longtimebillsfan Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 On 1/7/2019 at 12:47 PM, Rochesterfan said: Nope because part of the deal when the team left Cleveland was that all team history and name was left behind in Cleveland. Baltimore even though they were the same players as in Cleveland started out as a new team and a new identity in Baltimore. I wish more moves were legally forced to do this. Oakland has brought a law suit trying to retain the Raiders name as well. I doubt that Mark Davis would be willing to give up the Raiders brand without a fight. Loosing the Raiders identity would greatly reduce the value of his franchise. It is not that easy to accomplish. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VegasBills17Mafia Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 I think that the Raiders history should stay in Oakland. Las Vegas should have got a new identity. I’m not used to saying Las Vegas Raiders yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 7 hours ago, cba fan said: just to clarify. You are correct in spirit. NFL, Modell, Browns, Dogpound fans behind lawsuit, City of Cleveland behind lawsuit, Baltimore, etc etc all agreed to keep Browns HX and colors/logos in Cleveland in return of a promise to get a new Browns team either by expansion or relocation in agreed upon time-frame.(1999 deadline) and Ravens to get Cleveland franchise moved to Baltimore and rebrand. As part of the deal all parties agreed to stop all litigation. So courts never ruled and unsure how they would have. NFL probably did not want a court deciding precedent and decided negotiation was the best way to proceed and settled for presumably what they thought was a better and fair deal for all. Yes the NFL, Browns, and Cleveland reached an agreement because the city and fans sued. This kept the Cleveland history and name intact in Cleveland. I think other cities should attempt the same thing and maintain their history. I could see Oakland losing because they already let the Raider name move to LA with the team, but Houston should have maintained the Oiler name and franchise history. It makes little sense for Houston’s great players to be a part of Tennessee lore. 5 hours ago, longtimebillsfan said: Oakland has brought a law suit trying to retain the Raiders name as well. I doubt that Mark Davis would be willing to give up the Raiders brand without a fight. Loosing the Raiders identity would greatly reduce the value of his franchise. It is not that easy to accomplish. Moving the team to increase the value should be offset by losing the brand and reducing the value - it would cause some additional concerns for ownerships that want to move all the time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimebillsfan Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 4 hours ago, Rochesterfan said: Yes the NFL, Browns, and Cleveland reached an agreement because the city and fans sued. This kept the Cleveland history and name intact in Cleveland. I think other cities should attempt the same thing and maintain their history. I could see Oakland losing because they already let the Raider name move to LA with the team, but Houston should have maintained the Oiler name and franchise history. It makes little sense for Houston’s great players to be a part of Tennessee lore. Moving the team to increase the value should be offset by losing the brand and reducing the value - it would cause some additional concerns for ownerships that want to move all the time. I agree with your point, but the question remains, does the team owners own the Brand, or does the city? This is not an easy issue to navigate. I have read that the city of Oakland does not have a very good chance to win their lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted January 9, 2019 Author Share Posted January 9, 2019 1 hour ago, longtimebillsfan said: I agree with your point, but the question remains, does the team owners own the Brand, or does the city? This is not an easy issue to navigate. I have read that the city of Oakland does not have a very good chance to win their lawsuit. The team owns it for sure. But ethically speaking, whether he legally can or not, is it right for Mark Davis to keep the Raiders name/logo/etc when he goes to Vegas? Side note, personally, I think the best thing to have done, if the Rams and Raiders had to move anyway. Rams move to Las Vegas. Raiders change their name to the California Raiders. They move to LA where they have a fanbase. Keep training camp, and a preseason game, and possibly one game a year in Oakland (ala, our Toronto deal, but with a city that already supports the team), as to not sell them out completely, and keep the Chargers in SD. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimebillsfan Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 1 hour ago, The Real Buffalo Joe said: The team owns it for sure. But ethically speaking, whether he legally can or not, is it right for Mark Davis to keep the Raiders name/logo/etc when he goes to Vegas? Side note, personally, I think the best thing to have done, if the Rams and Raiders had to move anyway. Rams move to Las Vegas. Raiders change their name to the California Raiders. They move to LA where they have a fanbase. Keep training camp, and a preseason game, and possibly one game a year in Oakland (ala, our Toronto deal, but with a city that already supports the team), as to not sell them out completely, and keep the Chargers in SD. That makes sense. Living in Las Vegas, I do not think I will ever root for the Raiders. The Rams would have been more tolerable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cba fan Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 3 hours ago, longtimebillsfan said: I agree with your point, but the question remains, does the team owners own the Brand, or does the city? This is not an easy issue to navigate. I have read that the city of Oakland does not have a very good chance to win their lawsuit. This is a very good point. No definitive yes/no answer IMO. Some leagues retain the trademark team names and logos as part of their league and have kind of a proxy ownership. Some leagues own all franchises like fast food stores. Others like NFL seem to be on a case by case basis. Cities at times try to invoke eminent domain to take ownership of franchises and have all failed. It all depends on the legal contracts signed by franchises establishing their relationship with the league when league starts or expands etc etc......and ongoing negotiations when this matter comes up. Each situation is different. Arena, Indoor Football leagues, minor league BB leagues like CBA, and some obscure hockey leagues, have many instances where teams change leagues yet stay in same town and arena and are forced to re-brand due to legalities. Then in some cases the league went into bankruptcy and the current teams bought back the rights to their brand for small amounts on court auction bidding and went on as same name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cba fan Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, The Real Buffalo Joe said: The team owns it for sure. But ethically speaking, whether he legally can or not, is it right for Mark Davis to keep the Raiders name/logo/etc when he goes to Vegas? Side note, personally, I think the best thing to have done, if the Rams and Raiders had to move anyway. Rams move to Las Vegas. Raiders change their name to the California Raiders. They move to LA where they have a fanbase. Keep training camp, and a preseason game, and possibly one game a year in Oakland (ala, our Toronto deal, but with a city that already supports the team), as to not sell them out completely, and keep the Chargers in SD. lot of opinion to consider. Davis family built up that brand and it has immense value. Why does he not own the name? And yet taxpayers and city in Oakland subsidized the team. Why do they not own it or able to eminent domain it to city? Stan Kroenke was going to LA come hell or high water and there was nothing NFL could do to stop him. He would have proceeded using the Raider model and likely would have won a lawsuit if NFL interfered too harshly, if it came to that. I do like the idea of your Raider solution. SoCal Raiders, Southern California Raiders, Golden Raiders. What about Golden State Raiders. Although since Golden State is not a city the GS Warriors could possibly object and sue. California Raiders probably best as you suggest. Then they could move anywhere in CA. Even SD....... Edited January 9, 2019 by cba fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cba fan Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 13 hours ago, VegasBills17Mafia said: I think that the Raiders history should stay in Oakland. Las Vegas should have got a new identity. I’m not used to saying Las Vegas Raiders yet take your time, because they have trademarked Nevada Raiders also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nextmanup Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 On 1/7/2019 at 4:02 PM, Rochesterfan said: This is not correct - Cleveland sued to keep the history and colors of the Browns. This forced the Baltimore team to get a new name and they have no history of people/players that were in Cleveland before. For example: Belicheck was Cleveland’s Head Coach is is not a Head Coach of record in Baltimore for the Ravens because the team history did not travel. Jim Brown has no history or connection to the Ravens. Wrong; naming and uniform rights are individual pieces of property which can be transferred. We are talking about "the team" as in legal entity. The Ravens are the successor in interest to the Browns with a direct chain of title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimebillsfan Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 1 hour ago, cba fan said: This is a very good point. No definitive yes/no answer IMO. Some leagues retain the trademark team names and logos as part of their league and have kind of a proxy ownership. Some leagues own all franchises like fast food stores. Others like NFL seem to be on a case by case basis. Cities at times try to invoke eminent domain to take ownership of franchises and have all failed. It all depends on the legal contracts signed by franchises establishing their relationship with the league when league starts or expands etc etc......and ongoing negotiations when this matter comes up. Each situation is different. Arena, Indoor Football leagues, minor league BB leagues like CBA, and some obscure hockey leagues, have many instances where teams change leagues yet stay in same town and arena and are forced to re-brand due to legalities. Then in some cases the league went into bankruptcy and the current teams bought back the rights to their brand for small amounts on court auction bidding and went on as same name. You are very well informed. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 (edited) The Raiders have already bounced back and forth between Oakland and L.A. They're much more of a regional/national brand and aren't exclusively tied to Oakland. I'd have much more of a sentimental issue with it if the Packers left Green Bay. The Packers ARE Green Bay and vice versa. Legally, the city of Oakland has no chance to win the lawsuit. Edited January 9, 2019 by LSHMEAB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Nextmanup said: Wrong; naming and uniform rights are individual pieces of property which can be transferred. We are talking about "the team" as in legal entity. The Ravens are the successor in interest to the Browns with a direct chain of title. If this is the case who is the all time lading receiver in Ravens history? Who is the leading receiver in Browns History? Ravens you will find that it is D Mason from 2005-2010 Browns - Ozzie Newsome 1978 - 1990. Try Rushing, Passing, Sacks, Coaching records, anything you want. In the unique case of the Browns the agreement was made for the city of Cleveland to retain all property of the Browns. ”Subsequent legal actions by the city of Cleveland and Browns season ticket holders led the NFL to broker a compromise that saw the Browns history, records, and intellectual property remain in Cleveland. In return, Modell was permitted to move his football organization to Baltimore where he established the Baltimore Ravens. The Ravens are officially regarded by the NFL as an expansion team that began play in 1996.” The Browns were unique because the NFL folded instead of fighting for the history. Most other teams move and retain the history in the new location, but not in the Brown/Ravens case. The Ravens were considered an expansion team with no history, but already loaded with players. Now let’s try it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 On 1/8/2019 at 11:11 AM, RochesterRob said: Not really. Up until the 1990's the Browns had a fairly good history. Just because some guy who is 30-35 years old today did not see it happen during his grown up years does not mean that it did not happen. Instant gratification is a stain on too many sports fans today. Except for all the ***** years they were very good. Wow, I never thought about it that way. Great point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 14 minutes ago, Jauronimo said: Except for all the ***** years they were very good. Wow, I never thought about it that way. Great point. Only three losing seasons from 1950 when they joined the NFL until 1975 which ain't bad at all. A bunch of NFL titles until the merger took effect in 1970. Almost made the first SB and might have made a couple of SB back in the 1980's if it were not for Elway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, RochesterRob said: Only three losing seasons from 1950 when they joined the NFL until 1975 which ain't bad at all. A bunch of NFL titles until the merger took effect in 1970. Almost made the first SB and might have made a couple of SB back in the 1980's if it were not for Elway. I guess the Bills have a very happy history too if you focus on pre AFL merger days and the could-have-been angle of on the Super Bowl years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 (edited) The Lakers continue to claim George Mikan, Minneapolis Laker from 1947-56. Quick rule of thumb: if the team keeps the nickname, it keeps the history. Raiders, Lakers, Jazz ... ... some day the San Diego Bills may claim O.J. as their greatest ever running back. Or maybe not. Edited January 9, 2019 by The Frankish Reich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOKIE Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 This is a very interesting topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts