The Cleveland Indians game experience is great but they need to fix “God Bless America”
July 15, 2013Pacific Rim is fun movie that was marketed too seriously – WFNY Podcast – 2013-07-14
July 15, 2013Just 10 short days from now, the Cleveland Browns will officially open Training Camp 2013. It’s hard to believe how fast summer always flies by, but I consider Training Camp to be the beginning of the end of summer. And in just 3 weeks from yesterday, the Dolphins and Cowboys kick things off in the annual Hall of Fame Game at Fawcett Stadium in Canton.
Indeed, real on-field football is right around the corner. Of course, for Browns fans, on-field football seems to be about the furthest thing from anyone’s mind. Instead, the story dominating Browns headlines as of late revolves around new owner Jimmy Haslam.
I wish the story was the Browns themselves. Even if that story is about how the Browns rank #31 in ProFootballTalk’s preseason rankings. Or heck, I’d even settle for more talk about the Browns potentially carrying 2 kickers on their roster. But on-field Browns news is hard to come by these days. I actually had to do a Google search to find out if Barkevious Mingo had signed a contract yet1. I was pretty sure he hadn’t, figuring I’d have heard about it if he had. But with so much talk about Jimmy Haslam, it seemed somewhat plausible that he had signed and the news just flew under the radar.
This isn’t meant as a critique of the Browns media, or of blogs such as this one. It’s much more of a critique of Jimmy Haslam’s company (for putting the Browns in this situation) and the NFL itself2. If you can stomach the pain, check out the ‘Browns’ category of this site. It’s ugly seeing the disproportionate number of articles written about off field issues. But again, we as a site can only report and opine on the news that’s given to us. And the biggest story by far continues to be the Pilot Flying J scandal.
For right now, Jimmy Haslam is insisting he didn’t know about any of Pilot Flying J’s wrongdoings and that the Browns are not for sale and that everything is going to be peachy in the long run. I want to believe him. As a Browns fan, I don’t want to think about the Browns changing hands once again and the potential of yet another front office overhaul and yet another coaching regime change.
It’s somewhat challenging as a Browns fan to know exactly how we’re supposed to feel about this. On one hand, Jimmy Haslam is the Browns owner, and as a Browns fan, there feels like an instinct to support him. But there are certain pseudo-moral qualms that go with that support.
First off, whether Haslam knew about it or not, the money he used to buy the Browns came from Pilot Flying J, a company that shrewdly defrauded less sophisticated customers out of money that was owed to them. Second of all, if this all happened under Jimmy Haslam’s nose without his knowledge, it sort of sets a bad precedent of oversight and leadership.
I realize no two companies work exactly the same, but in talking with several people who have worked in sales for large companies, they are pretty unanimous in asserting that sure it’s possible to have a CEO not know something like is going on. Maybe even plausible. But they also felt pretty strongly that a CEO who is a strong, hands-on leader would know about this at least to some degree.
We can debate whether Haslam knew about any of this, but the truth is that for now we don’t know. Instead, I want to focus on what we can control, and that is the level of support given to Jimmy Haslam.
I’ve really wrestled with this idea recently. It wasn’t that long ago that I was thrilled to have Haslam on board. He brought in people who I felt gave the front office a stronger presence and a better pedigree in that role. He brought an infectious energy to the franchise. He quickly had the team featured in a Travel Channel mini-series. Things seemed to be looking up.
Now, it’s hard to know what direction anything is heading, and that makes it somewhat difficult to reconcile how to feel about our new owner. It’s hard to know how to feel about the NFL’s culpability in more or less serving the Browns on a platter to Haslam without a thorough vetting process3. And most of all, it’s hard to understand why this has to be happening to the Browns.
In 10 days, hopefully the narrative switches. I’m sure it will for the most part. Training Camp is exciting, and for the media, it’s a chance to finally see some players in action and get daily quotes and information from coaches, staff, players, etc. But it’s naïve to think that Haslam won’t continue to be a big part of the story. And that’s really the saddest part of all for Browns fans. There’s no real end in sight to this story, and many Browns fans will be left struggling to balance support of the Cleveland Browns with support for Jimmy Haslam.
Short of selling the Browns tomorrow, the best thing for the franchise would be to move forward with Jimmy Haslam remaining as owner. For Haslam to never face charges or have evidence brought up proving his direct knowledge. If that happens, this could all be over in a year or so.
The worst case scenario for fans and the franchise itself would be for the owner to fight and scramble to hang onto the franchise, only to eventually have to give it up a couple years from now. It would mean prolonged doubt, dwindling resources, and general confusion for a couple years, only to start all over again at a later time.
Either way, the fans lose. What are we supposed to be rooting for here? You want the owner to be the kind of CEO who knows everything that is going on in his company. But if that’s the case, then it means he knew about the scam and did nothing to stop it. So is it better for Browns fans to have an owner who was blindsided by his subordinates?
I don’t know what’s going to happen, but as Browns fan, I’m apprehensive as to what the future holds and conflicted about how to feel about Jimmy Haslam. And that’s an unfortunate situation to be in just 10 days from Training Camp.
- he hasn’t [↩]
- hey NFL, thanks for the hand-picked new owner of the Browns! [↩]
- I know the NFL will insist Haslam was vetted through the Steelers organization. I’m sure they’ll say ‘How could we possibly know this was going to happen?’ But the NFL Owners Fraternity, along with the NFL itself, is comprised of some of the most powerful people in America. I find it hard to believe the NFL couldn’t have at least gotten word from the FBI from a confidential source that there might be some dirt on Haslam and that the NFL should tread lightly. But maybe that’s expecting too much on my part [↩]
66 Comments
Supporting Browns is a Tricky Proposition for Fans
well, I’m going to support the Browns regardless of the ownership. at this point, I’ve pretty much separated the business from the sport as it’s necessary to cheer on a lot of the players as well. miss the days of sport-innocence.
I still don’t get what people think the NFL could have done to prevent this?
NFL: Hey Jimmy, you in trouble with the law?
Jimmy: Nope!
NFL: You suuuuuuure? Pinky-swear?
or perhaps…
NFL: Hey Federal Government are you currently running a secret investigation of Pilot Plying J?
FBI: We aren’t allow to say
NFL: That’s cool, just blink twice for yes and once for no ok?
no offense, Andrew, but I don’t even see a dilemma. You’re too involved, man. It’s sports, it’s just entertainment. Who roots for ownership? Dodger fans didn’t pick a spouse in the owner’s divorce. Fans of Elvis circa 1957 didn’t fret “now what kinda man is that Colonel Parker?”
If we have an insatiable fascination about this billionaire – if we pretend it’s so important because a carpetbagger who only a year ago arrived in an arranged marriage somehow besmirches our rep by deeds done before he arrived, or if we’ve already decided the football WILL DEFINITELY be affected because the worst always happens here – how ’bout we just sit and wait and see what the truth is? Jimmy is not our friend, not one of us. The limo marked “NFL” just dropped him off 2 seconds ago. I thought the rooting part was for the guys in the pads. We have no dog in this fight.
I believe ownership has a direct impact on the team. So from that standpoint, I want to root for ownership. But as for your 2nd paragraph, that’s much of what I was saying. There’s no reason to root for Haslam. I’m just saying that’s troubling because if things go bad for Haslam, that’s likely to bleed into the organization in one way or another. Obviously I did a poor job on this piece if that point isn’t clear.
How can anyone not love Jimmy? He changed the name of Cleveland Browns Stadium to some crappy corporation name. He’s changing our traditional uniforms to be more “forward looking.” He’s . . . thank God almighty . . . he’s giving us pyrotechnics during player introductions!
If your heart isn’t swelling with joy, then you’re just kinda cynical.
“Hey [good friend who works for the FBI], Roger Goodell here. Listen, we’re looking into approving this Jimmy Haslam guy. Off the record, can you do a search and let me know if you guys have anything going on him? I don’t need details, just need to know if he’s clean or not. Thanks.”
“Hey, Roger. No comments or details, and this needs to remain off record and between you and I, but I’d be careful with approving him. And that’s all I can say right now.”
Back channel conversations do happen in real life. Obviously the FBI isn’t going to say in an official capacity that they have an open suggestion. Nobody is saying that. But when a billion dollar enterprise is up for sale, yeah, I was hoping those with great power and influence would leverage that power to get unofficial information on whether or not the guy is clean.
Think it’s me who’s not clear. Sure, quality of ownership will affect the team. Let me try from a different angle: we all want good ownership. If Haslam is a flimflam guy, a football personnel guy wannabe, or has some other negative quality that might affect my team, I wanna know, ASAP. He just came here as a blank slate to me and as the customer I owe him nothing. I have no reason to root for a guy the NFL set up to buy the Browns, or for Banner, the franchise expert the NFL introduced to him for purposes of the takeover here. If he’s innocent, I want him here. If not, I want to know how his defect will affect my team. Until I know, he doesn’t deserve any bias from this interested new customer.
A couple points –
1) I’m not sure that “the best thing for the franchise would be to move forward with Jimmy Haslam remaining as owner.” The best thing for the franchise would be for this team to start WINNING soon and winning a lot. If you have a winning franchise, the ownership matters a whole lot less. Imagine if the Kraft family suddenly had to sell the Patriots – do we think the new ownership would fire Bill Bellicheck and revamp the Patriots front office just because they could? Given their winning track record, I doubt it. So this new front office regime and coaching staff just needs to focus on winning, and if they win, I don’t think the identity of the owner will matter that much.
2) I don’t blame the NFL for the vetting process. First, after dealing with Haslam as a member of the Steelers organization and presumably getting further information from the Rooney family, why would the NFL even think to call the FBI to check if he had a potential for criminal activity? The guy looked squeaky clean and there was no reason to think otherwise. Second, even if the NFL had some back channel, off the record source at the FBI to check into these sort of things, why would the FBI have trusted Goodell or anyone at the NFL to keep the fact that Haslam was under investigation (or even a statement about “being careful about approving him”) a secret? If you’re the FBI, you’re not potentially blowing the cover off a huge sting operation just to help the NFL do a vetting process. And even if the NFL gets that information and then denies Haslam’s ownership of the Browns, what explanation are they using to justify that decision? What could they say publicly? What could they even say privately to Haslam without blowing the FBI’s cover and potentially leading to Haslam or others acting to conceal or destroy evidence? Would they have let Haslam continue to own his portion of the Steelers?
So I’m not going to complain about the NFL vetting process. However, in the event that the pending criminal and/or civil maters create a situation where Haslam is no longer financially able to operate the franchise, then the NFL needs to take action to protect the franchise, players and the fans. We’re not there though, and hopefully we never get there.
That’s fair, Harv. And honestly, not that different from how I feel about it. But for the sake of the Browns, there’s a part of me that wants all of this to blow over. I think that’s the part I’m struggling with.
1) All great points, Adam. You’re spot on with that.
2) I would think the NFL would vet all of their new owners via the FBI. As for why would the FBI trust them, it wouldn’t be the FBI as an organization trusting them. It would be one person. One source, who has an established history of friendship/trust with the NFL. That’s how virtually all sources, whether in this case or the media or whatever, tend to work. Stuff gets leaked all the time. It generally comes out of a spirit of trust.
I full admit I might be too hard on the NFL on this vetting situation. But maybe I’m not. You can’t understate just how powerful these owners are and how many friends they have in powerful positions at places like the FBI.
What the NFL could have done to prevent this is not to have sole private ownership of what is really a publlc trust, especially one that happens to easily fund itself and spin off cash by the truckloads. But of course, the NFL as an organization is nothing but these owners, most of which are criminals at some level. Though on a macro level, perhaps none is more criminal than Haslem (not because of the little billing fraud.)
There is no way the FBI risks their investigation by anyone disclosing anything officially or off the books. When Jimmy asks the NFL why they declined his bid they could not hold that information back from him regardless of back-channel sources.
What makes you think a franchise is a public trust?
No way that happens. Ever. At least not as you’ve suggested.
I think you’ve been watching too many movies and/or TV where these kinds of “back channel conversations happen in real life.” To think the FBI would risk a multi-year, multi-million dollar investigation to appease Goodell or the NFL powers that be is preposterous.
What they all said. That’s not how it happens in real life.
Why are they all criminals at some level? Because they’re rich and rich people are just evil…?
To me, the popularity and financial success of the NFL (and really all the the pro sports) has more to do with civic pride and inter-civic competitiveness than anything else. That’s what grew the league and that’s what generates the interest and the money, just like loyalties in college football. The idea that the sporting expression of this civic competitiveness is locked down and legally controlled by an anti-trust exempted cabal of billionaires is odious.
Nope. Incredibly wealthy people are no more or less “evil” than other humans I don’t think. Now these incredibly vast concentrations of wealth often do tend to lead to lead the folks that control them in fundamentally amoral directions, just as incredible poverty and want does. We could catalogue those types of things, but I doubt you’re interested in that.
I just said “most,” and I’d think I’d stand by that. Beyond the simple mob ties, extortion schemes, and political bribery from the DeBartolo, Model, Jerry Jones, or Rooney types, I consider holding cities hostage to relocation something of an extortion. So most owners have been at least complicit in that.
I knew it was true love when, as the ink was still drying on the check, Haslam had Paul Ryan over for practice to use the Browns for a photo op. I’ve always said, we need more alienating partisan politics in sports.
When were those again?
Because you cite two examples of owners with alleged mob ties and two others with what you categorize as political chicanery you indict all 32?!?!? An owner has a business to run and because you love the team and he has to make fiscal decisions that he feels are in the best interest of the running of that business/team you call it holding cities hostage. I would agree, most owners are complicit in trying to maximize the profitability of their business venture as any other business owner in a free enterprise system attempts to do every day.
Dude. “Most.” “All.” Are these the same words, or different ones? I think we need to lock that down before we go further.
Second, I cited a couple but the entire history of the NFL is rife with illegal gambling and mob ties. You can start here: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2012/jul/04/citylights1-nfl-dirty-secret/
Third, the NFL has an anti-trust exemption that allows it to operate in a way fundamentally unlike “any other business in a free enterprise system” and a lot more like the mob from which much of it’s history is sourced. It is a single cartel of franchises with a closely guarded and legally sanctioned monopoly on professional football, and that allows it to extort public monies from municipalities for its operation.
Cleveland is one of the hostages they shot to make the point and get publicly financed stadiums that crammed hundreds of millions of dollars right into the pockets of these “business owners.”
Tell Mayor Jackson to let the city buy the team!
Sorry, the NFL can’t allow that kind of chaos.
http://www.pbs.org/livelyhood/ourtowns/nflrules.html
Dude. Agreed, four is not 32 (e.g. all). Is four somehow closer to “most” than “all” though?
The entire history of everything is interwoven with crime. You choose where to place your attention.
Are the citizenry no longer free to vote down the extension of those public monies? Who’s more culpable, the owner of the business you apparently despise or the customers whose identity is so tied up with a game that they are unable to choose not to participate?
>>>Dude. Agreed, four is not 32 (e.g. all). Is four somehow closer to “most” than “all” though?>>>
I thought I was clear that I am classing the owners who participated in holding Cleveland and other cities hostage via their monopoly to extort public funds as participating in a kind of crime. By definition, they needed “most” of the owners to approve that. So that’s where I get that.
>>>Are the citizenry no longer free to vote down the extension of those public monies?>>>
Of course. You’re always “free” to not pay the ransom. It’s a question of what happens if you don’t. Cleveland found out.
>>> Who’s more culpable, the owner of the business you apparently despise or the customers whose identity is so tied up with a game that they are unable to choose not to participate?>>>
That’s really easy. The owner of the >>>cough cough cough>>>> monopoly business. Are you a Cleveland Browns fan, or what? Ravens?
Here, check this out. It’s an economic study showing that on the whole ALL of the increase in franchise value in pro sports over the past 40 years is attributable to 2 things: monopoly status, and the tax infusion. http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/spe/HumphreysLee_FranchiseValues.pdf
This is most pronounced in the NFL since they started shooting hostages. The “business side” of this thing has been nothing but a high priced extortion scheme, a scheme that depends upon not allowing public ownership into the cabal.
So your claim is that it is “ours” because we like it and watch it and other cities don’t like it?
We’ve reached that point in nearly every debate I’ve ever witnessed: You and I perceive these issues as we do and are unlikely to change. No amount of point-making will alter that “reality.” You win.
I’m actually quite likely to change when presented with cogent arguments. Your take that this is like “any other business” is admittedly a nonstarter for me, I think that is just palpably wrong. Part of my passion for this particular argument is that I used to be on the other side, sounded like you, and argued with a city planner friend (who it turned out knew a lot more about how the nfl works than I did) that the Browns would never move because it was a great market and that would be insane.
I am interested though, just as postmortem…are you a browns fan and were you as of the time of the move? If so, did you stick with the ravens, or opt out, or what?
Exclusively a Browns fan (not interested in any other Cleveland sports anything) since ’61.
Cogent is subjective and we differ on its parameters in this particular instance. Because a city planner helped you see a light doesn’t mean it’s principally correct even if it is situationally defensible.
Gotcha. It makes somewhat more sense to me that a browns-but-not-cavs-or-tribe fan would have the take that the civic part is less relevant. Did you stick on with model’s team until the browns came back? Were you angry or put off at the move at all?
I think our basic difference would probably just be that I see the fans and city as really the prime element of a pro sports team. You could change owners all day and night and I don’t find that significant. Change the city and its a different team to me.
Just that no one can or should own the idea of top level pro football in a given city.
it’s ours because its business is built specifically on the 21st century manifestation of primitive basic human need of tribalism. it’s entire raison d’etre is representing a region, a city-state, against other regions/city-states.
or if you want to fall back on legalistic jive, it’s ours because it enjoys anti-trust exemptions and so bears a legal, if not moral, responsibility to its region lest the exemption be withdrawn.
So it is ours because it sates a psychological desire?
As to your second point, SCOTUS would like to have a chat about it.
No, I didn’t have particularly strong feelings toward Model when he moved the team. He was a businessman making what he felt was the best decision for his business. Whether that logic was sound or not was irrelevant; it was his business to do with as he saw fit. I do not share your sense of it being a public trust. I do not allow others to hold me hostage.
I enjoyed watching them while I grew up in Cleveland. I was sorry to see them leave. The Ravens were never an option. I would agree with you, “change the city and it’s a different team”. Fortunately, I had/have a great many other interests and experienced no appreciable void in my life during their absence. I was happy when they returned and added them back to the list of available entertainment choices in my life.
From your writing I don’t believe we attach the same importance to their role in our lives. While I am passionate in my support for the team and long for a winning product on the field in the end they are an entertainment commodity and I am a consumer, nothing more, nothing less. I do not define or derive my sense of self from them. I am not crushed when they fail and I am not vindicated when they triumph; I am entertained. I do not confuse them for me.
it doesn’t? it’s not a common bond for a community of 2-3-4 millions of people? it doesn’t profit primarily through this unique affiliation? i must not have been paying attention closely enough.
i understand there are plenty of people who actively seek to deny this relationship and present it as any other business. the reality, and the morality, is different.
but yeah, the threat of having to be reviewed in front of SCOTUS is another way to go in terms of enforcement. i dont think a free-for-all where any one can spin up a pro football team and sign athletes from anywhere would enhance the $1,000,000,000 value currently assigned to the 32 teams. ie, if there’s 64 teams, they will be worth less. thus the current owners prefer to keep the number static.
More than the Black Keyes, Michael Symon, Drew Carey, Slyman’s, the vendors of the overpriced West Side Market or those awful Buckeye candies Malley’s makes? Or are those all ours too? Simply being located here and a part of the local economy doesn’t make it ours.
You misunderstand. They argued for anti-trust protection before SCOTUS and were denied.
You choose the browns for…entertainment? I guess you understand and intend your implication that what is commonly and etymologically considered a “fan” is little more than a droll loser type with little self worth and bad alternative options. I wont blame you for the insult, we are probably such opposite types that we naturally should just sit and misunderstand and insult one another. But look, here we both are under the unifying umbrella of the orange and brown, I in my wild civic fanaticism and you in the chillingly modern entertainment-consuming capitalist logic that murders everything it touches. Salut. Go Browns.
I still fully believe that the NFL knows that Haslem is damaged goods and that they’re working as we speak to find a buyer for the Browns. This looks horrible for them for way too many reasons (including their own judgment), and I suspect as we speak whomever could buy the team is now having his books read by hand by two dozen of the best auditors the world can find so that when the transfer does happen, this time it won’t blow up in the NFL’s face. The only question may be whether the NFL will wait for an actual indictment to fall or whether some plea deal (including losing the franchise) is cut before that happens. But if the IRS is already thisclose to indicting Haslem, it’s all over but the shouting. Sooner the better, and I’m okay with that.
In 10 they argued a particular aspect of anti trust for a very particular reason (union busting) and were denied. That’s not what anyone is talking about when they reference the NFL’s antitrust exemptions. Just look it up. The NFL was the recipient in 61 and whenever the merger was of acts of congress that allow it to operate as an exempted monopoly and as a single entity for the purpose of TV deals.
Its a monopoly cartel, plain and simple. And it was built on, and trades on, local civic pride and competitiveness. The market would EASILY bear more teams. The reason viable cities cannot field teams is simply because the NFL won’t allow it. They need to limit competition and preserve the potential landing spots for potential relocation, because that threat is how they extort the public dollars that inflate their franchise value.
So the question as to why we the fans have something like ownership interest in our civic franchises is that the NFL system is illegal except by special grant of the people inothe United States, and the terms of that original deal have been perverted by the owners for extortion of public dollars. Does that make sense?
seriously?
since i left fisher body shuttered, ford lorain closed, i guess they re-opened the engine plant in brook park. wmms is irrelavant, the agora is gone, cleveland press dead, the plain dealer a shell.
the cornfield behind my backyard that i walked through to the little league fields behind the catholic church? cornfield, gone; little league fields, gone; church/rectory, demolished.
the browns are the singular touchstone that endures and provides a bond across generations to the cleveland region. i don’t know that there’s a truer use of the phrase ‘public trust.’
there’s some willful obfuscation going on if this truth is proving a challenge to grasp.
piggy-backing on this, my ‘anti-trust threat’ comment was a referral to nixon/kleindienst’s 1972 messaging to rozelle that the FTC may have to review pro-football’s business practice which led to the NFL modifying it’s blackout policy. it’s the threat of action that provides a the means to subject football to standards that might not apply to non public trust businesses.
Of course “the FBI” isn’t going to do that. That’s not what I’m suggesting. I’m talking about a single source, an individual.
Yes, of course I choose the Browns for entertainment.
Entertainment (Wikipedia): is something that holds the attention and interest of an audience, or gives pleasure and delight. It can be an idea or a task, but is more likely to be one of the activities or events that have developed over thousands of years specifically for the purpose of keeping an audience’s attention.
So do you.
Football is a form of entertainment. That isn’t in question. The importance we assign that entertainment is.
You asked me if I stuck with Model’s team after the move so I explained my take on Model and the move. It didn’t seem plausible to explain my perspective on Model without also explaining my perspective on football/sport. I explained the role football plays in my life. I explained that role within the context of the attitudes expressed on this and most every other NFL related blog and the many fans I’ve known over the course of my life.
You chose to interpret that contextualization as a personal insult. In turn you manufactured as cutting an insult as you could muster and somehow magically dubbed me a murderer.
Touché…
Who cares. Browns fans won’t if they start to win.
So simply being here a long, long time makes it ours then?
I am not following your argument. There are currently three professional football franchises in Cleveland alone. I do not see how you can call that a monopoly.
>>>From your writing I don’t believe we attach the same importance to their role in our lives….I do not define or derive my sense of self from them.>>>
I don’t think we view child molestation the same way at all…I think it’s wrong and perverted and must be prevented.
But don’t read that the wrong way!
>> they are an entertainment commodity and I am a consumer, nothing more, nothing less>>
This is the hyper-modern way of looking at things that I find such a buzz-kill. It’s not like it’s in any way rare, so I don’t mean it as a particular insult, nor am I calling you a murderer (good grief!).
But apart from my distaste at the modern outlook, I think you misunderstand the inherently civic nature of the “entertainment product” on offer here. I find it implausible your attachment and “passion” for this entertainment is completely divorced from it’s civic and communal core. Two items here, one bit of evidence and one thought experiment.
Evidence: you did not want to consume this product when it became affiliated with another city. Despite the fact that it became indisputably higher quality. Why would that be?
Thought experiment: what if you were the team’s last “consumer.” No throng of cheering fans. No one else interested enough to watch the game or talk about draft scenarios or plays. Just you, consuming your entertainment in post-civic solitude. Do you really think you’d continue to “consume” in the same way?