUCKS as an arena - been there twice in the club
seats, which were too small for me, and I'm 5' 8".]

>What I don't get is when Modell is publicly blasting the Cleveland
>government (on ESPN, and other national media outlets), why Cleveland
>officials don't come out and say, "Yo, Art! Stop the lying, will
>you?" *Never* has any Cleveland official said something like this.
>This would lead me (or anyone) to indicate that they *indeed* weren't
>nearly as generous to Art Modell as they were to the other
>stadiums/museums that were being created in the '80s/'90s.

Why stoop to his level? Come on, White's a politician, he wants to move
on. Besides, Art's lies are so obvious it's pathetic. The man must be
going senile.

>Cleveland isn't willing to think (which is natural...) that the
>Cleveland officials bungled things up.

Of course they bungled things up. Hindsight is 20/20. They should have
built the man a stadium first. Who cares if the Indians almost left town
once or twice?

I'm tired of seeing erroneous numbers. The Gateway stadium would have had
over 60,000 seats, 20,000 which were retractable for baseball use. They
even built all the pilings necessary, just in case someone changes their
mind in the future about Jacobs field.

See way above. Attendance does not equal revenue. PSL's, Club seats, and
loges are the revenue these days. Hell, why not build a whole stadium of
loges? Only 10,000 would see it in person, but so what - it will be on TV
anyway and the owner would be loaded.

>Then, Cleveland upped the offer a little bit, but I think Modell felt
>the negotiations weren't going anywhere, and Cleveland didn't offer
>what Modell wanted. During these [long-term] "snags", Baltimore comes
>along, and says, "Hey! We see Cleveland's giving you a lot of
>problems with this stadium thing. We'll give you a new stadium, [with
>same fan support; implied], and give you a cash-packed deal, which
>will guarantee you will make money." Modell thinks, "Hey... I gave
>Cleveland my chance. They haven't offered me a reasonable contract,
>and Baltimore (in their *first* try) gave me a great offer! I might
>as well move!"

Josh, here is a clue. Modell has been on the expansion committee for
years. He knew, out of anyone, all of the deals that came out of
Baltimore. He saw the pie and took it. Moag admitted to "targeting" the
Cleveland franchise in 2/95, with Glendenning's approval.

>I think this applies for Art Modell, as well. Art Modell had to do
>what was best for Art Modell. He went bankrupt in Cleveland, and
>still stayed there.

He was bankrupt for one reason and one reason only: Arthur B. Modell. He
might have been a slick NY TV advertiser, but when it comes to running a
team he blew it.

Josh, I will repost a 12/24/95 article which outlines the business history
of Art Modell and the Clevenad Browns. Please read it.

==========================
Michael Bogdan
bogd...@egr.msu.edu

Watch Dawg

unread,

Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96

In article <4ug1j6$e...@news2.cais.com>, joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) wrote:

(snip)

I snipped the bit about whether or not Baltimore or Cleveland can pack more
fans into a stadium. Both are solid football towns. Neither should have
been abandoned.

JK stated:

>>>But, unfortunately, a Modell-type owner, is the norm in the NFL today.
>>>As "GreedWatch" posted recently, most owners are greedy, and would do
>>>the same [as Modell did] if they were offered a better deal. I'm glad
>>>Glenn pointed this out, because [I think; correct me if I'm wrong]
>>>many of you said that Cleveland gave him an equally nice deal.

Hmmm, I'm not sure you get it.

A couple of things here:

1. There are about 8-10 owners in the NFL who, I think, would do the same
thing as Modell. Mike Brown is an obvious counter-example in that he gave
Cincy the ability to match the offer. Paul Allen is giving Seattle a
chance, etc, etc. In both cases, the demand for a new stadium borders on
inexcusable, but at least the fans are given a choice whether to pay the
blackmail. Modell was never "up front" with the fans.

2. I regard it as highly questionable that moving to Baltimore is a "better
deal" for Modell in anything other than the short-term. He loses the 200
Browns Backers clubs who bought tickets wherever the Browns went. After a
surge in Baltimore, sales of related items will diminish as well. Read the
Reichard article on Greedwatch for more details. No insult to Baltimore,
but the Browns fan base (built over 40 years) is an irreplaceable asset.

3. Such moves are clearly NOT in the long-term interest of the NFL. Take a
look at Houston, Seattle and Oakland if you want examples of how the NFL is
taking a hit due to either real or threatened franchise movement. It may be
a "better deal", but only for the next few years and only for Modell - not
for the NFL. It was an act of desperation. The desperation was caused by
the ineptitude of Art Modell.

4 . The "deal" was only a part of the reason that Modell moved. The logic
of business does not really apply to the NFL. It's as much about egomania
and unrestrainted monopolistic greed as anything else. Modell moved in part
due to:

- Inheritance taxes
- Jealousy regarding the Indians
- Negative press
- A low opinion of his pinhead son

A lot went into this, and to say that Modell simply took the "better deal"
(and his move is acceptable as a result) is a bit of a stretch.

>>>Oh, come on. How will Modell "screw" Baltimore? Seriously. Many
>>>Browns fans have said that, "you'll [Baltimoreans] see what Modell
>>>will do to you; just like he did to us." What exactly do you think
>>>Art Modell will do to "screw" Baltimore?

Modell has already screwed Baltimore, although it will take a while for the
fact to sink in. Yes, Modell is basically inept. Yes, David Modell will
make Georgia Frontiere look like George Halas. Other equally inept owners
will be less damaging because they are less meddlesome.

But what Modell has really done is to put a dark cloud over the rebirth of
Baltimore football. He has damaged Baltimore by association. Regardless of
how many Baltimoreans publicly declare their adortation for Modell, the
simple fact is that Modell is almost universally loathed.

When Baltimore got their football team back, did you expect the public to
greet you with open arms? Or with a sneer, scathing editorials, and an
attitude approaching contempt. You should have had the former. You appear
to have the latter. This, in the long term, will not help Baltimore.

>>>Of course, my feeling from discussing this issue with you is that if
>>>the Bucs (or any other team with a cash-hungry owner) move to
>>>Cleveland, you'll support them.,,, Would you have a lack of morals?

This is a standard argument from Baltimore.

It all depends on how it's done, my friend. Will the Tampa fans have had a
chance to decide for themselves whether or not to give in to extortion? If
the answer is yes, the ground rules just changed.

There is one thing I can promise: if an owner betrays his hometown and
comes to Cleveland, he will recieve nothing close to the bizarre adoration
which has been given to Modell in Baltimore. As long as you're quoting
"Greedwatch" be clear that I've consistently expressed disbelief over how
Baltimore has accepted this facsimile of Bob Irsay.

The NFL watches Baltimore, and concludes that they can stomp on the fans as
much as they want. Let's just hope that the lesson to the NFL is in LA and
Houston, and not in Baltimore. I fear that it will be the latter.

Watch Dawg

G R E E D W A T C H
http://www.greedwatch.com
The Definitive Web Site for the New NFL

John Lansford

unread,

Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96

joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) wrote:

>I was talking about *baseball* stadiums, John. The new design for
>baseball (and baseball-only) stadiums were designed in the late '80s.
>So, this football *and* baseball stadium was already obsolete in 1989.

IMO it's a stupid idea for cities to fork out millions of dollars to
design, build and maintain TWO sports facilities when one has been
shown to work admirably for both. This is not something you can change
my mind on Josh, so I suggest you stop.

>>Every time you claim the Browns' owner moved because of a lack of
>>civic support, it's a disparaging remark.
>
>Who's the "you"? I have *never* said that the Browns fans moved
>because of lack of fan support. I *have* said they moved because of
>lack of political support, and Baltimore would offer Modell the same
>fan support.

Look up the word civic, Josh. You'll see it means pertaining to
cities. I'm glad to hear you never said the fans moved anywhere since
I never said you said that.

>I'd love to have a good argument with you, John, but if you have to
>put words in my mouth, I don't think this is possible.

Considering you keep changing your position after I call you on your
original one, I have to agree.

Are you an engineer, then? Have you surveyed the stadium and know so
much about it you can make such a definite statement? Obviously you
know more than the Browns' owner, the city officials, the engineers
they had survey the stadium, and the taxpayers who voted for a
renovation plan.

I'm now waiting for your qualification to your above statement, since
this is your standard tactic.

This is really silly. You've shown up whenever the fans here begin
discussing the reason the Browns left Cleveland, mouthing the standard
line from the R*vens' current owner. "The city ignored me, I was left
out in the cold" (paraphrased here, not anyone's direct quotes). The
evidence is there and has been discussed and dissected, Josh. Your
statements in defense of the move are not supported by the facts.

>But, this whole situation doesn't make sense. Modell *does* have a
>reason to move; if he got such great fan support, he would have no
>reason to move. There must have been something Modell couldn't stand
>about Baltimore. Negative press, perhaps? I mean, a greedy owner
>*loves* fan support, which in turn, brings in more cash from the gate.
>Explain this to me. *Why* would Modell want to move to Cleveland?
>Was Baltimore a better business deal?

It's called MONEY, Josh. The owner is a greedy bastard who ran out on
the fans he screwed for 35 years, because he felt he wasn't being
treated like he SHOULD be. Even though he never communicated to them
how he WANTED to be treated.

>>>Hmm... maybe because I am a fan, just not a die-hard Ravens fan. And
>>>I like the Patriots and Redskins more than the Ravens. And to make
>>>sure people know the truth -- not biased Cleveland opinions -- about
>>>the Ravens move.
>
>>The "truth" from the Ravens' owner! What a concept! Go peddle your
>>snakeoil to gullible people in the Ravens' topic, Josh.
>
>I *love* it when Mr. Lansford's message is mostly composed of personal
>bashing. It's just another way to avoid the facts.

My message is "mostly composed of personal bashing"? Go read bighits'
comments to see one you describe. I sneer at your attempts to revise
Browns' history to Cleveland fans. Obviously you are repudiating your
own comment above (about only trying to "learn" more about the Browns'
move); now you are claiming our position is "biased Cleveland
opinions".

I suggest you go take your propaganda to the Ravens' newsgroup, where
I"m sure you will find a whole nest full of people eager to accept
your positions.

>>Since it isn't "too hard", why don't you provide examples?
>
>Here goes:
>
>Quebec (Nordiques)
>Brooklyn (Dodgers)
>Washington (Senators)
>LA Raiders/Rams
>Bears speculating to move to Gary, Ind.
>Orioles in their move to OPACY
>Ditto for Texas Rangers
>Kansas City A's --> Oakland
>Phillies move from Shibe Park to Veterans Stadium
>Ditto for Pittsburgh from Forbes Field to 3 Rivers
>
>*All* these selected teams had leases with their original stadium.
>Good enough for you, John?

Glenn refuted the majority of these moves already. I won't bore the
readers here with the same thing. Suffice it to say that most of these
moves are either ancient history or within their home city. Big deal.

>
>> Had renovation of the existing one been possible and it met my
>>needs, that would have been acceptable as well. Considering that the
>>owner claimed that renovation was acceptable and he NEVER mentioned a
>>new stadium before he moved, I do not fault the city for only
>>providing what they thought he wanted.
>
>Okay, see above. Were you a Cleveland official when the stadium
>situation was being negotiated? That's what I love about many people
>(on the 'Net, esp.). They say they *know* about the situation based
>on loose media reports. And then, they draw conclusions from the
>media reports. Is it *possible* that Cleveland privately told Modell
>that (after Modell turned down the Gateway Project) he'd have to
>accept renovation to Municipal Stadium? Yes. Maybe not likely, but
>possible. Yet, you're not even willing to look at that possiblility
>because of your *Cleveland* Browns background.

Oh, I see. A conspiracy theorist. You do not believe what the media
tells you ---when it suits you to do so---. Spare me this rhetoric.

>It might be a stretch, but IMO, it's a strong possibility.

And because the facts don't fit your theory, you throw them all out.
At no time did the owner threaten to move the team; why would the
newspapers hide vital information from the readers during this time
otherwise? He had supporters among the media; no one reported your
fantasy of what "really" happened.

In the face of the facts, you invent something that fits your theory.

We don't
>*know* what went on during the negotiations. FWIW, we also don't know
>what goes on in Modell's mind. He might have considered moving the
>team 15 years ago, but he decided not to. We don't know.

We also don't "know" men have walked on the moon. We also don't "know"
who shot JFK. But, in the world of Josh, we can't "believe" these
historical events because the MEDIA reported them and WE WEREN'T
THERE!!

>>>>Chris Warren.
>>>>The Patriots' rookie RB last year.
>>>
>>>Ever heard of Bruce Armstrong?
>
>>Armstrong makes up the entire offensive line for the Patriots? Wow,
>>what a big man.
>
>It's called 'running through holes'. Your offensive line doesn't just
>make one *huge* hole.

Go look at Dallas and then revise your statement.
BTW, most running plays aren't "hand the ball to the RB and let him
find his own hole". They are designed to make a hole in one specific
place. Just because Armstrong is on the Patriots' line means one good
player is there. It took 5 good men to make a good offensive line last
time I looked.

>>>>Larry Centers
>>>Rushing-wise?
>
>>1000 yards rushing a few years ago. On a team that barely won 7 games.
>
>A few years ago, with a pretty decent o-line. I'm talking about good
>o-line's *now*, and in comparison with RBs *now*.

Why should we do this? Isn't 1993 recent enough for you?

>>>>The Falcons' RB last year
>>>Ironhead Heyward? Pretty mediocre rusher, if you ask me.
>
>>I believe he ran for over 1000 yards last year.
>
>Look at yds/carry. That's more indicative of a RBs skills in relation
>to an offensive line.

More revisions of your original position. Keep it up, Josh, you might
find a position you like eventually.

>>>One out of 30 RBs. I think that proves my point.
>
>>You only wanted one. I gave you four. I think that disproves your
>>point. Go enjoy your Baltimore team; you can prove nothing here but
>>your ignorance.
>

> I'd like to talk about
>Modell's business moves in a polite, non-flaming manner. If you're
>unwilling to do that, I guess your argument is pretty worthless.

No, you wanted ONE running back behind a mediocre offensive line. I
gave you four. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you just abandon
the position. As for discussing the move, I'd say go read some
pre-move info on the owner and then come back here.

John Lansford

Glenn Channell

unread,

Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96

Joshua Kraushaar <joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com> writes:

>DawgDave99 wrote:
>>
>> In article <4uokrg$q...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu
>> (Glenn Channell) writes:
>>

>> > Or, did the lease, as in the
>> >Cleveland lease, have a clause which required ALL of the home games to
>> >be played in the stadium? Modell's lease had the latter.
>>

>> Not only that, but there was language in the agreement, that said that the
>> city of Cleveland had to give permission for the lease to be broken.
>>

>Which (as Glenn stated), the city of Cleveland did, after he announced
>his move.

>--

>Joshua Kraushaar
>joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com

That's not what I said. I said as a point of fact, that the city
agreed not to press charges once the deal was struck, and that as part
of the deal, Modell was allowed out of the lease. That's NOT the same
thing as allowing him out of the lease following the announcement. They
never gave permission to break the lease, but they DID agree not to contest
the broken lease. Those are not the same...

Joshua Kraushaar

unread,

Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96

DawgDave99 wrote:
>
> In article <4uokrg$q...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu
> (Glenn Channell) writes:
>

> > Or, did the lease, as in the
> >Cleveland lease, have a clause which required ALL of the home games to
> >be played in the stadium? Modell's lease had the latter.
>

ArtBtz

unread,

Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96

Somewhere deep within an imitation of James Michener, Joshua wrote:

>a little, when now I agree with much of what they say. Ditto for one
>message, I sent on aspfcb in early-June. I have regretted it totally.
>No, no one is bitter about the ocassional flames I posted in rsbb (a
>while ago), and hopefully ArtBtz forgives me for calling him a
>"blithering idiot",

I forgive you. I've never blithered, and I think most people here know
this.

> but it just doesn't look good when you flame
>someone. It demeans your total argument. Now, sarcasm is another
>issue! )

It depends. There were a lot of people on ASFPB who I flamed and I had
absolutely no regrets. Others, like yourself and Camden, could roll with
the punches and actually attempt to discuss the issues. But for everyone
like those two, there is always a Goose or Bernie who merit and receive
nothing but the nicest warm flames. Let's face it, without the humor value
of seeing a genuine Baltigloater getting nuked, this group wouldn't have
nearly the entertainment value it has.

ArtBtz
Somewhere, Torch is falling off his chair

Watch Dawg

unread,

Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96

In article <4upuud$n...@news.cps.udayton.edu>, dha...@cps.udayton.edu (Douglas Hayden) wrote:

>Actually, I do know Mike Brown decided to do everything he could to keep
>the Bengals down south. Now Cincy will keep their team and get a new
>stadium out of the deal. I think there were a couple others that
>Baltimore tried to court. Yo Watch Dawg, can ya lend a hand? :)

Sure, Baltimore brought in a number of owners and laid out all that cash in
front of them. Malcolm Glazer was another owner who expressed a great deal
of interest in the Baltimore deal. However, most of these owners strangely
felt some sort of responsbility to their existing fan base, so they
returned to their home towns and were honest with the citizenry about what
they intended to do.

Baltimore, thwarted in their attempts to swipe a team, looked high and low
for an owner who did not feel the need to give fans in his home town a
chance to retain the club. They found him in Art Modell, who specifically
stated that he would not negotiate with Cleveland officials.

>: >(FWIW, I don't see any Bud Adams bashers in this ng...)

Then you would be happy to know that Bud the Rug Man is a proud member of
our "Target Owner List" at Greedwatch.

>: I don't know the specifics of the Oilers situation. I DO know,
>: however, that THAT IS NOT OUR FIGHT!!! No one from Houston came and asked
>: us to help, and from what I've seen, they haven't fought for their team.
>: That lends Bud Adams' claims of no support some credibility. The bottom
>: line, however, is that if the people of Houston don't care, why should we?
>
>Whatever Houston's doing must be right - I really thought the Oilers
>would be in Nashville before the Modells wound up in Baltimore. Any
>news on the Oilers, WD?

Houston is systematically torturing the NFL. Cleveland was caught by
surprise at Modell's treachery. Houston is basically planting a foot on
Adams neck for the next two years and will then apply a boot forcibly to
his backside as he leaves town.

The thing to remember about Bud is that he played the stadium extortion
game about eight years ago. He threatened to move the team to Jacksonville
and Houston ponied up $60 million in Astrodome improvements. $50 million of
that remains to be paid for. Bud then demands a new stadium.

The mayor of Houston, and citizens apparently, told Adams to get stuffed
the second time around. Adams then found someone willing to pay out his
blackmail fee. Now that Nashville has voted for the stadium tax, it is
simply a matter of time for Adams to play out the lease.

Nashville, though, will not be starting on the Stadium until they know what
is happening with Martin Hoke's bill in Congress. Tennessee politicos are
fighting the bill, which Newt Gingrich will be sending to the House floor
in September. We had some fun last week with a Nashville web site which had
a page blasting the Hoke's bill. We sort of did to their guest book what we
did to the State of Maryland's several months ago.

Watch Dawg

unread,

Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96

joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) wrote:

This is not the case. The engineers in charge of stadium renovation stated
that the team could continue to play in CMS while the renovations were
completed. Oakland provides an example of where this has been done. The
prospect of playing in Ohio Stadium only came up when Modell suddenly
started demanding a brand new stadium.

Joshua Kraushaar

unread,

Aug 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/14/96

Glenn Channell wrote:

>
> Joshua Kraushaar <joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com> writes:
>
> >DawgDave99 wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <4uokrg$q...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu
> >> (Glenn Channell) writes:
> >>

> >> > Or, did the lease, as in the
> >> >Cleveland lease, have a clause which required ALL of the home games to
> >> >be played in the stadium? Modell's lease had the latter.
> >>

> >> Not only that, but there was language in the agreement, that said that the
> >> city of Cleveland had to give permission for the lease to be broken.
> >>
>
> >Which (as Glenn stated), the city of Cleveland did, after he announced
> >his move.
>
> >--
>
> >Joshua Kraushaar
> >joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com
>

> That's not what I said. I said as a point of fact, that the city
> agreed not to press charges once the deal was struck, and that as part
> of the deal, Modell was allowed out of the lease. That's NOT the same
> thing as allowing him out of the lease following the announcement. They
> never gave permission to break the lease, but they DID agree not to contest
> the broken lease. Those are not the same...

Glenn, do you know any of the details *why* they decided not to
press charges? If they decided to press charges, would they have
had a good chance of winning the case, or was it too late? What
made Cleveland decided to give Modell permission to break the lease?
It seems to me that Modell had the right to "break" the lease, so
Cleveland didn't contest it. Of course, I may be off on this, since
I don't know the details. Did Cleveland officials publicly comment
on why they didn't contest the lease?

By reading some of these comments (and very good ones, BTW), this
almost seems like reading the stories about the Juwan Howard situation.
I just used that as an example, in another post, but I could analogize
*many* of the situations that happened in Cleveland, that happened with Juwan
Howard and the Heat/Bullets/NBA.

Why I mention this now, is because just if the Heat took
the NBA to arbitration, many experts felt they had a fair
shot at winning the arbitration hearing (at least on Alonzo).
I was wondering if Cleveland had any doubts about winning the
(if they took it that far) lease dispute, which would
[I assume] keep the Browns in Cleveland. Or was at that time,
Cleveland so disgusted with Modell, that they decided to let him
go, and hope they'd get a new team in the future(which they did)?

in Cleveland?

Joshua Kraushaar

unread,

Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96

jo...@vnet.net (John Lansford) wrote:

>joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) wrote:

>>I was talking about *baseball* stadiums, John. The new design for
>>baseball (and baseball-only) stadiums were designed in the late '80s.
>>So, this football *and* baseball stadium was already obsolete in 1989.

>IMO it's a stupid idea for cities to fork out millions of dollars to
>design, build and maintain TWO sports facilities when one has been
>shown to work admirably for both. This is not something you can change
>my mind on Josh, so I suggest you stop.

Okay, guess you haven't been paying attention the last 10 years in
sports business. The history of baseball and football stadiums
together are *obsolete*. O-B-S-O-L-O-T-E. Obsolete. It's not a
matetr of changing your mind, John. It's a well-known fact.

>>>Every time you claim the Browns' owner moved because of a lack of
>>>civic support, it's a disparaging remark.
>>
>>Who's the "you"? I have *never* said that the Browns fans moved
>>because of lack of fan support. I *have* said they moved because of
>>lack of political support, and Baltimore would offer Modell the same
>>fan support.

>Look up the word civic, Josh. You'll see it means pertaining to
>cities. I'm glad to hear you never said the fans moved anywhere since
>I never said you said that.

Peratating to the two *cities*, Cleveland and Baltimore, Baltimore
offered the better deal. Whether Modell is loyal or not, is a
separate issue. (He was in Cleveland for *35* years...)

>>I'd love to have a good argument with you, John, but if you have to
>>put words in my mouth, I don't think this is possible.

>Considering you keep changing your position after I call you on your
>original one, I have to agree.

Quote me, John, where I have changed my position. It's *easy* to say
it, but it's much, much, harder to prove it.

>Are you an engineer, then? Have you surveyed the stadium and know so
>much about it you can make such a definite statement?

From listening to national media (ESPN, AP, local *Washington* media
outlets), the players on those media outlets, and fellow NFL owners.
Also, I have brought up the point as to where the Browns would play
during that renovation. Glenn had said it would *not* be in the
Cleveland metro area.

> Obviously you
>know more than the Browns' owner,

doesn't take much...

> the city officials, the engineers
>they had survey the stadium, and the taxpayers who voted for a
>renovation plan.

Obviously, it's possible. It's *very* inconvenient, though. Think of
it logically, John. New stadium, which would allow Modell to play in
CMS during the building of the new stadium, or renovation, which
wouldn't have made the stadium nearly as nice as a new stadium would,
*and* it would force the Browns to play in Canton (possibly), and
severely impact the Browns attendance.

>I'm now waiting for your qualification to your above statement, since
>this is your standard tactic.

Gosh, you can't stop flaming, can you? Glenn has been answering my
questions logically, so has ArtBtz. You just have anger problems, or
do you? We may disagree, but I believe we can discuss this issue
rationally, which *isn't* what you're doing.

>This is really silly. You've shown up whenever the fans here begin
>discussing the reason the Browns left Cleveland, mouthing the standard
>line from the R*vens' current owner. "The city ignored me, I was left
>out in the cold" (paraphrased here, not anyone's direct quotes). The
>evidence is there and has been discussed and dissected, Josh. Your
>statements in defense of the move are not supported by the facts.

Hey, that's what we've been discussing. Dissecting Modell's comments,
and perform a so-called "reality check" on them. Like I've said,
Modell clearly isn't telling the whole story, but I think he does have
valid points, which Browns fans are just dismissing, based on their
hatred of Art Modell.

>>But, this whole situation doesn't make sense. Modell *does* have a
>>reason to move; if he got such great fan support, he would have no
>>reason to move. There must have been something Modell couldn't stand
>>about Baltimore. Negative press, perhaps? I mean, a greedy owner
>>*loves* fan support, which in turn, brings in more cash from the gate.
>>Explain this to me. *Why* would Modell want to move to Cleveland?
>>Was Baltimore a better business deal?

>It's called MONEY, Josh. The owner is a greedy bastard

Bidwell, Adams, Behring, Fronteire. What makes them better than
Modell?

> who ran out on
>the fans he screwed for 35 years,

Thirty-five years is quite a long time. And he gave you *a lot* of
winning seasons. I know you didn't win many Super Bowls, but you had
been a consistently solid team. I'm more of a baseball guy, and don't
have many football statistics handy. Does anyone know what the mean
winning percentage of the Browns was since 1961?

> because he felt he wasn't being
>treated like he SHOULD be. Even though he never communicated to them
>how he WANTED to be treated.

How do *you* know? Stadium negotiations are not public, in any way at
all. Care to tell me the specifics of the baseball labor
negotiations? How 'bout the Juwan Howard negotiations? What did
Juwan tell to Curtis Polk?

>>>>Hmm... maybe because I am a fan, just not a die-hard Ravens fan. And
>>>>I like the Patriots and Redskins more than the Ravens. And to make
>>>>sure people know the truth -- not biased Cleveland opinions -- about
>>>>the Ravens move.
>>
>>>The "truth" from the Ravens' owner! What a concept! Go peddle your
>>>snakeoil to gullible people in the Ravens' topic, Josh.
>>
>>I *love* it when Mr. Lansford's message is mostly composed of personal
>>bashing. It's just another way to avoid the facts.

>My message is "mostly composed of personal bashing"? Go read bighits'
>comments to see one you describe.

Whenever you compare your messages to "bighits", that tells you
something. Yes, *of course* your message sounds like praise compared
to some of BigHits material. But, relative to all of UseNet, esp.
sports NGs, you are basing your substance more on personal attacks,
rather than facts. Did you count how many times I had to delete your
flames in the last message?

> I sneer at your attempts to revise
>Browns' history to Cleveland fans.

It's not revising Browns history. Hell, I've mainly only talked about
the stadium negotiations, and how you might not know the whole story.
Once again, it's great for you to make a statement like this, but
where's the proof? Can you quote me as to where I revised Browns
history?

> Obviously you are repudiating your
>own comment above (about only trying to "learn" more about the Browns'
>move); now you are claiming our position is "biased Cleveland
>opinions".

Obviously, there's a difference between the two. When I said, they
were "biased Cleveland opinions", I said it in reference to the theory
that if you lose a team, you're *rarely* going to admit, "Oh, well,
Modell did the right decision.". I mean, if someone moved the Orioles
out of town, I'd be furious at the Orioles [hypothetical] owner. I
wouldn't even consider that it was possible that the owner made a good
business decision. I just wouldn't be able to admit it.

Likewise, I realize that you have a better general knowledge about the
Browns than people from out-of-town, like myself, do. I mean, you've
taught me a lot of things that I didn't know about the Browns move. I
mean, about three months ago, I posted a message full of mistakes,
since I really didn't know all the details of what led to the Browns
move. You guys (or at least, most of you) have educated me. For that
I thank you. We will still disagree, though.

(Side note: When I first started to watch baseball, and I saw posts
on rsbb that, "Griffey is a very mediocre fielder", I thought they
were mad. I posted a response message that basically said, "How can
you come to that conclusion? You must be crazy! All the media people
say that he's the best! Why the heck would they lie?" But, after
reading rsbb for a while now, and looking at all the facts, I realize
that *I* was the one who made a mistake, and now I use factual data to
back up my opinions, not just "what Peter Gammons said".

To make a long story short, I learned how to apply factual data (IOW,
statistics) to apply to baseball. Now, whomever says Guillen or
Griffey is a superior defensive player, I show them the stats, and ask
them why.

I mean, Glenn can surely attest to this, as I have just posted
analysis on Strawberry/Belle, and other things, as well as the lengthy
Vizquel/Ripken debate.

In essence, this side note means that

a) I'm willing to change my opinion, after looking at the facts
b) you should try to look at the whole picture, despite what
the media tells you. Trust me, they're often wrong.
c) And.. don't flame. I believe that I flamed some people (on rsbb),

a little, when now I agree with much of what they say. Ditto for one
message, I sent on aspfcb in early-June. I have regretted it totally.
No, no one is bitter about the ocassional flames I posted in rsbb (a
while ago), and hopefully ArtBtz forgives me for calling him a

"blithering idiot", but it just doesn't look good when you flame

someone. It demeans your total argument. Now, sarcasm is another
issue! )

I really don't expect you to say Modell was a good man who made a good
business decision. But, I hope that you look at the "whole" picture.
I mean, from all the facts I've received, including from Browns fans,
Cleveland didn't treat him in the best way. I've already detailed why
I believe this. Now, if Modell was a very good, sincere owner,
obviously he would have stayed with the loyal fans of Cleveland.
Obviously, he wasn't. But, I strongly belive (along with WatchDawg,
at least I think..) that many NFL owner would have done the same thing
(bolt to Baltimore) if they were put in the same situation.

Also, we don't know all the goings-on that happened in the stadium
negotiations. Is it possible the city of Cleveland asked Modell to
accept renovation instead of a new stadium, which would have costed
more money? Yes, it's *possible*. But, you are apparently dismissing
this theory.

>I suggest you go take your propaganda to the Ravens' newsgroup, where
>I"m sure you will find a whole nest full of people eager to accept
>your positions.

Read my side note please, John. Propaganda, sheesh..

>>>Since it isn't "too hard", why don't you provide examples?
>>
>>Here goes:
>>
>>Quebec (Nordiques)
>>Brooklyn (Dodgers)
>>Washington (Senators)
>>LA Raiders/Rams
>>Bears speculating to move to Gary, Ind.
>>Orioles in their move to OPACY
>>Ditto for Texas Rangers
>>Kansas City A's --> Oakland
>>Phillies move from Shibe Park to Veterans Stadium
>>Ditto for Pittsburgh from Forbes Field to 3 Rivers
>>
>>*All* these selected teams had leases with their original stadium.
>>Good enough for you, John?

>Glenn refuted the majority of these moves already.

Do you have to lie again? Glenn did no such thing. Want proof? Here
goes. Here's Glenn's response. My notes are (JK - message)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Here goes:

>Quebec (Nordiques)
>Brooklyn (Dodgers)
>Washington (Senators)
>LA Raiders/Rams

I don't know the specifics of each of these moves, so I'll

accept your assertion that they all had valid leases at the time.

(JK- He agreed that these had valid leases.)

The next logical question, however, is the nature of the lease
itself. Did the lease have an escape clause of some sort (minimum
revenue/attendance or whatever)? Was it merely a rental agreement?

(i.e. you must pay X dollars per year) Or, did the lease, as in the

Cleveland lease, have a clause which required ALL of the home games to

be played in the stadium? Modell's lease had the latter. In

addition,
Modell's attempt to circumvent the lease by having his Stadium Corp.
allow the Browns out of the lease was not legal since the lease ALSO
had a clause giving the city the right to veto any cancellation of the
lease...

(JK - I did some preliminary research, and it seems that a lease is a
lease. The above leases basically required the team to stay in that
stadium for 'n' years. And they moved before the lease was up. It
appears unconstitutional to hold someone to a lease if they are other
circumstances which affect it. It appears your "team" overrides, the
"lease". I have not confirmed this yet, but talking to Andrew Brandt,
of the 'Business of Sports' on WTEM, and my uncle, who is a lawyer,
this appears to be the conclusion.)

>Bears speculating to move to Gary, Ind.

Speculation--DIDN'T happen...

(JK - Only one which he refuted; FWIW, the stadium lease wasn't a
problem in the specific situation)

>Orioles in their move to OPACY
>Ditto for Texas Rangers
>Kansas City A's --> Oakland
>Phillies move from Shibe Park to Veterans Stadium
>Ditto for Pittsburgh from Forbes Field to 3 Rivers

*ALL* of these 5 are moves within the same city. That raises the

question of with whom the lease was signed. If the lease was between
the
city and the team, obviously the city will allow the team to move from
an
old city-owned stadium to a NEW city-owned stadium. The city of
Cleveland
NEVER let Modell out of his lease (at least until the deal was
struck).

(JK - From my research, it appears that most leases are *stadium*
deals, not city deals. Therefore, these "moves" would be like a team
moving from one stadium to another, out of city.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> I won't bore the
>readers here with the same thing. Suffice it to say that most of these
>moves are either ancient history or within their home city. Big deal.

Guess *you* didn't research the matter, John. It's *not* "suffice it
to say". These moves also broke a lease.

One question to you Browns fans. If Cleveland allowed Modell to break
the lease, what's the problem anyways?

>>
>>> Had renovation of the existing one been possible and it met my
>>>needs, that would have been acceptable as well. Considering that the
>>>owner claimed that renovation was acceptable and he NEVER mentioned a
>>>new stadium before he moved, I do not fault the city for only
>>>providing what they thought he wanted.
>>
>>Okay, see above. Were you a Cleveland official when the stadium
>>situation was being negotiated? That's what I love about many people
>>(on the 'Net, esp.). They say they *know* about the situation based
>>on loose media reports. And then, they draw conclusions from the
>>media reports. Is it *possible* that Cleveland privately told Modell
>>that (after Modell turned down the Gateway Project) he'd have to
>>accept renovation to Municipal Stadium? Yes. Maybe not likely, but
>>possible. Yet, you're not even willing to look at that possiblility
>>because of your *Cleveland* Browns background.

>Oh, I see. A conspiracy theorist. You do not believe what the media
>tells you ---when it suits you to do so---. Spare me this rhetoric.

Do you believe it when Peter Gammons tells you Ken Griffey Jr. is a
"superior fielder". Do you believe it when Harold Reynolds says the
key player the Tribe lost in the Baerga deal was "Alvaro Espinoza --
because of his fiery leadership." Do you believe it when Hawk
Harrelson says Ozzie Guillen ""has a great skill of getting on base."
If you're into copying what the media (or mediots, for that matter)
tells you, you're in for a long ride. Read what I said on my side
note.

Speaking of football: Do you believe it when Phil Simms says, "These
Ravens should look really good this season?" Or when Ken Rosenthal
(Baltimore columnist and yappie) says, "Art Modell had to do what Art
Modell had to do." Didn't think so. :^)

>>It might be a stretch, but IMO, it's a strong possibility.

>And because the facts don't fit your theory, you throw them all out.

The facts *do* fit my theory. That Modell asked for renovation
because that's what the city wanted. *How* do you know that it was
Modell who conceived the plan for CMS renovation? How do you know
Cleveland didn't ask him to consider that to save money -- something
Cleveland was short on because of their past deals with other
attractions?

>At no time did the owner threaten to move the team; why would the
>newspapers hide vital information from the readers during this time
>otherwise? He had supporters among the media; no one reported your
>fantasy of what "really" happened.

No, it was a sudden move when Modell made up his mind. What happened
in the negotiations, John? Probably snags, as in most negotiations.
And Modell obviously felt (as *he* said; he wouldn't lie about his
feelings) that Cleveland didn't make a good stadium offer -- in a
proper amount of time.

The *first* offer Baltimore made was much better than Cleveland's best
offer. Read the analogy about JH I posted in another message.

>In the face of the facts, you invent something that fits your theory.

Well, no. If you want to make it that way, fine. It fits with the
facts. It's a *theory*, nothing else. And just because you don't
like the theory, you're willing to toss it out.

(Sounds like the people who say, "Griffey's defense ROOLZ! No matter
what!)

> We don't
>>*know* what went on during the negotiations. FWIW, we also don't know
>>what goes on in Modell's mind. He might have considered moving the
>>team 15 years ago, but he decided not to. We don't know.

>We also don't "know" men have walked on the moon. We also don't "know"
>who shot JFK. But, in the world of Josh, we can't "believe" these
>historical events because the MEDIA reported them and WE WEREN'T
>THERE!!

Read above on the media. Assuming media reports *all* facts, "Art
Modell had to do what Art Modell had to do". Oh, and the Ravens will
be a very good team, as well.

Like I said before, is Griffey a great defensive center fielder,
because the media reports it that way? Facts contradict the media,
John. Oh BTW, answer the question, John. And look at the facts.
I'll post you Griffey's career DA's if you wish. :^)

>>>>>Chris Warren.
>>>>>The Patriots' rookie RB last year.
>>>>
>>>>Ever heard of Bruce Armstrong?
>>
>>>Armstrong makes up the entire offensive line for the Patriots? Wow,
>>>what a big man.
>>
>>It's called 'running through holes'. Your offensive line doesn't just
>>make one *huge* hole.

>Go look at Dallas and then revise your statement.
>BTW, most running plays aren't "hand the ball to the RB and let him
>find his own hole". They are designed to make a hole in one specific
>place. Just because Armstrong is on the Patriots' line means one good
>player is there. It took 5 good men to make a good offensive line last
>time I looked.

Anyways, the OL for the Ravens is above-average, anyways. Screw that
point, I guess. But if one specific OL is one of the best in the
league, the chances are that the OL wull "block off" the DL a large
percentage of the time. It's not that hard to figure out.

>>>>>Larry Centers
>>>>Rushing-wise?
>>
>>>1000 yards rushing a few years ago. On a team that barely won 7 games.
>>

>>>I believe he ran for over 1000 yards last year.
>>
>>Look at yds/carry. That's more indicative of a RBs skills in relation
>>to an offensive line.

>More revisions of your original position. Keep it up, Josh, you might
>find a position you like eventually.

Okay, John. Quote me. When did I say that total yards were more
indicative of a RB skills than yds/carry? Quote me, go ahead. Or is
this another time where you make up that I lied, just to suit your
fancy?

>>>>One out of 30 RBs. I think that proves my point.
>>
>>>You only wanted one. I gave you four. I think that disproves your
>>>point. Go enjoy your Baltimore team; you can prove nothing here but
>>>your ignorance.
>>
>> I'd like to talk about
>>Modell's business moves in a polite, non-flaming manner. If you're
>>unwilling to do that, I guess your argument is pretty worthless.

>No, you wanted ONE running back behind a mediocre offensive line.

Fine; but do you really think that one running back out of (at least)
30 RBs is very indicative. It's called a fluke. Do you think Gary
Disarcina is a good overall offensive shortstop? You would if you
solely base it on his '95 season.

John, look at the numbers. Compare RBs that move to different teams
w/ better (or worse) offensive lines. Then come back and tell me
your conclusion. Thanks.

> I
>gave you four.

Three of which were factually incorrect.

> Instead of admitting you were wrong, you just abandon
>the position.

Why do you think I'm responding to you? Am I abandoning it? Sheesh..
(I would say he has to go back to grammar class, but then he'd accuse
me of being hypocritical for accusing him of flaming so much.)

Browns Fan Quote of the Week

"The truth is that the Modells did a lot for Cleveland,"

-Terry Pluto, Cleveland columnist
08/11/96

Glenn Channell

unread,

Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96

joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>First of all, I got the message where you sent that article that
>detailed some of the things that Modell did. Thanks for giving me

>What are the differences between PSLs and season tickets? I don't see

I can't believe you just asked that. When you buy a season
ticket, you get into EVERY GAME. When you buy a PSL, you get into
exactly ZERO games. You then ALSO have to buy season tickets. A PSL
is paying for the right to pay for you seats.

>case it was Modell. They weren't specifically targeting taking
>football away from Cleveland.

Moag said they were...

>Agreed. So, why couldn't Cleveland give a lucrative deal like
>Baltimore did? It's business these days. That's another reason why I

How about because the Cleveland politicians have some ethics.
All told, HOW MUCH MONEY did Baltimore throw at Modell? Since they
are essentially getting NO stadium revenue whatsoever, HOW MUCH OF THAT
MONEY WILL THEY GET BACK???

>compare this to the Juwan Howard situation. The Bullets offered Juwan
>$94 million, and he turned it down. People could think, "Geez! $94
>million, and he turned it down! What are they paying these greedy
>players nowadays?" You may think that you gave Modell a good deal, in
>the grand scheme of business, but when you consider Modell was
>bankrupt, he accepted the lucrative Baltimore deal that offered him
>*tons* of money. Sports is a business nowadays, plain and simple.

All right, it's ALLEGEDLY bankrupt. Modell claimed financial
hardship. The city said we don't believe that, open your books.
Modell changed his story. Then, once everything was "settled",
Modell started claiming financial hardship again...

No one really knows whether Modell's finances were as bad as
he claimed. He certainly seemed to have a lot of personal cash...

Glenn Channell

unread,

Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96

Joshua Kraushaar <joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com> writes:

>Glenn Channell wrote:
>>
>> Joshua Kraushaar <joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com> writes:
>>
>> >DawgDave99 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <4uokrg$q...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu
>> >> (Glenn Channell) writes:
>> >>

>> >> > Or, did the lease, as in the
>> >> >Cleveland lease, have a clause which required ALL of the home games to
>> >> >be played in the stadium? Modell's lease had the latter.
>> >>

>> >> Not only that, but there was language in the agreement, that said that the
>> >> city of Cleveland had to give permission for the lease to be broken.
>> >>
>>
>> >Which (as Glenn stated), the city of Cleveland did, after he announced
>> >his move.
>>
>> >--
>>
>> >Joshua Kraushaar
>> >joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com
>>
>> That's not what I said. I said as a point of fact, that the city
>> agreed not to press charges once the deal was struck, and that as part
>> of the deal, Modell was allowed out of the lease. That's NOT the same
>> thing as allowing him out of the lease following the announcement. They
>> never gave permission to break the lease, but they DID agree not to contest
>> the broken lease. Those are not the same...

>Glenn, do you know any of the details *why* they decided not to
>press charges? If they decided to press charges, would they have
>had a good chance of winning the case, or was it too late? What
>made Cleveland decided to give Modell permission to break the lease?
>It seems to me that Modell had the right to "break" the lease, so
>Cleveland didn't contest it. Of course, I may be off on this, since
>I don't know the details. Did Cleveland officials publicly comment
>on why they didn't contest the lease?

Yes. Essentially, the NFL said "You can win the lawsuit.
If that happens you'll have a team for 3 more years until the end
of the lease. Modell will then legally move with our blessings, and
we'll make sure you never get a team again..."

>By reading some of these comments (and very good ones, BTW), this
>almost seems like reading the stories about the Juwan Howard situation.
>I just used that as an example, in another post, but I could analogize
>*many* of the situations that happened in Cleveland, that happened with Juwan
>Howard and the Heat
/Bullets/NBA.

I responded to your Juwan Howard analogy, with my thought on why
the situations are totally different. The key issue was that Howard did
NOT have an existing contract with the Bullets. He was therefore free
to look elsewhere. Modell's leaving would be more akin to Howard leaving
after 5 years of the 7 year contract he just signed...

>Why I mention this now, is because just if the Heat took
>the NBA to arbitration, many experts felt they had a fair
>shot at winning the arbitration hearing (at least on Alonzo).
>I was wondering if Cleveland had any doubts about winning the
>(if they took it that far) lease dispute, which would
>[I assume] keep the Browns in Cleveland. Or was at that time,
>Cleveland so disgusted with Modell, that they decided to let him
>go, and hope they'd get a new team in the future(which they did)?

>in Cleveland?

Winning the lease disput would only keep Modell in Cleveland
until the end of the 1998 season. After that, there would be no contract,
and no legal reason to force him to stay. The city decided it was
better to take the league's offer and guarantee a team by 1999 than
to have 3 years of lame-duck football followed by 20 years of nothing.

Joshua Kraushaar

unread,

Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96

First of all, I got the message where you sent that article that
detailed some of the things that Modell did. Thanks for giving me

that, and I plan on dissecting the article, or as John Lansford would
say, I'd be using my propaganda on the article! :^)

bogd...@egr.msu.edu (Mike Bogdan) wrote:

>joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) wrote:

>Ok, Josh and Glenn, I'm throwing in my two cents.

>[Note: I'm deleting as I go, responding as I please]

>>chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Glenn Channell) wrote:

>>>joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>>It was possible, but it sounds very inconvenient. The proposed
>>renovations (as posted here by KBear 4, whom I thank) sound like more
>>of a wishful thinking plan, more than a realistic plan. IMO, you
>>could make Municipal Stadium look relatively nice in comparison with
>>what the original CMS looked like, but it still wouldn't meet up to
>>the standards for today's modern outside stadiums.

>Josh, I heard that these renovations were pretty radical. Tearing down
>most of CMS and rebuilding it. The foundation would stay. CMS would look
>brand new on the outside.

I know, I know. One thing that seemed "strange" to me was why Modell
didn't request a new stadium. (I think Glenn summarized it, but I
lost the message). These radical changes would seem to cost *more*,
(maybe I'm wrong, but they'd *seem* to) and a new stadium would still
probably look nicer. (Even if CMS would be totally re-done.) That's
why I *speculated* that Cleveland officials were the people who asked
Modell if he'd accept renovation of CMS. Since, groundbreaking would
cost more money for the city (probably), so it would be cheaper for
the city just to renovate CMS. That would seem to help the city more
than Modell. That's just the way I see it. I know Glenn posted why
Modell would prefer to renovate Municipal Stadium, but that message
got lost. I'll look for it, but it would be easier if Glenn (or
anyone else, for that matter) could re-post it.

I dunno, maybe the article Mr. Bogdan sent me will tell me why.

>And gee, what are stadium standards today, Josh? Club seats, PSLs, and
>loges. This is where the money is, not just by having 78,000 screaming
>fans in the place. We pretty much proved that.

Baseball would fit more into that category of "newer" stadium. That's
why I deemed the JF plan of football and baseball ridiculous. That
stadium (even w/ extra seats not used in baseball season) would be
*exactly* like a newer Oakland Alameda Coliseum. Maybe, a little
newer. It would be bound for disaster.

As far as football-only stadiums go, you're right. Unfortunately,
PSLs, and luxury suites is what classify a modern football stadium.
But, in comparison to other current NFL stadiums, in terms of *NFL*
stadium standards, CMS was near bottom.

The question is: how "renovated" can people make CMS? My gut feeling
is it can be improved, but it wouldn't go over well with the NFL --
who'd like new, high-tech, PSL filled stadiums, that would be built
from scratch. And I still wonder how you could "renovate" a building
so much, to make it *so* much better, as you suggested.

Let's say you're right. They could fix up CMS to make it look totally
beautiful. But, you'd still have to move to another temporary stadium
for about two years, I'd think (at *least* one). Even if you do get
sellouts, I don't think the NFL would be that thrilled to hear that
the Browns would be playing in Columbus or Canton. That's just my gut
feeling. Of course, the NFL is the league that wants to move the
Oilers to Nashville, but anyways....

>>Also, where would the Browns play if Municipal Stadium was being so
>>greatly renovated? Is there another stadium capable of handling
>>60,000+ football fans in the Cleveland metro. area. Based on what K
>>Bear 4 posted about the immense renovations, you'd think that it would
>>take a long time to complete, and it would have to be closed to the
>>public.

>Ohio State. They've got a nice 90,000 seat horseshoe I'm sure would be
>sold out even though it's in Columbus. We love our football in Ohio.

I know you do -- but like I said above, would the NFL be that
thrilled?

>Note to Josh: The new stadium will be built on the same site as CMS.

So, it's only temporarily being used as a marine refuge center, or
something like that?

>>>>Actually, I *asked* you (actually, I asked Glenn) what exactly
>>>>happened, since I didn't feel as educated as Browns fans would. And
>>>>he told me the information about what Cleveland offered Modell. My
>>>>comments have mostly been related to the information I have received.

>>> And he's referring to your assertion that Modell asked for a new
>>>stadium. He did, but AFTER he announced the relocation.

>>And I'm saying, how do you know that? There have been *many*
>>reports, not just in Baltimore, but nationally, that Modell had
>>mentioned to Cleveland officials, that he would like a new stadium.

>Please, I want to see the proof. I know for a fact the man did not ask for
>a new stadium. 1991: Renovate.

Maybe, you think I'm crazy, but in *any* negotiation, there is a lot
of behind-the-scenes discussion, that no one knows about. All I'm
doing is raising the possibilty that Cleveland asked Modell to go for
the renovation plan, and have Modell take credit for it.

One question for Browns fans: Did Modell seem enthused when he
announced he was going to renovate? And what was the reaction of
renovation from you guys? Would you have preferred a new stadium?
(From what I hear, it was Browns fans who wanted them to keep CMS,
and like this plan of renovating it, since it was a "football
cathedral". Of course, my ears are echoing of John Lansford screaming
"Propaganda!!!" :^)

>>Perhaps it wasn't financially possible for Cleveland to do at the time
>>-- especially, with the Gund and RAR hall-of Fame -- so, they asked
>>Modell to consider renovating. (This is part speculation -- but it
>>seems more likely that it was a *joint* agreement that they would
>>concentrate on renovating CMS, not just Modell's decision.)

>Accepted as speculation. Who knows what the man has said to your press
>about his past.

Well, Modell has said all this. And obviously, you're dismissing all
Modell's statements as lies. I think there's some truth to what he
says. I mean, it's *very* possible, IMO, that it was Cleveland's idea
to renovate, even though it was Modell who announced it.

>
>> He apparently accepted, since the city of Cleveland had basically told
>>Modell that he'd be guaranteed a "better" stadium, but not until we
>>finish Gund, JF, Rock-and Roll- HAll of Fame, since he didn't want to
>>be part of the Gateway Project (which I have stated would be a big
>>mistake for the city of Cleveland). And negotiations (which, BTW,
>>involves cash going to Modell) obviously weren't going the way Modell
>>wanted it. He [probably] felt that with all the time Cleveland took
>>to make sure they had other nice attractions, he was getting a raw
>>deal. Cleveland wasn't giving him all the amenities that they had
>>given the other attractions. And the Cleveland officials, *including*
>>Mayor White, have basically admitted to this.

>I want to see proof of Mayor White admitting this.

By not being furious at Modell's comments, by "all of a sudden" trying
to pass legislature to say that Cleveland wants to keep the Browns.
You're not going to see Mayor White say, "Yo, guys! I screwed up."
Otherwise, Browns fans will give Mayor White death threats. :^) But,
indications from the national media are that this is the case. Maybe
they tried, but not hard enough. That's why I compare it to the
Bullets and Juwan Howard situation.

>Josh, you need a history lesson on the City of Cleveland. The city started
>the Gateway project (Jacobs field and Gund) back in 84. The city won the
>Rock Hall of Fame in 86. Arthur B. Modell has known about these projects
>for a very long time. He just didn't wake up one day and say to Pat,
>"They're neglecting me!!!"

But Modell has been owner of the Browns for 35 years! I mean, don't
you think he was upset at the city of Cleveland in 1984/1986, when
they gave Cleveland other stadiums? The national media has said it's
a pent-up anger, which he's had for over 10 years.

If you believe what the local media says, Modell was nice that he
didn't complain since 1980, when Cleveland said, "Yo, we know you're a
loyal owner and all, so can you wait a little, and be nice, and we'll
eventually get you exactly what you want." If you belive John
Lansford that the media always gets its facts straight 100% of the
time; otherwise it's a conspiracy, then I guess this is true.

I think the local media is exaggerating Modell's "niceness". Yes, he
did contribute to local charities and all, but he also ran a football
team into the ground. (Of course, some people would ask what is more
important: Helping hospitals or helping football teams? The old
needs vs. entertainment issue.) But like I have said many times, if
you think Cleveland did everything Modell wanted, you're in for a
surprise.

> I'm sure he could have worked out something in
>a decade. And this was when we were high on the Bernie Kosar years. We
>would have thrown gobs of money at the man.

Probably could. I'm certainly no fan of Modell, but I'm trying to
think of this realistically, since I was never a fan of the Cleveland
Browns, and I'm not a die-hard fan of the Ravens (Note to John
Lansford: I said I would be a "casual fan", so you don't say I'm some
liar filled with propaganda!).

But Cleveland had never been a big basketball town. Cleveland was
*always* known for its terrific football heritage. If I'm a
politician in Cleveland, I think to myself, what is more important for
the voters (or sports fans)? Getting Cleveland a new basketball
stadium [and bring basketball back to the city of Cleveland], or get a
new football stadium? If I were a politician, I'd do the latter.

>[Even though, IMO, Gund SUCKS as an arena - been there twice in the club
>seats, which were too small for me, and I'm 5' 8".]

Hey, I think it looks pretty nice! :^) Seriously!

>>What I don't get is when Modell is publicly blasting the Cleveland
>>government (on ESPN, and other national media outlets), why Cleveland
>>officials don't come out and say, "Yo, Art! Stop the lying, will
>>you?" *Never* has any Cleveland official said something like this.
>>This would lead me (or anyone) to indicate that they *indeed* weren't
>>nearly as generous to Art Modell as they were to the other
>>stadiums/museums that were being created in the '80s/'90s.

>Why stoop to his level? Come on, White's a politician, he wants to move
>on. Besides, Art's lies are so obvious it's pathetic. The man must be
>going senile.

See, I believe Modell has exaggerated the severity of the Cleveland
situation, but I wouldn't discount his comments as lies. I've already
explained this many a time.

>>Cleveland isn't willing to think (which is natural...) that the
>>Cleveland officials bungled things up.

>Of course they bungled things up. Hindsight is 20/20. They should have
>built the man a stadium first. Who cares if the Indians almost left town
>once or twice?

Exactly. But it's not really hindsight. Of course, you had no idea
that Modell was going to move, but you did know football was the most
(by far) sport in this city. Way back in 1983, you should have given
Modell the stadium *first*, and not wait forever.

>>I think this is similar to the Browns situation. Cleveland, at first,
>>gave Modell a very mediocre situation. In "contract" terms, they
>>low-balled him. From what you tell me, Modell wasn't willing to
>>accept only 55,000 fans in a smaller baseball/football stadium. That
>>seems like a reasonable complaint. Name me all the football stadiums
>>that hold 55,000 or less. Modell would probably lose money, because
>>despite getting consistent sellouts, the mean attendance would be one
>>of the *lowest* in the NFL, due to stadium capacity.

>I'm tired of seeing erroneous numbers. The Gateway stadium would have had
>over 60,000 seats, 20,000 which were retractable for baseball use.

I shouldn't repeat myself over and over, but like I said, you're lucky
that this plan wasn't done. Retractable seats? Look no further than
in Oakland. How many fans do they get a night? Football stadiums are
one thing, but baseball owners would have bashed Cleveland non-stop if
they decided to build a football/baseball stadium. That went out of
style 20-25 years ago!

> They
>even built all the pilings necessary, just in case someone changes their
>mind in the future about Jacobs field.

>See way above. Attendance does not equal revenue. PSL's, Club seats, and
>loges are the revenue these days. Hell, why not build a whole stadium of
>loges? Only 10,000 would see it in person, but so what - it will be on TV
>anyway and the owner would be loaded.

What are the differences between PSLs and season tickets? I don't see

people bashing basketball for their lofty prices, and hockey, for that
matter, too. Attendance, by itself, doesn't equal revenue, but if you
just filled up the luxury boxes, and you priced everyone else out of
the stadium, your net revenue wouldn't be that good.

PSLs are money-makers, but they don't constitute all of the revenue.
Also, football is a 8-game (home) season. It's not nearly as
ridiculous as basketball ticket prices.

>>Then, Cleveland upped the offer a little bit, but I think Modell felt
>>the negotiations weren't going anywhere, and Cleveland didn't offer
>>what Modell wanted. During these [long-term] "snags", Baltimore comes
>>along, and says, "Hey! We see Cleveland's giving you a lot of
>>problems with this stadium thing. We'll give you a new stadium, [with
>>same fan support; implied], and give you a cash-packed deal, which
>>will guarantee you will make money." Modell thinks, "Hey... I gave
>>Cleveland my chance. They haven't offered me a reasonable contract,
>>and Baltimore (in their *first* try) gave me a great offer! I might
>>as well move!"

>Josh, here is a clue. Modell has been on the expansion committee for
>years. He knew, out of anyone, all of the deals that came out of
>Baltimore. He saw the pie and took it. Moag admitted to "targeting" the
>Cleveland franchise in 2/95, with Glendenning's approval.

Which has been well known by both sides, *after* Baltimore failed to
get an expansion team. (To bring up a dead horse: Yo, if Modell is
so stupid, why did he turn down football in Baltimore? Of course,
he's not stupid then -- that's probably one of his few good moves!)
If Baltimore felt they had a 55% chance of getting Bidwell to come to
Baltimore, and a 50% chance of getting Modell, they would've gone
after Bidwell. They went where their best chances were, and in this

case it was Modell. They weren't specifically targeting taking
football away from Cleveland.

>>I think this applies for Art Modell, as well. Art Modell had to do

>>what was best for Art Modell. He went bankrupt in Cleveland, and
>>still stayed there.

>He was bankrupt for one reason and one reason only: Arthur B. Modell. He
>might have been a slick NY TV advertiser, but when it comes to running a
>team he blew it.

Agreed. So, why couldn't Cleveland give a lucrative deal like

Baltimore did? It's business these days. That's another reason why I

compare this to the Juwan Howard situation. The Bullets offered Juwan
$94 million, and he turned it down. People could think, "Geez! $94
million, and he turned it down! What are they paying these greedy
players nowadays?" You may think that you gave Modell a good deal, in
the grand scheme of business, but when you consider Modell was
bankrupt, he accepted the lucrative Baltimore deal that offered him
*tons* of money. Sports is a business nowadays, plain and simple.

>Josh, I will repost a 12/24/95 article which outlines the business history
>of Art Modell and the Clevenad Browns. Please read it.

I skimmed through it, and I will plan on reading it sometime soon.

Joshua Kraushaar

unread,

Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96

art...@aol.com (ArtBtz) wrote:

>Somewhere deep within an imitation of James Michener, Joshua wrote:

Geez... I thought I was Bill Clinton in the Middle East.

>>a little, when now I agree with much of what they say. Ditto for one
>>message, I sent on aspfcb in early-June. I have regretted it totally.
>>No, no one is bitter about the ocassional flames I posted in rsbb (a
>>while ago), and hopefully ArtBtz forgives me for calling him a
>>"blithering idiot",

>I forgive you. I've never blithered, and I think most people here know
>this.

>> but it just doesn't look good when you flame

>>someone. It demeans your total argument. Now, sarcasm is another
>>issue! )

>It depends. There were a lot of people on ASFPB who I flamed and I had

>absolutely no regrets. Others, like yourself and Camden, could roll with
>the punches and actually attempt to discuss the issues. But for everyone
>like those two, there is always a Goose or Bernie who merit and receive
>nothing but the nicest warm flames.

The "nicest warm flames". Fine, if there's no argument to begin with,
then do what you want to do. Even though, it gets SOOOO old after a
while. But, I'm especially talking about our friend John Lansford who
can't control getting personal blows in the way of facts.

Just look at his message, or messages for that matter. He's also sent
me some semi-personal e-mails, as well. He just can't control
himself. I *like* humor -- if you want to make a sarcastic joke,
fine. But, Mr. Lansford gets very personal, and he also gets that in
the way of facts.

> Let's face it, without the humor value
>of seeing a genuine Baltigloater getting nuked, this group wouldn't have
>nearly the entertainment value it has.

Hey, you've have your own "hometown Cleveland idiots". Louis Simone,
"bighits" (From *Youngstown, Ohio*), and Miller, a new homegrown idiot
from the aspfb newgoup. They are pretty hysterical as well.

And then you have DBrownsFan, who suggested, what I did a long time
ago. C'mon...stop the anger already. I couldn't agree more.

Hearing the annoying echoes of "But.. it's SOOOO FUUN to make FUN of
Uncle Scum!!!! ( AAAAAH!!!!)

Joshua Kraushaar

unread,

Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96

chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Glenn Channell) wrote:

>joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>>First of all, I got the message where you sent that article that
>>detailed some of the things that Modell did. Thanks for giving me

>>What are the differences between PSLs and season tickets? I don't see

> I can't believe you just asked that. When you buy a season
>ticket, you get into EVERY GAME. When you buy a PSL, you get into
>exactly ZERO games. You then ALSO have to buy season tickets. A PSL
>is paying for the right to pay for you seats.

I've said I haven't been to a football game in my life. I'd be a
little more calm, Glenn. I mean, you say plenty of "silly" (to be
nice..) things in the Tribe ng, and I don't say "I can't believe you
say that..".

>>case it was Modell. They weren't specifically targeting taking
>>football away from Cleveland.

> Moag said they were...

No, they went for the most likely opportunity, and Cleveland happened
to be the most likely team.

>>Agreed. So, why couldn't Cleveland give a lucrative deal like
>>Baltimore did? It's business these days. That's another reason why I

> How about because the Cleveland politicians have some ethics.

Geez, since when was sports about ethics, last? It's about MONEY!
Anyone see that SportsWeekly bit about the NBA salaries?

>All told, HOW MUCH MONEY did Baltimore throw at Modell? Since they
>are essentially getting NO stadium revenue whatsoever, HOW MUCH OF THAT
>MONEY WILL THEY GET BACK???

That's something, we've yet to find out. But, owners don't usually
pay for their stadiums, nowadays. It's the exception rather than the
rule.
>

>>compare this to the Juwan Howard situation. The Bullets offered Juwan
>>$94 million, and he turned it down. People could think, "Geez! $94
>>million, and he turned it down! What are they paying these greedy
>>players nowadays?" You may think that you gave Modell a good deal, in
>>the grand scheme of business, but when you consider Modell was
>>bankrupt, he accepted the lucrative Baltimore deal that offered him
>>*tons* of money. Sports is a business nowadays, plain and simple.

> All right, it's ALLEGEDLY bankrupt.

To mimic John Lansford: Oh, so first you say he was bankrupt to prove
on point, and then you change the facts to support another argument.
Was he bankrupt or not? If he was, he's *obviously* going to take the
offer that will take him out of his bankruptcy.

> Modell claimed financial
>hardship. The city said we don't believe that, open your books.
>Modell changed his story. Then, once everything was "settled",
>Modell started claiming financial hardship again...

So, Glenn was Modell bankrupt or not. You put on this whole shpiel as
to saying that Modell ran the Browns into bankruptcy. I don't care if
Modell lied, I want to know the truth. Yes or no?

> No one really knows whether Modell's finances were as bad as
>he claimed. He certainly seemed to have a lot of personal cash...

Oh, I see... you use one side for your argument, and the other side
for your other argument. He's either bankrupt or not? Which is it?
Or did the newspaper hide that from you? (Sorry, for being a bit too
harsh. It's 12:36 AM)

Glenn Channell

unread,

Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96

joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>art...@aol.com (ArtBtz) wrote:

>>Somewhere deep within an imitation of James Michener, Joshua wrote:

>Geez... I thought I was Bill Clinton in the Middle East.

>>>a little, when now I agree with much of what they say. Ditto for one

>>>message, I sent on aspfcb in early-June. I have regretted it totally.
>>>No, no one is bitter about the ocassional flames I posted in rsbb (a
>>>while ago), and hopefully ArtBtz forgives me for calling him a
>>>"blithering idiot",

>>I forgive you. I've never blithered, and I think most people here know
>>this.

>>> but it just doesn't look good when you flame

>>>someone. It demeans your total argument. Now, sarcasm is another
>>>issue! )

>>It depends. There were a lot of people on ASFPB who I flamed and I had

>>absolutely no regrets. Others, like yourself and Camden, could roll with
>>the punches and actually attempt to discuss the issues. But for everyone
>>like those two, there is always a Goose or Bernie who merit and receive
>>nothing but the nicest warm flames.

>The "nicest warm flames". Fine, if there's no argument to begin with,
>then do what you want to do. Even though, it gets SOOOO old after a
>while. But, I'm especially talking about our friend John Lansford who
>can't control getting personal blows in the way of facts.

>Just look at his message, or messages for that matter. He's also sent
>me some semi-personal e-mails, as well. He just can't control
>himself. I *like* humor -- if you want to make a sarcastic joke,
>fine. But, Mr. Lansford gets very personal, and he also gets that in
>the way of facts.

>> Let's face it, without the humor value
>>of seeing a genuine Baltigloater getting nuked, this group wouldn't have
>>nearly the entertainment value it has.

>Hey, you've have your own "hometown Cleveland idiots". Louis Simone,
>"bighits" (From *Youngstown, Ohio*), and Miller, a new homegrown idiot

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's what he claims anyhow. Of course, at times he has claimed to
be:

A Steelers fan, a Browns fan, a chem. company exec., an NFL
insider, a music writer, etc. I hardly think his credibility is
any good

>from the aspfb newgoup. They are pretty hysterical as well.

>And then you have DBrownsFan, who suggested, what I did a long time
>ago. C'mon...stop the anger already. I couldn't agree more.

Read some of his posts. He says release the anger, but his
posts don't correspond...

>Hearing the annoying echoes of "But.. it's SOOOO FUUN to make FUN of
>Uncle Scum!!!! ( AAAAAH!!!!)

>--

Glenn Channell

unread,

Aug 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/15/96

joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Glenn Channell) wrote:

>>joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>>>First of all, I got the message where you sent that article that
>>>detailed some of the things that Modell did. Thanks for giving me

>>>What are the differences between PSLs and season tickets? I don't see

>> I can't believe you just asked that. When you buy a season
>>ticket, you get into EVERY GAME. When you buy a PSL, you get into
>>exactly ZERO games. You then ALSO have to buy season tickets. A PSL
>>is paying for the right to pay for you seats.

>I've said I haven't been to a football game in my life. I'd be a
>little more calm, Glenn. I mean, you say plenty of "silly" (to be
>nice..) things in the Tribe ng, and I don't say "I can't believe you
>say that..".

>>>case it was Modell. They weren't specifically targeting taking
>>>football away from Cleveland.

>> Moag said they were...

>No, they went for the most likely opportunity, and Cleveland happened
>to be the most likely team.

That's NOT what he said...

>>>Agreed. So, why couldn't Cleveland give a lucrative deal like
>>>Baltimore did? It's business these days. That's another reason why I

>> How about because the Cleveland politicians have some ethics.

>Geez, since when was sports about ethics, last? It's about MONEY!
>Anyone see that SportsWeekly bit about the NBA salaries?

>>All told, HOW MUCH MONEY did Baltimore throw at Modell? Since they
>>are essentially getting NO stadium revenue whatsoever, HOW MUCH OF THAT
>>MONEY WILL THEY GET BACK???

>That's something, we've yet to find out. But, owners don't usually
>pay for their stadiums, nowadays. It's the exception rather than the
>rule.
>>

>>>compare this to the Juwan Howard situation. The Bullets offered Juwan

>>>$94 million, and he turned it down. People could think, "Geez! $94
>>>million, and he turned it down! What are they paying these greedy
>>>players nowadays?" You may think that you gave Modell a good deal, in
>>>the grand scheme of business, but when you consider Modell was
>>>bankrupt, he accepted the lucrative Baltimore deal that offered him
>>>*tons* of money. Sports is a business nowadays, plain and simple.

But ethics and legality SHOULD be considered. They weren't,
and THAT'S the problem. Apparently you see nothing wrong with that,
and THAT reinforces much of what has been said in this group.

>> All right, it's ALLEGEDLY bankrupt.

>To mimic John Lansford: Oh, so first you say he was bankrupt to prove
>on point, and then you change the facts to support another argument.
>Was he bankrupt or not? If he was, he's *obviously* going to take the
>offer that will take him out of his bankruptcy.

>> Modell claimed financial
>>hardship. The city said we don't believe that, open your books.
>>Modell changed his story. Then, once everything was "settled",
>>Modell started claiming financial hardship again...

>So, Glenn was Modell bankrupt or not. You put on this whole shpiel as
>to saying that Modell ran the Browns into bankruptcy. I don't care if
>Modell lied, I want to know the truth. Yes or no?

>> No one really knows whether Modell's finances were as bad as
>>he claimed. He certainly seemed to have a lot of personal cash...

>Oh, I see... you use one side for your argument, and the other side
>for your other argument. He's either bankrupt or not? Which is it?
>Or did the newspaper hide that from you? (Sorry, for being a bit too
>harsh. It's 12:36 AM)

First, every time (at least I think it was every time) that I
analyzed Modell's financial dealings, I prefaced it with

"according to Modell's claims"

The answer is no one KNOWS what his financial position was. We do know
the browns were in debt, but Modell's financial situation remains a
mystery. Either way, he certainly was not pulling in a profit
commensurate with the income he was receiving. There are two different
sets of finances to be analyzed. Modell's personal finances, and the
finances of the Browns. Modell has never made it clear which is which,
so we'll never know...

John Lansford

unread,

Aug 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/16/96

joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) wrote:

>Okay, guess you haven't been paying attention the last 10 years in
>sports business. The history of baseball and football stadiums
>together are *obsolete*. O-B-S-O-L-O-T-E. Obsolete. It's not a
>matetr of changing your mind, John. It's a well-known fact.

I haven't changed my mind, Josh. Building two different structures for
two sports that can use one stadium makes no sense to me, financially,
maintenance wise or any other way. It's because the owners could
strong arm the cities by threatening to move that the officials build
seperate stadiums. There's no other reason.

>From listening to national media (ESPN, AP, local *Washington* media
>outlets), the players on those media outlets, and fellow NFL owners.
>Also, I have brought up the point as to where the Browns would play
>during that renovation. Glenn had said it would *not* be in the
>Cleveland metro area.

Not a problem. I saw the news article where engineers DID look at the
stadium, and they said there were going to be difficulties but it
COULD be renovated. As for playing football in Ohio State University,
I think that would not have been a problem for anyone. It certainly
would beat not having a team for three years.

>Obviously, it's possible. It's *very* inconvenient, though. Think of
>it logically, John. New stadium, which would allow Modell to play in
>CMS during the building of the new stadium, or renovation, which
>wouldn't have made the stadium nearly as nice as a new stadium would,
>*and* it would force the Browns to play in Canton (possibly), and
>severely impact the Browns attendance.

HAH!! I think that had the Browns played in OSU's stadium they would
have filled it close to capacity. That stadium has close to 90,000
seats too. I never saw anyone claim to put the Browns at Canton; the
President of OSU publicly came out last year and say he would be
THRILLED to have the Browns there until their stadium was built. This
is a non issue.

>Hey, that's what we've been discussing. Dissecting Modell's comments,
>and perform a so-called "reality check" on them. Like I've said,
>Modell clearly isn't telling the whole story, but I think he does have
>valid points, which Browns fans are just dismissing, based on their
>hatred of Art Modell.

But you continue to hold them up as truths. Of everything you post,
that is what frustrates me the most. Whatever the owner said after his
announced move flies in the face of everything he said and did BEFORE
the move. To use his post-move comments in this argument does nothing
for your credibility.

>Bidwell, Adams, Behring, Fronteire. What makes them better than
>Modell?

Nothing at all.

>Thirty-five years is quite a long time. And he gave you *a lot* of
>winning seasons. I know you didn't win many Super Bowls, but you had
>been a consistently solid team. I'm more of a baseball guy, and don't
>have many football statistics handy. Does anyone know what the mean
>winning percentage of the Browns was since 1961?

It's less than you think. Except for the late 1980's and the early
1960's, the Browns were not a playoff calibre team. They had winning
seasons, but the true test of an owner's ability is the number of
playoff appearances.

>> because he felt he wasn't being
>>treated like he SHOULD be. Even though he never communicated to them
>>how he WANTED to be treated.
>
>How do *you* know? Stadium negotiations are not public, in any way at
>all.

What reason would the city have to not disclose the owner's position
in pre-move negotiations? They have to raise the money for a new
stadium, and a threat to move the team if a new stadium was not
forthcoming would certainly create an incentive to raise the funds.

>>>>>Hmm... maybe because I am a fan, just not a die-hard Ravens fan. And
>>>>>I like the Patriots and Redskins more than the Ravens. And to make
>>>>>sure people know the truth -- not biased Cleveland opinions -- about
>>>>>the Ravens move.
>>>
>>>>The "truth" from the Ravens' owner! What a concept! Go peddle your
>>>>snakeoil to gullible people in the Ravens' topic, Josh.

> Did you count how many times I had to delete your

>flames in the last message?

No because some of them weren't flames. However:
I hereby APOLOGIZE for any slights Josh may have seen in my posts. I
obviously went too far in his opinion in my comments to him.

>
>> I sneer at your attempts to revise
>>Browns' history to Cleveland fans.
>
>It's not revising Browns history. Hell, I've mainly only talked about
>the stadium negotiations, and how you might not know the whole story.
>Once again, it's great for you to make a statement like this, but
>where's the proof? Can you quote me as to where I revised Browns
>history?

I should use that quote of yours above every time you make a claim
like this, Josh. That quote up there ("make sure people know the truth
-- not biased Cleveland opinions") is the example I can use as your
waffling on your position. First you call your statements "truth",
then you claim you don't really know what happened and want to learn.
However, instead of trying to learn, you attempt to defend what you've
heard from the R*vens' owner.

>Obviously, there's a difference between the two. When I said, they
>were "biased Cleveland opinions", I said it in reference to the theory
>that if you lose a team, you're *rarely* going to admit,
>

>In essence, this side note means that
>
>a) I'm willing to change my opinion, after looking at the facts
>b) you should try to look at the whole picture, despite what
>the media tells you. Trust me, they're often wrong.
>c) And.. don't flame. I believe that I flamed some people (on rsbb),
>

>I really don't expect you to say Modell was a good man who made a good
>business decision. But, I hope that you look at the "whole" picture.
>I mean, from all the facts I've received, including from Browns fans,
>Cleveland didn't treat him in the best way. I've already detailed why
>I believe this. Now, if Modell was a very good, sincere owner,
>obviously he would have stayed with the loyal fans of Cleveland.
>Obviously, he wasn't. But, I strongly belive (along with WatchDawg,
>at least I think..) that many NFL owner would have done the same thing
>(bolt to Baltimore) if they were put in the same situation.
>
>Also, we don't know all the goings-on that happened in the stadium
>negotiations. Is it possible the city of Cleveland asked Modell to
>accept renovation instead of a new stadium, which would have costed
>more money? Yes, it's *possible*. But, you are apparently dismissing
>this theory.

Your entire argument boils down to this last paragraph. Since the
media cannot be trusted to report accurately what happened between
Cleveland and the Browns' owner, this allows you to theorize what
REALLY happened to your heart's content. Considering you also claim to
use "only stats" in your current arguments, where do you get off not
taking what the media reports --across the entire nation-- about what
the Browns' owner said and did before he moved?

I didn't get all my pre-move information on the Browns from what you
call a "biased source"; the Akron Beacon Journal. What the ABJ said
about his quotes ("I won't move the team before the lease is up, "A
renovated stadium is suitable for my needs", etc) is confirmed in
other publications across the nation. But, you refuse to accept these
as valid arguments, specifically because they shatter your position.

>
>(JK - From my research, it appears that most leases are *stadium*
>deals, not city deals. Therefore, these "moves" would be like a team
>moving from one stadium to another, out of city.)
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hardly a move from one city to another. The same city still gets the
money, and the fans still have their team. Trying to compare the two
is silly.

>
>> I won't bore the
>>readers here with the same thing. Suffice it to say that most of these
>>moves are either ancient history or within their home city. Big deal.
>
>Guess *you* didn't research the matter, John. It's *not* "suffice it
>to say". These moves also broke a lease.

Oh, my apologies, Josh. Glenn refuted MOST of them then. I throw out
all the inside-the-city moves. Obviously the city felt it was
advantageous to allow these moves, but this is not even remotely
similar to what happened with the Browns.

>One question to you Browns fans. If Cleveland allowed Modell to break
>the lease, what's the problem anyways?

Cleveland allowed the owner to break the lease because the NFL
threatened to fight any team trying to move to Cleveland to replace
the Browns. Their comments were that yes, we'd have the Browns for
three more years, but after that it would be very doubtful we'd ever
get another team. Apparently White believed that threat and felt the
NFL would follow through on it.

>Do you believe it when Peter Gammons tells you Ken Griffey Jr. is a
>"superior fielder". Do you believe it when Harold Reynolds says the
>key player the Tribe lost in the Baerga deal was "Alvaro Espinoza --
>because of his fiery leadership." Do you believe it when Hawk
>Harrelson says Ozzie Guillen ""has a great skill of getting on base."
>If you're into copying what the media (or mediots, for that matter)
>tells you, you're in for a long ride. Read what I said on my side
>note.

I'm not a baseball fan, Josh. I wouldn't know any of the above and
really don't care. However, these all look like opinions that a few
minutes' effort in looking up stats can confirm or refute. Again,
these are not comparable to what happened pre-move in Cleveland. There
ARE quotes from the owner that IMO are comparable to statistics for
players. They are irrefutable. They cannot be denied. They are what he
said --at that time--, not after the fact when he tries to rewrite
history.

>
>The facts *do* fit my theory. That Modell asked for renovation
>because that's what the city wanted.

ARGHHHHH!!!!
Again, how do YOU know "that's what the city wanted"? The owner WAS
ASKED TO BE PART OF GATEWAY!! That means a NEW STADIUM!! When he said
no, they then asked him what he wanted. He said "renovating the
existing stadium is suitable for my needs".

Do you understand what's pissing me off about your arguments? These
quotes have been put here time and time and time again, yet you
conveniently refuse to accept their implications.

>No, it was a sudden move when Modell made up his mind. What happened
>in the negotiations, John? Probably snags, as in most negotiations.
>And Modell obviously felt (as *he* said; he wouldn't lie about his
>feelings) that Cleveland didn't make a good stadium offer -- in a
>proper amount of time.

It was what he publicly said he WANTED, Josh. That's all you, I,
Glenn, and everyone else who was not in that meeting have to go on. By
putting the words "probably" & "obviously" you take your position
from solid stats and facts to shifting sand made up of opinion. Glenn
and myself are arguing from the position of what was said and what was
reported. Are you suggesting the media deliberately changed
quotations?

>The *first* offer Baltimore made was much better than Cleveland's best
>offer. Read the analogy about JH I posted in another message.

Because Baltimore wanted to make an offer that no city could match.
Cleveland admitted it, the owner admitted it, so did Baltimore.

>Well, no. If you want to make it that way, fine. It fits with the
>facts. It's a *theory*, nothing else. And just because you don't
>like the theory, you're willing to toss it out.
>
>(Sounds like the people who say, "Griffey's defense ROOLZ! No matter
>what!)

No. I'm discussing facts and you keep placing those little qualifiers
in there. Every statement I've made about the move is supported in
fact, usually by quotes made by the owner himself. On your side, you
say "maybe he did this, maybe he said that, maybe he felt such and
such". There's no discussion here; what you are saying is not
supportable by the facts; it's an opinion nothing more. However, it is
an opinion that makes the teams' move more palatable to you.

>Anyways, the OL for the Ravens is above-average, anyways. Screw that
>point, I guess. But if one specific OL is one of the best in the
>league, the chances are that the OL wull "block off" the DL a large
>percentage of the time. It's not that hard to figure out.

And it's not that hard for defenses to figure out either, and
doubleteam or place their best rusher on that lineman.

>>>Look at yds/carry. That's more indicative of a RBs skills in relation
>>>to an offensive line.
>
>>More revisions of your original position. Keep it up, Josh, you might
>>find a position you like eventually.
>
>Okay, John. Quote me. When did I say that total yards were more
>indicative of a RB skills than yds/carry? Quote me, go ahead. Or is
>this another time where you make up that I lied, just to suit your
>fancy?

Didn't say you lied. I said you revised your initial position, where
you challenged me to find ONE running back who succeeded behind a
mediocre line. I simply found several RB's who gained 1000 yards or
more behind average or less than average lines. You didn't bring up
the yards per carry statement until after I'd placed those names in
front of you.

BTW, Heyward got around 4.6 yds/carry last year. Considering that's
well up there in the top running back yards per carry, is that good
enough for you?

>Fine; but do you really think that one running back out of (at least)
>30 RBs is very indicative. It's called a fluke.

No, it's what you wanted me to do. I gave you four. I can give you
more. It doesn't look to me to be a fluke. It does show you don't know
what you are talking about.

>> I
>>gave you four.
>
>Three of which were factually incorrect.

Which ones were incorrect? Ironhead Heywards' 4.6 yards per carry?
Chris Warren's 1000 yards per season over the last few years? Martin's
unexpected season last year? How about Terrell Davis in Denver?
>
You'd do better to just admit you were wrong about offensive lines and
running backs, Josh. You're falling further into that hole...

John Lansford

K Bear 4

unread,

Aug 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/16/96

~~~ joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:
>>>What are the differences between PSLs and season tickets? I
>>>don't see

~~ chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Glenn Channell) wrote:
>>I can't believe you just asked that. When you buy a season
>>ticket, you get into EVERY GAME. When you buy a PSL, you
>>get into exactly ZERO games. You then ALSO have to buy
>>season tickets. A PSL is paying for the right to pay for you seats.

~ joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com (Joshua Kraushaar) writes:
>I've said I haven't been to a football game in my life. I'd be a
>little more calm, Glenn. I mean, you say plenty of "silly" (to be
>nice..) things in the Tribe ng, and I don't say "I can't believe you
>say that..".

PSLs (Personal Extortion Licenses) are not just limited to
football. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that they were first
introduced for the Charlotte Hornets in their inaugural season. I also
think some college football/basketball teams utilize the extortion
also. Don't be surprised when baseball starts the down the dead-end
road.

>>>case it was Modell. They weren't specifically targeting taking
>>>football away from Cleveland.

>>Moag said they were...

>No, they went for the most likely opportunity, and Cleveland
>happened to be the most likely team.

John Rogue said that he "Targeted the Browns because of
their rich history." As I stated somewhere else, if you're going to be
morally inept, you might as well take advantage of it. (Directed at
Rogue, not you Josh).

>>>Agreed. So, why couldn't Cleveland give a lucrative deal like
>>>Baltimore did? It's business these days. That's another reason
>>>why I

>>How about because the Cleveland politicians have some ethics.

>Geez, since when was sports about ethics, last? It's about MONEY!
>Anyone see that SportsWeekly bit about the NBA salaries?

Yes, from an owner and player perspective. When a mayor is
spending the city's money, he best be wise when doing so. I may be
wrong, but I'm under the impression that Uncle Artful's deal with
baltimore gives him everything. No rent, all concessions, and a $50
million bribe. There appears to be no return of investment for
baltimore. Even with the new 'deal' for Cleveland, there is rent to be
paid, and split on concessions with the owner. So there will be a
return of investment here. City funds, don't forget.

>>>You may think that you gave Modell a good deal, in the grand
>>>scheme of business, but when you consider Modell was
>>>bankrupt, he accepted the lucrative Baltimore deal that offered
>>>him *tons* of money. Sports is a business nowadays, plain and
>>>simple.

>>All right, it's ALLEGEDLY bankrupt.

>To mimic John Lansford: Oh, so first you say he was bankrupt to
>prove on point, and then you change the facts to support another
>argument. Was he bankrupt or not? If he was, he's *obviously*
>going to take the offer that will take him out of his bankruptcy.

If he was, then yes. One thing that would make him -claim-
that he's bankrupt is this; In 1978, an accountant proposed a plan
that would have froze the estate tax (Inheritance tax) at around $30
million. That plan was to transfer ownership to a family trust, which
is a common method to freeze taxable value of an estate. Arty, the
brilliant business man that he is, declined, meaning that David "Boy
Sherman" Modell wasn't shielded from rising estate taxes. If Uncle
Artful would have kicked off last year, David would have had to
shell out around $80 million in estate taxes. Since he couldn't, he'd
lose the team, and have to get a real job. Good reason to claim
poverty, don't you think?
Regarding his finances, when it was time to open the books
in court, he changed his story. Why? If he's really broke, what's to
hide? Add to that TV revenue and revenue sharing streams. Easily
over $30 million before 1 ticket is sold. There's no logical reason
why he'd lose money. I doubt he's as bad off as he claims.

The definitive proof; He claims he lost $20 million the past 2
years, including a hefty amount in 1994. I don't have the 1995 stats
yet, but the following is factual.
Fact #1: Financial World Magazine reported that in 1994, the
Browns made close to $60 million on TV Revenue and ticket sales alone.
Fact #2: Dun & Bradstreet reported that Cleveland Stadium
Corp. has been making money from its operations, and cleared a
$2.4 million profit in 1994.
Fact #3: The Browns 1994 stadium revenue was $8.2 million.
The league average was $5.4 million.
Fact #4: The Browns, as a team, were in the top 3rd of the
league for gross revenue.

Question is, why aren't 20 other owners claiming losses?

Dave Hoffman-
Glenn, to add to your list of inept Modell moves;

1993- Cut Bernie Kosar 2 months after signing him to a 6-year,
$28.9 million contract. (He still had to pay him the guarenteed $)

I believe late '70s, Artie spent $500,000 to make a motion picture,
that never got finished. Ironically, it was about a rape case.

DawgDave99

unread,

Aug 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/16/96

In article <4v171u$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, kbe...@aol.com (K Bear 4)
writes:

>
> John Rogue said that he "Targeted the Browns because of
>their rich history." As I stated somewhere else, if you're going to be
>morally inept, you might as well take advantage of it.

Not only that, he said that they were well aware of Modell's troubled
financial situation, and figured that he was ripe for the picking! ( to
paraphrase a bit )

DD99

Joshua Kraushaar

unread,

Aug 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/17/96

dawgd...@aol.com (DawgDave99) wrote:

>In article <4v171u$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, kbe...@aol.com (K Bear 4)
>writes:

>> John Rogue said that he "Targeted the Browns because of
>>their rich history." As I stated somewhere else, if you're going to be
>>morally inept, you might as well take advantage of it.

>Not only that, he said that they were well aware of Modell's troubled

>financial situation, and figured that he was ripe for the picking! ( to
>paraphrase a bit )

Let's be fair, though. I believe Moag said this at the press
conference announcing the Browns move with Modell present. It's not
like Moag would say, "Modell -- I didn't want you to come to
Baltimore, but you were my only choice left." He's obviously going to
praise Modell, whether he likes him or not.

This reminds me of when Mets fans say, "Well, Ozzie Smith has said the
Rey Ordonez is great, so that tells it all."

Well, Ozzie Smith isn't going to say the Ordonez stinks. I mean, come
on! You have to say the right things in media-based conventions (like
press conferences), or else it would be very embarrassing, and it
would mean Modell would have an instant hatred toward Baltimore.

DawgDave99

unread,

Aug 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/17/96

In article <4v171u$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, kbe...@aol.com (K Bear 4)
writes:

> PSLs (Personal Extortion Licenses) are not just limited to

>football. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that they were first
>introduced for the Charlotte Hornets in their inaugural season

Yes, by <choke,gag> Bill Futterer

DD99

DawgDave99

unread,

Aug 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/17/96

In article <4v35np$2...@news2.cais.com>, joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com
(Joshua Kraushaar) writes:

>Well, Ozzie Smith isn't going to say the Ordonez stinks. I mean, come
>on! You have to say the right things in media-based conventions (like
>press conferences), or else it would be very embarrassing, and it
>would mean Modell would have an instant hatred toward Baltimore.
>
>

I wasn't talking about the press conference. In The Baltimore Magazine's
Special Edition "How We Stole The Browns" (to paraphrase again,
heh-heh!)- Moag was interviewed in depth about the deal, and they even had
a detailed description of his every waking moment on the day of the deal.
He admitted (in the article- not at the Press conference) that the MSA had
investigated the finances of Art Modell, and recognized that he was in
trouble- so they actively pursued him. They targeted the Browns, because
they felt Art needed the money.

DD99

ArtBtz

unread,

Aug 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/17/96

Joshua Kraushaar <joshua.k...@mail.wdn.com> wrote in article
<4uu93j$e...@news2.cais.com>...

> art...@aol.com (ArtBtz) wrote:
>
> >Somewhere deep within an imitation of James Michener, Joshua wrote:
>
> Geez... I thought I was Bill Clinton in the Middle East.

What? This is a photo op for you?

(Part where I generously forgave Joshua snipped)

> >It depends. There were a lot of people on ASFPB who I flamed and I had
> >absolutely no regrets. Others, like yourself and Camden, could roll
with
> >the punches and actually attempt to discuss the issues. But for
everyone
> >like those two, there is always a Goose or Bernie who merit and receive
> >nothing but the nicest warm flames.
>
> The "nicest warm flames". Fine, if there's no argument to begin with,
> then do what you want to do. Even though, it gets SOOOO old after a
> while.

I am sure that there are people here who think you're getting old, too. To
each his own. I think that there were some people upset with my posts in
ASFPB. It was subtle, but I could detect it.

Everyone has a right to post in alt groups, but no one has a right to
demand to be read and responded to. I generally don't flame if I think
someone is attempting to make an honest point. I also don't flame people I
regard to be obvious trollers or kooks. But people who are trying to
gloat, are excessively boring, or poke fun themselves can expect a typical
ArtBtz response.

(comments on various group participants snipped)

> Hearing the annoying echoes of "But.. it's SOOOO FUUN to make FUN of
> Uncle Scum!!!! ( AAAAAH!!!!)

Was that me? Doesn't sound like one of mine, but it probably is. It is
wonderful that ArtBtz continues to echo around the empty halls of ASFPB
;-> Now, you're stuck with pre-teens shouting "You suck" and "Steelers
rule" at each other. And here, we're stuck with our own group of loonies.
The price you pay for unmoderated newsgroups, I guess.

ArtBtz
The Only Thing of Interest in ASFPB (4/96 - 7/96)

Todd Krieger

unread,

Aug 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/18/96

In article <4urivb$19...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>, bogd...@egr.msu.edu says...

>Geographical note to Josh: The Cavs played in a place called Richfield,
>which is nowhere near Cleveland. It's actually closer to Akron. Don't you
>think the Cleveland Cavaliers should be playing in Cleveland? They did
>before they moved out to Richfield. Time to welcome the team back home.
>
>[Even though, IMO, Gund SUCKS as an arena - been there twice in the club
>seats, which were too small for me, and I'm 5' 8".]
>

Did this warrant blowing $120 million in tax money for a new arena??

(Hmmm! The club seats. Would you believe those are the "best" seats in the
house?)

If every other city had Cleveland's "Everything has to be downtown!!"
mindset, those cities would, too, be in horrible financial shape.

It is fitting that the new arena "SUCKS". And the Cavs, because of that, are
declining as a franchise. To those backing or defending the construction
and/or funding of Gund Arena, for whatever reason: You deserve that lousy
place. (At least the name fits the place. Gordon Gund deserves that place
too.) The fact that Cleveland blew $120 million to move a major sports
franchise from a great building to a lousy one is insulting enough. To those
people who wished that place was never built: I feel for you, but heck!!
Maybe it is a wake-up call to maybe think of moving to a place to live where
civic image does not hold the town and its people hostage. This is why I
don't live here anymore.

"The Blossom Music Center is summer home to the CLEVELAND Orchestra. Why not
build an outdoor hall downtown too?? It's the Cleveland Orchestra, not the
Blossom Orchestra!! Heck if construction costs bankrupt the city!!!" :`(

Just as stupid as saying "It's not the Richfield Cavaliers."

This, in my honest opinion, is why Art Modell moved the Browns out of
Cleveland.

Todd Krieger

Jerry Can't-Eat-Berries

unread,

Aug 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/18/96

In <4v63jo$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> dawgd...@aol.com (DawgDave99)
writes:

Dave, everybody is attracted to money. Not just Modell. This nonsense
about Modell being extrodinarily vulnerable because he "needed" the
money is pure caca (Trying to please my bud TODD), Every Owner is
greedy, every owner wants more money. This is a constant. The players
are no different either. Crying with a loaf of bread under ones arm is
NOT unique to Art Modell.

But for argument's sake, I will agree with you DD99. Let's say that
Modell was indeed in desparate need of money. If that was the case, How
is it then that Glendenning and Baltimore knew this, but nobody in
Cleveland knew this? Hmmmmm?

I will tell you Dave. Because White, the media and many bitter fans
hated Modell so much that his personal situation did not matter. Hating
Modell was, and still is the primary life function in Cleveland.

There is a big part of this equation that Glenn, DD99, Jerry, O Bowell
movement, Hoorta et. al. are missing. Everybody seems to know that
Modell was ripe for the taking. Yet I saw no sense of urgency in
Cleveland to make things right, to get Cleveland out of jeopardy from
losing the Browns.

The fact of the matter is that at least 50% of the reason that
Baltimore was able to "steal" the Browns as you say DD99, is because
Cleveland itself was asleep at the wheel.

Clevelanders were too cocky and felt that it could never happen to the
Browns. Clevelanders spent so much time waving their "worlds best fans"
banners that they lost sight of just how badly this no good sonofabitch
mayor was mishandling the Browns.

At the end of the great movie "The Seven Samurai" (Magnificent 7 to you
cowboy fans), the crooks were asked why they chose to prey on the
victims, the crooks replied, (paraphrase), because they were primed for
it.

Modell was in money trouble? OK. I agree. You knew it, I knew it, the
NFL knew it, Lansford knew it, Glenn knew it, Baltimore knew it and
Glendenning knew it. Mayor white however must have been mastrubating,
because he sure as hell missed the boat.(The no good prick bastard)

Cleveland, I am sad to say, was primed for picking. And Cleveland is
still primed. White is a loser. White cost Cleveland the Browns.

There is nothing to refute it!

Glenn Channell

unread,

Aug 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/18/96

big...@ix.netcom.com(Jerry Can't-Eat-Berries) writes:

>But for argument's sake, I will agree with you DD99. Let's say that
>Modell was indeed in desparate need of money. If that was the case, How
>is it then that Glendenning and Baltimore knew this, but nobody in
>Cleveland knew this? Hmmmmm?

Simply put, Modell's personal finances were irrelevant to the
position of the city of Cleveland. In case you have forgotten, Art
Modell swore that he would NEVER move the team. He said that finances
may have forced him to sell, but that he would NOT relocate. If Art
Modell tried to sell the team, there certainly would have been local
buyers interested.

>I will tell you Dave. Because White, the media and many bitter fans
>hated Modell so much that his personal situation did not matter. Hating
>Modell was, and still is the primary life function in Cleveland.

No. Liking Modell or not is irrelevant. His personal financial
situation doesn't matter because it is just that: PERSONAL. In addition,
all evidence indicates that his personal financial situation was HIS OWN
FAULT!!!
The city cannot afford to bail out every inept businessman. Art
Modell could have been forced by bankruptcy to sell the team, but he CHOSE
to leave town. He was not FORCED out.

>There is a big part of this equation that Glenn, DD99, Jerry, O Bowell
>movement, Hoorta et. al. are missing. Everybody seems to know that
>Modell was ripe for the taking. Yet I saw no sense of urgency in
>Cleveland to make things right, to get Cleveland out of jeopardy from
>losing the Browns.

According to Modell, there was no threat of the Browns leaving.
If Modell was in financial straits, it was his own fault and his own
problem. He had publicly assured the city he would SELL and not move
the team, so why should we bail him out. He was in a hole of his own
making. If I start a business and it collapses, even after succeeding
in Cleveland fro 30 years, should the city bail me out as well?

>The fact of the matter is that at least 50% of the reason that
>Baltimore was able to "steal" the Browns as you say DD99, is because
>Cleveland itself was asleep at the wheel.

You say "asleep at the wheel", I say "trusting in Modell."
With no threat of a move, and his personal assurances that he would
sell the team rather than move it, there was NO reason for the city
to bail him out. Besides, paying off Modell's bad business dealings
would have cost MONEY, and I'd like to know where you think that money
would have come from...

>Clevelanders were too cocky and felt that it could never happen to the
>Browns. Clevelanders spent so much time waving their "worlds best fans"
>banners that they lost sight of just how badly this no good sonofabitch
>mayor was mishandling the Browns.

Actually, it was Modell mishandling the Browns, and as I have
repeatedly said, we thought it couldn't happen because Modell publicly
assured us that it couldn't. That may make the citizens and the politicians
trusting, gullible, or even naive, but hardly a sonofabitch. You have
stated you live in Yongstown. It's easy, therefore, to say Cleveland should
have thrown 50 million at Modell to cover his bad business deals. It
should be easy; it's not YOUR money.

>At the end of the great movie "The Seven Samurai" (Magnificent 7 to you
>cowboy fans), the crooks were asked why they chose to prey on the
>victims, the crooks replied, (paraphrase), because they were primed for
>it.

>Modell was in money trouble? OK. I agree. You knew it, I knew it, the
>NFL knew it, Lansford knew it, Glenn knew it, Baltimore knew it and
>Glendenning knew it. Mayor white however must have been mastrubating,
>because he sure as hell missed the boat.(The no good prick bastard)

I'm sure White knew it. But again, should the city bail out every
bad businessman? Remember, Cleveland really had no stake in whether
MODELL succeeded or failed as long as the Browns remained, and he swore
they would...

>Cleveland, I am sad to say, was primed for picking. And Cleveland is
>still primed. White is a loser. White cost Cleveland the Browns.

>There is nothing to refute it!

Sure there is. See above.

By the way Val, thanks for keeping it clean. I don't agree with what
you said, but at least as long as your posts continue in this manner,
we can discuss it like adults...

Glenn

Jerry Can't-Eat-Berries

unread,

Aug 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/18/96

In <4v6nn9$c...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> chan...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Glenn

Glenn, I do not agree with the facts you present. You are not really
presenting facts, you are presenting statements that Modell made.

Everyone on this board has called Modell a liar at one time or another,
(me too). My point here is that Cleveland had 35 years history with
this guy. How could another city recognize Modell's vulnerability and
exploit it, while the home town just sat idly by and let outsiders woo
away what was ours?

It was a given that Modell was prone to lies. When Art said that he
would never move the Browns, I think at the time, he meant it.

I also think that his statement about never moving the Browns was also
an attempt to get back on the good side of the fans and city. I think
also that When Modell said this, he expected the good will he expressed
to open up the citys; dialogue once again and bring the Browns into the
21st century with style.

I also believe that Art's vow to not move the team, was met unfairly
with neglect from Mayor White. White took advantage of what he thought
was "a sure thing". White would have eventually helped the Browns, but
it would have been in his own good time. White played roulette with
Modell and the gun went off in WHites hands.

Glenn, I honestly want to root for the new Browns. The heritage is
still somewhat connected to the Ravens and for me, it is tough not to
root for the old Browns players. I hope that the new team has enough of
the old spirit to bring me back. I really do.

But just as you cannot feel good about Modell, I have an equal dilemma
with White. I am going to go to the bash at the stadium, hopefully that
will bring me back to the roost.

I was looking foreward to Hiram, as my dad took me there quite
frequently as a kid (3 times/week in 62 when he ws laid off from US
Steel). Unfortunately, he was recupreating from heart surgery and was
not quite up to the trip and crowd. He is however ready for the
September gala. I am hoping for the best.

I would much rather cheer along side you than to constantly rail
against you. But I am pissed big time. Modell is gone, WHite is still
here. Frankly I wish it were reversed.

In any case, I am not yet a lost soul. Hopefully my Ravens Raving will
be indeed a short escapade. I did order a Ravens Jersey from JC Penny
in Baltimore. The YOungstown stores are just not carrying it.

Take care

John Lansford

unread,

Aug 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/19/96

big...@ix.netcom.com(Jerry Can't-Eat-Berries) wrote:

>>Glenn
>>

>It was a given that Modell was prone to lies. When Art said that he
>would never move the Browns, I think at the time, he meant it.

Yes. He has already said his statements are good for that moment only.
To hold him to a previous statement is futile, as he's already
forgotten it.

>I also think that his statement about never moving the Browns was also
>an attempt to get back on the good side of the fans and city. I think
>also that When Modell said this, he expected the good will he expressed
>to open up the citys; dialogue once again and bring the Browns into the
>21st century with style.

Considering the money to build the stadium couldn't come out of
White's pocket, some due process had to occur, though. It appears that
the owner did not accept this time period that HAD to happen, instead
deciding to enter into negotiations with Baltimore rather than waiting
to see what would occur in Cleveland.

You ask how could Baltimore know about his financial situation when
White could not? Simple:

The Baltimore contingent had a willing ally in the Browns' minority
owner, Alfred Lerner. As an owner, Lerner had access to the Browns'
financial situation that no other non-NFL owner had; to Mayor White,
it was private information and could not be looked at. For Lerner and
whoever he wanted to disclose it to, it was an open book (so to
speak).

>I also believe that Art's vow to not move the team, was met unfairly
>with neglect from Mayor White. White took advantage of what he thought
>was "a sure thing". White would have eventually helped the Browns, but
>it would have been in his own good time. White played roulette with
>Modell and the gun went off in WHites hands.

I guess that's what happens when you:

a) have a lease with an entity with performance clauses in it and
b) an owner gives you a public promise not to move the team.

White's failure was in believing the owner's promise not to move, and
believing in the strength of his lease. IOW, he actually thought the
owner's word meant something.

John Lansford

Jerry Can't-Eat-Berries

unread,

Aug 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/20/96

In <32183511...@news.vnet.net> jo...@vnet.net (John Lansford)
writes:

>
>big...@ix.netcom.com(Jerry Can't-Eat-Berries) wrote:
>
>
>>>Glenn
>>>
>

>>It was a given that Modell was prone to lies. When Art said that he
>>would never move the Browns, I think at the time, he meant it.
>

>Yes. He has already said his statements are good for that moment only.
>To hold him to a previous statement is futile, as he's already

>forgotten it.

>
>>I also think that his statement about never moving the Browns was
also
>>an attempt to get back on the good side of the fans and city. I think
>>also that When Modell said this, he expected the good will he
expressed
>>to open up the citys; dialogue once again and bring the Browns into
the
>>21st century with style.
>

>Considering the money to build the stadium couldn't come out of
>White's pocket, some due process had to occur, though. It appears that
>the owner did not accept this time period that HAD to happen, instead
>deciding to enter into negotiations with Baltimore rather than waiting
>to see what would occur in Cleveland.
>
>You ask how could Baltimore know about his financial situation when
>White could not? Simple:
>
>The Baltimore contingent had a willing ally in the Browns' minority
>owner, Alfred Lerner. As an owner, Lerner had access to the Browns'
>financial situation that no other non-NFL owner had; to Mayor White,
>it was private information and could not be looked at. For Lerner and
>whoever he wanted to disclose it to, it was an open book (so to
>speak).
>

>>I also believe that Art's vow to not move the team, was met unfairly
>>with neglect from Mayor White. White took advantage of what he
thought
>>was "a sure thing". White would have eventually helped the Browns,
but
>>it would have been in his own good time. White played roulette with
>>Modell and the gun went off in WHites hands.
>

>I guess that's what happens when you:
>
>a) have a lease with an entity with performance clauses in it and
>b) an owner gives you a public promise not to move the team.
>
>White's failure was in believing the owner's promise not to move, and
>believing in the strength of his lease. IOW, he actually thought the
>owner's word meant something.
>
>John Lansford

Please John, gice me a fucking break already. How many goddamn excuses
are you going to make for this piece of shit human being known as Mike
White. White got out manuvered, out negotiated and plain out
embarassed. He lost Clevelands crown jewel.Face it !

White is an impotent putz and a dumbass. If you like the bastard, fine.
Enjoy the yet to be unvailed long line of buttfucking that will be soon
on its' way to you and Mike White's supporters.

If this blind stupidity is what constitutes being a Brownms fan, then
by all means, Go Ravens.

Paul E. Sincaglia

unread,

Aug 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/21/96

Like it or not, Baltimore (and MD) has already been screwed by
Mr. Modell. All name calling, flame wars, and nasty grams asside,
The Maryland/Baltimore personnel already gave away to Art just about
everything.

He gets:
Anew stadium
All of the PSL $$ (minus some feeble taxes)
He gets to run the stadium
and he gets to run the concessions etc.

You would have thought that the MD stadium authority and (gov't)
would have noted the similar deal art had in Cleveland. With all
that control, ART makes millions and we ( I am a maryland resident)
will get virtually nothing. A?ll the taxes and headaches to make
one owner, an idiot son, and allot of players very wealthy.

C Don't get me wrong, I am glad gBaltimore has football back ( I am not
happy the team they have was my Browns) but its over. It just causes
me allot of geirf grief to see so few make so much off of the
taxpayers. (Baltimore, Cleveland, LA, Seattle, Cincy, Tampa Bay....)
It is pretty hard to argue that all of these cities could use to spend
the $$$ on something that would really bring more economic viability
to the community.

Skigs

Sportsnut

unread,

Aug 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/30/96

Hey dork! We would have given that stuff away for an expansion team too!
And nobody cried at that. In fact, everyone was saying how nice a package
it was! Well, it's even better with an established team! See you in 4 or
5 years!

ArtBtz

unread,

Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96

With an intellect that only generations of frenzied in-family breeding can
typically provide, Sportsnut (ddth...@wam.umd.edu) babbles:

> Hey dork! We would have given that stuff away for an
> expansion team too!

Unfortunately, the NFL stated that Baltimore wouldn't make an acceptable
market for an expansion team. Does that sound like something you should
screw Cleveland for? Art Modell pounded his fist on the table and ran down
Baltimore as being unable to support NFL football. Does that sound like
something to reward Modell for?

If you want to know why Baltimore got screwed in 1993, look in your owners
box this weekend. If you can see past the piles of your money, you might
catch a glimpse of local fatboy Art Modell. Yep, that's the guy.

Now, I have to admit that Tagliabue's statement that Baltimore was full of
"Usenet trolling college students who make no sense, are completely
ignorant, and use a lot of exclamation points" was a little over the line,
but the fact remains that what Baltimore did was wrong. There's no excuse.

(remainder of troll snipped)

ArtBtz
Preparing to hang another head on my wall

0 new messages