Moderators: peeker643, jb, swerb, pup
by peeker643 » Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:47 pm
by Believeland » Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:52 pm
by peeker643 » Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:57 pm
Believeland wrote:Can there be front office moves prior to league approval of ownership change? I had heard NO but unsure.
by scott » Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:57 pm
by JCoz » Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:14 pm
by Hikohadon » Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:18 pm
JCoz wrote:I thought I read that Banner didn't get along well with Heckert.

by JCoz » Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:21 pm
by Hikohadon » Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:25 pm
JCoz wrote:I didnt say I believed it, I was offering a possible reason that Heckert may not be retained.

by motherscratcher » Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:32 pm
by scott » Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:35 pm
Hikohadon wrote:JCoz wrote:I thought I read that Banner didn't get along well with Heckert.
I've also read that was a false assumption.
You shouldn't believe everything you hear or read, like Peeks does.
by Cerebral_DownTime » Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:36 pm
motherscratcher wrote:2 things we need to know ASAP
1. What is Chuck Boom's opinion.
2. What are Broussard's twitter sources telling him?
by The Score » Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:40 pm
Believeland wrote:Can there be front office moves prior to league approval of ownership change? I had heard NO but unsure.
by Gradysmanldy » Fri Aug 03, 2012 1:50 pm
by JCoz » Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:12 pm
by pup » Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:16 pm
by mattvan1 » Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:23 pm
by pup » Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:27 pm
mattvan1 wrote:I seriously doubt Haslam can do anything official until the league formally approves the change in ownership, even if the vote will be just a rubber stamp. Holmgren could always step down on his own, however.
Haslam will soon own a team for which he paid $1,000,000,000, so I guess he kinda gets to do what he wants.
Big question, though - who is his football guy? 'Cause it aint Joe Banner.
by mattvan1 » Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:32 pm
pup wrote:mattvan1 wrote:I seriously doubt Haslam can do anything official until the league formally approves the change in ownership, even if the vote will be just a rubber stamp. Holmgren could always step down on his own, however.
Haslam will soon own a team for which he paid $1,000,000,000, so I guess he kinda gets to do what he wants.
Big question, though - who is his football guy? 'Cause it aint Joe Banner.
Why not? Or are you saying Banner is not a football guy?
by pup » Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:34 pm
mattvan1 wrote:pup wrote:mattvan1 wrote:I seriously doubt Haslam can do anything official until the league formally approves the change in ownership, even if the vote will be just a rubber stamp. Holmgren could always step down on his own, however.
Haslam will soon own a team for which he paid $1,000,000,000, so I guess he kinda gets to do what he wants.
Big question, though - who is his football guy? 'Cause it aint Joe Banner.
Why not? Or are you saying Banner is not a football guy?
From everything that I have read, he is not. Although he thinks he is, apparently. Hard to tell because Reid had final say in Philly, but I am not a fan of having your business and capologist have a hand in talent evaluation.
by Hikohadon » Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:45 pm
by motherscratcher » Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:51 pm
by motherscratcher » Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:55 pm
by Hikohadon » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:03 pm
motherscratcher wrote:Hiko - if he's not smart enough to know what would happen amongst the fan base if he decided to logo up the helmet, then I'm much less optimistic about this transition.
The uniforms, meh, I'm not sure how different they could be. It's not like they'd go with orange elfs riding a brown lightning bolt down the shoulders or something.
by pup » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:04 pm
by FUDU » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:05 pm
motherscratcher wrote:The uniforms, meh, I'm not sure how different they could be. It's not like they'd go with orange elfs riding a brown lightning bolt down the shoulders or something.
by mistero » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:14 pm
by StewieG » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:15 pm
by Hikohadon » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:23 pm
mistero wrote:I'm totally drinking the kool aid on Haslam.
This guy has balls and knows how to run a business.
We are on our way.
I think fans are spilt on changing the uni. Keep the colors and for christsake put the elf on the helmet! Change it up. Change our luck and quit fucking losing.
No more tradition because our recent tradition blows.
Hope to see him at the stadium in preseason.
by JCoz » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:24 pm
motherscratcher wrote:Hiko - if he's not smart enough to know what would happen amongst the fan base if he decided to logo up the helmet, then I'm much less optimistic about this transition.
by Hikohadon » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:35 pm

by rk » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:38 pm
peeker643 wrote:Apparently 'KNR reporting Holmgren gone after 1pm Haslam press conference with heckert potentially soon to follow.
by The Score » Fri Aug 03, 2012 3:42 pm
Hikohadon wrote:So... what current Tennessee player will be our #1 draft pick next year? :hide:
by CleSportsTruth » Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:07 pm
by rk » Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:27 pm
CleSportsTruth wrote:Second, is the Clark Judge report that Holmgren & Heckert are gone in due time. That was the main conversation.
by Hikohadon » Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:44 pm
rk wrote:CleSportsTruth wrote:Second, is the Clark Judge report that Holmgren & Heckert are gone in due time. That was the main conversation.
Good to know Clark Judge is still alive and just as relevant to Cleveland sports as ever. But I won't believe it until either John Madden or Dr. Z confirm.
by Hikohadon » Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:45 pm
by e0y2e3 » Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:49 pm

by Hikohadon » Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:53 pm
e0y2e3 wrote:Sportsline actually employs the second best NBA reporter (new wise) in the business.
by CleSportsTruth » Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:55 pm
Hikohadon wrote:I wish they would shut up about the retractable roof bullshit.
by Hikohadon » Fri Aug 03, 2012 5:17 pm
CleSportsTruth wrote:Hikohadon wrote:I wish they would shut up about the retractable roof bullshit.
I mean I wish they'd done it, but the upfront costs were never gonns fly. Shortsighted, but true.
by Hikohadon » Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:12 pm
by CleSportsTruth » Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:55 pm
Hikohadon wrote:CleSportsTruth wrote:Hikohadon wrote:I wish they would shut up about the retractable roof bullshit.
I mean I wish they'd done it, but the upfront costs were never gonns fly. Shortsighted, but true.
They put a roof on that stadium, I become a Packers fan.
I understand all the benefits, but a dome/roof is a deal-breaker for me.
by NoWearMan » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:12 pm
by Hikohadon » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:17 pm
CleSportsTruth wrote:Hikohadon wrote:CleSportsTruth wrote:Hikohadon wrote:I wish they would shut up about the retractable roof bullshit.
I mean I wish they'd done it, but the upfront costs were never gonns fly. Shortsighted, but true.
They put a roof on that stadium, I become a Packers fan.
I understand all the benefits, but a dome/roof is a deal-breaker for me.
Why? B/c "Football was meant to be played in 10 degree weather, with a foot of snow!?" One, it was? Two, sorry, but while it's kinda neat once in a while, it usually makes for lousy football and miserable conditions for fans.
On a personal level, I have pretty severe disabilities (esp. respiratory), so highly inclement weather is a no-go for me, game wise. A roof fixes that, for me.
by motherscratcher » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:19 pm
by Hikohadon » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:24 pm
motherscratcher wrote:For me a roof wouldn't have been for the 8-10 times a year that the Browns were playing. It would have been for the other 355 days a year that someone could use it for... Whatever the fuck people have conventions for.
But I would not have wanted them to close the roof for a game because of snow.
by CleSportsTruth » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:28 pm
motherscratcher wrote:For me a roof wouldn't have been for the 8-10 times a year that the Browns were playing. It would have been for the other 355 days a year that someone could use it for... Whatever the fuck people have conventions for.
But I would not have wanted them to close the roof for a game because of snow.
by Hikohadon » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:31 pm
CleSportsTruth wrote:motherscratcher wrote:For me a roof wouldn't have been for the 8-10 times a year that the Browns were playing. It would have been for the other 355 days a year that someone could use it for... Whatever the fuck people have conventions for.
But I would not have wanted them to close the roof for a game because of snow.
That too. And if effing Detroit can get a Super Bowl and, I think, a Final Four, I'd think we could have gotten some of that action w/ a roof too.
Oh well, moot point anyhow. And I realize and respect those who genuinely oppose it.
by Erie Warrior » Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:38 pm


by FUDU » Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:13 pm
motherscratcher wrote:For me a roof wouldn't have been for the 8-10 times a year that the Browns were playing. It would have been for the other 355 days a year that someone could use it for... Whatever the fuck people have conventions for.
Return to Cleveland Browns & The NFL
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests