MNF: Browns @ 49ers

[TecmoSuperJoe]

1 hour ago, Hunter2_1 said:

make a thread  @JustAnotherFan ? Interesting topic

I'd be interested in the thread title.

[FinSting]

7 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

Not a fan of Cowherd, but I had to look at this take this week to see the fallout concerning the "beef". 

At 6:40 he called Jarvis Landry 'Harvey' and I spilled coffee. Hahaha, Harvey. 

[Nabbs4u]

2 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

How many other teams in history have had to play against a combo like Belichick/Brady for ~20 years? 

How many other Teams in NFL history have Won 1 SB?

 

2 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

Don't worry I'll wait...

No need to wait, That's the point!! (1)!

Edited October 9, 2019 by Nabbs4u

[MWil23]

10 hours ago, N4L said:

I don't trust reddit as a source, but would you trust forbes?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/03/28/thirty-years-ago-baltimore-tried-to-use-eminent-domain-to-seize-an-nfl-team/ 

If that part of the story is true, I completely understand why they moved. Can you imagine an NFL franchise that is owned by a city?

Again, it's not so much the eminent domain portion as the entire body of work, which is when Irsay refused to fund the new stadium that he desperately wanted/needed himself with private funds, and instead held the public tax payers hostage. It would have gone to the courts just like the Oakland situation, and the courts would have (AND DID) backed Irsay because of the Oakland precedent. Both Irsay and Modell capitalized on blackmailing public taxpayers by essentially saying "Pony up the dough/tax money to fund MY STADIUM FOR MY TEAM or else we'll pack up and leave."

@PapaShogun That's the point I was trying to make earlier. Everyone focuses on the "eminent domain" portion and yet ignores the precedent, what would have happened (he would have retained the rights), and how he blackmailed taxpayers and leveraged his position to hold the public hostage. They called his bluff and they lost their team, just like Cleveland. Modell refused the new "sin tax stadium" proposal and didn't think it was legitimate, so he got super angry when the Indians got Jacob's Field and the Cavs got their new arena, 100% funded through tax off of alcohol and tobacco instead of additional bond/tax payer money, and then "Pulled an Irsay".  

[bigbadbuff]

Cowherd saying trade OBJ already. Lol!!!!!

[Hunter2_1]

1 minute ago, bigbadbuff said:

Cowherd saying trade OBJ already. Lol!!!!!

He always mentions teams improve after their 'diva WR' leaves. E.g - Dak improved when Dez left....some others.

[buno67]

5 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

Yeah I definitely agree with that. There have also been times where he's bailed from clean pockets though (but of course that's also probably due to ghosts from a porous OL). There are also some issues with accuracy which I don't remember being there last year though?

He is seeing ghost and he just doesn’t trust the OL at all. He is missing a lot of passes high and I think that correlates to him throwing off his back foot a lot. 

they need to have a quicker passing scheme. The browns don’t run slants curls or short ins and outs or short crossing routes. OBJ and Jarvis are pretty good at getting YAC yards but they won’t allow them to show it. 
 

going quicker let’s Baker getting into a rhythm seeing the ball being thrown and catch and the quick game takes pressure off the OL. That’s what they did a lot last year. For some reason they think they gotta hit the homerun with the passing game every drive. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

1 hour ago, MWil23 said:

Again, it's not so much the eminent domain portion as the entire body of work, which is when Irsay refused to fund the new stadium that he desperately wanted/needed himself with private funds, and instead held the public tax payers hostage. It would have gone to the courts just like the Oakland situation, and the courts would have (AND DID) backed Irsay because of the Oakland precedent. Both Irsay and Modell capitalized on blackmailing public taxpayers by essentially saying "Pony up the dough/tax money to fund MY STADIUM FOR MY TEAM or else we'll pack up and leave."

@PapaShogun That's the point I was trying to make earlier. Everyone focuses on the "eminent domain" portion and yet ignores the precedent, what would have happened (he would have retained the rights), and how he blackmailed taxpayers and leveraged his position to hold the public hostage. They called his bluff and they lost their team, just like Cleveland. Modell refused the new "sin tax stadium" proposal and didn't think it was legitimate, so he got super angry when the Indians got Jacob's Field and the Cavs got their new arena, 100% funded through tax off of alcohol and tobacco instead of additional bond/tax payer money, and then "Pulled an Irsay".  

But at the end of the day, Baltimore would have legally stolen the Colts, and that's a problem. Baltimore wanted to have it both ways, where they keep the Colts, but don't have to fund a new stadium, and that's garbage. Baltimore doesn't own the Colts, and never did. They don't want to fund a new stadium, fine. Which is honestly the smart play. But you don't then get to keep the Colts. 

Edited October 9, 2019 by PapaShogun

[MWil23]

1 minute ago, PapaShogun said:

But at the end of the day, Baltimore would have legally stolen the Colts, and that's a problem.

No court in this country would have upheld that decision. Anyone who knows anything about the law understands/understood that.

1 minute ago, PapaShogun said:

Baltimore wanted to have it both ways, where they keep the Colts, but don't have to fund a new stadium, and that's garbage.

So, it's ok to hold an entire city hostage? Maybe a billionaire should actually fund their own stadium for their own team. They can't have it both ways. Jerry Jones even understands this basic concept.

1 minute ago, PapaShogun said:

Baltimore doesn't own the Colts, and never did.

Nor would they have. See: Oakland eminent domain a few years earlier.

1 minute ago, PapaShogun said:

They don't want to fund a new stadium, fine. Which is honestly the smart play. But you don't then get to keep the Colts. 

Got it. Then you subscribe to ownership blackmail for taxpayers.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

11 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

No court in this country would have upheld that decision. Anyone who knows anything about the law understands/understood that.

So, it's ok to hold an entire city hostage? Maybe a billionaire should actually fund their own stadium for their own team. They can't have it both ways. Jerry Jones even understands this basic concept.

Nor would they have. See: Oakland eminent domain a few years earlier.

Got it. Then you subscribe to ownership blackmail for taxpayers.

We don't know that, regardless of what you believe. 

Quote

Since the Oakland Raiders case was still ongoing in March 1984 and since Maryland courts hadn’t stopped Baltimore’s prodigious use of eminent domain for “urban renewal,” condemning the Colts had a shot in court.  On March 27, 1984, the Maryland Senate voted 38 to 4 to approve legislation, which would allow Baltimore to seize the team.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/03/28/thirty-years-ago-baltimore-tried-to-use-eminent-domain-to-seize-an-nfl-team/#1941cc8541f5

Regardless if the odds were in Robert's favor, why even go through the hassle, and risk losing what is yours? Just leave. There is nothing to gain by Irsay by sticking around at that point, except maybe losing his franchise. 

Doesn't matter how one feels about it. It's the reality. The city doesn't own the franchise. If they don't want to help fund a new stadium, that's fine. Oakland just lost the Raiders because of this. Houston lost the Oilers. Sucks, but that's the reality. They can't control what billionaires decide to do with their money or properties. 

I subscribe to owning what is yours, and doing what you please with it. No one is forcing the city to pay for an NFL stadium. People just can't separate emotion and business. You aren't being blackmailed because an owner wants you to pay for an NFL stadium. You lose the team. So what. Life goes on. It's not a threat to one's livelihood. It's an entertainment product that got the cord cut. 

Edited October 9, 2019 by PapaShogun

[MWil23]

15 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

We don't know that, regardless of what you believe. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2014/03/28/thirty-years-ago-baltimore-tried-to-use-eminent-domain-to-seize-an-nfl-team/#1941cc8541f5

Don't "know" just means that people don't understand precedents vs. local/state/federal municipalities and that it makes for a convenient excuse.

15 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

Regardless if the odds were in Robert's favor, why even go through the hassle, and risk losing what is yours? Just leave. There is nothing to gain by Irsay by sticking around at that point, except maybe losing his franchise. 

MAYBE losing his franchise doesn't mean that it would be taken from him:

1. Permanently

2. Without compensation

3. Without a legal battle, under which anyone who knows anything about the government private property vs. public works, which would result in a ruling of infringement as definite statism, which is anti capitalism.

15 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

Doesn't matter how one feels about it. It's the reality. The city doesn't own the franchise.

I'm 100% with you here. You know what else that means? They shouldn't fund that franchise with tax dollars. Ownership can't/shouldn't have it BOTH WAYS. They don't own the franchise? Then FUND IT YOURSELF. See: Jerry Jones

15 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

If they don't want to help fund a new stadium, that's fine. Oakland just lost the Raiders because of this. Houston lost the Oilers. Sucks, but that's the reality. They can't control what billionaires decide to do with their money or properties. 

Yet, often times, this is used as blackmail against a fanbase, and once they get what they want (assuming that they do), they pull a Jeffrey Loria ala Miami. Throw in how if they don't like a solution that the city presents, even when viable/great like the Cleveland grant that I mentioned earlier, they have the control to pull the plug.

15 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

I subscribe to owning what is yours, and doing what you please with it.

I do too. But, again, as per above, you can't have it both ways. Embrace your role as the villain and don't expect me to empathize.

15 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

No one is forcing the city to pay for an NFL stadium.

That's literally EXACTLY what these owners are doing. Fund MY STADIUM for MY TEAM out of YOUR POCKET with TAX MONEY and you still get NO SAY. IF it's going to be funded with tax money, the citizens should get a kickback as part owners. That's how government entities and public works functions.

15 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

People just can't separate emotion and business.

It stops becoming emotion when it means tax money.

15 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

You aren't being blackmailed because an owner wants you to pay for an NFL stadium. You lose the team. So what. Life goes on.

You have ZERO experience in this, so respectfully, as we agree on a lot, just not this issue as I think you're a solid poster, you have absolutely no past experience or emotional investment to speak to this. You don't know what you're talking about. If San Fran did this to you and moved the team elsewhere, I'd imagine you'd be singing a different tune.

15 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

It's not a threat to one's livelihood. It's an entertainment product that got the cord cut. 

Which is totally valid...until tax money is taken into account. Then, you are literally taking money out of people's checks and impacting their livelihood.

@ramssuperbowl99, am I off base here? @LETSGOBROWNIES tell me if I am.

[ramssuperbowl99]

5 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Quote

You aren't being blackmailed because an owner wants you to pay for an NFL stadium. You lose the team. So what. Life goes on.

You have ZERO experience in this, so respectfully, as we agree on a lot, just not this issue as I think you're a solid poster, you have absolutely no past experience or emotional investment to speak to this. You don't know what you're talking about. If San Fran did this to you and moved the team elsewhere, I'd imagine you'd be singing a different tune.

@ramssuperbowl99, am I off base here? @LETSGOBROWNIES tell me if I am.

It gets annoyingly complicated because the team does have an obligation to negotiate "in good faith" for various legal reasons (I'm assuming it has to do with the anti-trust exemptions, but I'm not a lawyer).

The practical reality is that owners who threaten to move take advantage of the fact that the members of the city have an emotional attachment to the team, and convert that emotional attachment into political pressure to extort money from local politicians. Is that illegal? No. But if the best defense to something is that it's not technically illegal, that's basically an admission that it's a **** move of the highest order.

At the end of the day, it's sports. The Rams moving isn't that big a deal or something that actually impacts my life. I'll root against them, and consider anyone who was a St. Louis fan that stayed with them a coward with no self-respect. When Stan Kroenke dies, webby may as well just auto-ban me because it's gonna be a troll fest. But it's still just sports.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

17 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Don't "know" just means that people don't understand precedents vs. local/state/federal municipalities and that it makes for a convenient excuse.

MAYBE losing his franchise doesn't mean that it would be taken from him:

1. Permanently

2. Without compensation

3. Without a legal battle, under which anyone who knows anything about the government private property vs. public works, which would result in a ruling of infringement as definite statism, which is anti capitalism.

I'm 100% with you here. You know what else that means? They shouldn't fund that franchise with tax dollars. Ownership can't/shouldn't have it BOTH WAYS. They don't own the franchise? Then FUND IT YOURSELF. See: Jerry Jones

Yet, often times, this is used as blackmail against a fanbase, and once they get what they want (assuming that they do), they pull a Jeffrey Loria ala Miami. Throw in how if they don't like a solution that the city presents, even when viable/great like the Cleveland grant that I mentioned earlier, they have the control to pull the plug.

I do too. But, again, as per above, you can't have it both ways. Embrace your role as the villain and don't expect me to empathize.

That's literally EXACTLY what these owners are doing. Fund MY STADIUM for MY TEAM out of YOUR POCKET with TAX MONEY and you still get NO SAY. IF it's going to be funded with tax money, the citizens should get a kickback as part owners. That's how government entities and public works functions.

It stops becoming emotion when it means tax money.

You have ZERO experience in this, so respectfully, as we agree on a lot, just not this issue as I think you're a solid poster, you have absolutely no past experience or emotional investment to speak to this. You don't know what you're talking about. If San Fran did this to you and moved the team elsewhere, I'd imagine you'd be singing a different tune.

Which is totally valid...until tax money is taken into account. Then, you are literally taking money out of people's checks and impacting their livelihood.

@ramssuperbowl99, am I off base here? @LETSGOBROWNIES tell me if I am.

Yeah...I still don't agree with how you see it, like it at all. And really, you don't know me or what teams I've followed as a sports fan. Or how I'd respond to the 49ers moving. Pretty ignorant statement on your part. And I'll just leave it at that. There is a fundamental difference in viewing this issue that you believe is universal, and I don't. 

[MWil23]

Just now, PapaShogun said:

Yeah...I still don't agree with how you see it, like it at all.

That's fine, we'll agree to disagree.

Just now, PapaShogun said:

And really, you don't know me or what teams I've followed as a sports fan. Or how I'd respond to the 49ers moving. Pretty ignorant statement on your part.

Perhaps so. Yet based upon your lack of willingness to refute what I said and give an example, I don't believe that you do have any experience in the matter, and I did say that I "imagine" you'd be singing a different tune, not that you "would definitely". I did try to give you the benefit of the doubt there. albeit not with the first on having zero experience in the matter.

Just now, PapaShogun said:

And I'll just leave it at that. There is a fundamental difference in viewing this issue that you believe is universal, and I don't. 

I don't believe that this is universal in that everyone shares my view. I do believe that tax implications are valid to livelihood; that's all. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

Just now, MWil23 said:

That's fine, we'll agree to disagree.

Perhaps so. Yet based upon your lack of willingness to refute what I said and give an example, I don't believe that you do have any experience in the matter, and I did say that I "imagine" you'd be singing a different tune, not that you "would definitely". I did try to give you the benefit of the doubt there. albeit not with the first on having zero experience in the matter.

I don't believe that this is universal in that everyone shares my view. I do believe that tax implications are valid to livelihood; that's all. 

It doesn't matter what you believe or imagine. That's irrelevant. You don't know me as an individual, and that's a fact. 

Oh well. Insightful discussion anyway.