Settlement: To move, Bennett reached a $75 million settlement with the city of Seattle in 2008 to terminate the KeyArena lease early, which allowed the team to move in exchange for leaving the team's name, colors, and history for a potential future team.
I think the above explains a lot. It was a side deal with the city. The new owners got out of a lease and were otherwise allowed to move the franchise, but they had to leave the brand behind.
I'm aware. It also happened when the Browns became the Ravens. I was more commenting on the Lakers needing to leave the banners in Minnesota. I just don't find that to be a strong argument. It comes off as petty since the Lakers are right behind the Celtics in total titles.
The problem is they didn't recognize them until years after they left.
The taxpayers fund where many of these teams play so it does make a case that the titles should stay with the city. The team is tied to that city and the history was made there, supported by the people there. If the Celtics moved to another state, it would be weird seeing it play on the history of a place it cut ties with.
I do however get that they also belong to the franchise and I can see why that argument makes sense. I'm not 100% either way, but I do lean toward the titles staying.
So only Foxboro gets credit for the Patriots titles? Or because they are New England and not Boston they get to keep them? What about the New York Giants? NY doesnt actually get credit for the Eli titles since they were won in New Jersey. When the Browns move to Brook Park, OH or the Bears move out of Chicago to the suburbs, do they leave their history behind?
I think it is a weird argument. The franchise is the franchise. The location doesn't matter.
I think there's a difference to moving a few miles away than an entirely different market. Giants playing in NJ as the markets and fanbases are still in that area. Seattle is noting like Oaklahoma. LA isn't Minneapolis.
I'm not saying 100% either way, but I think the case for the titles staying with the city/area they were won have a stronger case than some owner buying a team he had no connection with and moving it to a market that didn't have a connection with the team either.
Take my vikings for instance. If they ever won(LOL I know) and then the owners moved the team a few years later, would it be fair to the fans who endured decades of a title drought a claim to a title even if they had a new team move there?
Maybe the best way is a middle ground. The franchise keeps the titles when it moves, but if a new org starts up in their absence, they give them back.
Or, no one gets to keep them and the slate is clean for both the franchise that moved and the one that started up later. Maybe the titles just stay in the record books.
