Quote:
|
Originally Posted by abailey3313
(By the way... if they moved from Cleveland, they aren't an expansion team, right? Ravens fans insist they were an expansion team, but I don't remember any expansion. I remember them being stolen from Cleveland just like the Colts were stolen from Baltimore. Hypocritical Ravens fans.)
|
Technically, the Ravens are considered an expansion franchise. When the Browns moved to Baltimore, part of the agreement that the NFL reached with the city of Cleveland would be that the Ravens would be considered a "new" franchise, while the "future" Cleveland Browns would inherit the history of the original franchise. It's as if the Browns simply didn't play for a number of years. Check out the Records areas of the Browns & Ravens sites to see for yourself.
From a Baltimore Sun article that I googled:
Quote:
the deal calls for Cleveland to drop its lawsuit against the Browns, a case that was scheduled for trial Monday. The city sought to force the Browns to play the final three seasons of their lease at Cleveland Stadium.
Instead, Cleveland will build a 72,000-seat stadium at the site of the current facility. The city estimates this will cost between $220 million and $230 million, and will be paid for by league financing and a $175 million package of tax increases and borrowing already approved by Cleveland.
Cleveland also agreed not to lure a team itself, leaving its football destiny in the NFL's hands.
In return, the city will get to keep the Browns' name, colors and records for use by another team that the league promises to bring to the city, through expansion or relocation, by 1999.
|