I agree with DW take. I have seen no evidence what so ever that the "owner" is hampering Holmgren in anyway on running this team. I believe H&H want to build with youth and maybe add a more "high profile" FA or two when they feel we are close to competing for a division title. We are not that close yet, unless this rookie class is all that and a bag of chips as some seem to think. As all browns fans hate to say "lets wait until next year"  and see where we are at. I don't like it or have to, but it is what it is.

daddywags wrote:

keokuk wrote: "Could somebody rephrase the question?"

-- Sure.

Not capable. Capable.

Or: Some FAs got signed. Okay. They have been capable of that, I guess. (But if they had to get Randy's permission to even do that, I do wonder about their "capablility").

But where does "capable" end? And who decides?

Is their capability determined by the FO and based on their decisions regarding team finance or football items or timidity or whatever? If so, let's make that plain and comment after that.

If their capability is dependent on- say- ownership to an extent, let that dependence be clear, make it's extent plain and understood and comment after that. Any forces directing ownership should be known as well.

A shadowy, unknown presence that is effecting the FO out of their control may be good or bad, I guess. But it needs to be known if it does exist. Any "revenue neutral" comments attributed to ownership and the actions it elicts should be stated. Then people can judge if they thing it's right for a FO to be constrained by an ownership family for whatever reason.

Again, I have no evidence one way or the other regarding any non-football influence on the FO. But if it exists, it should be known going forward and given all due credit or blame.

So, that's a pretty crappy rephrasing. I get it that some stuff isn't well-known or public. Doesn't make it unimportant, though. Maybe the media can try to dig out of their graves and look into things. Or not.

For my part, I've answered this question before: I have no way of knowing for certain whether ownership has put any constraints on the front office in spending.

I'll add this: Holmgren has directly answered this question as well and he has firmly denied that the front office is constrained in any way by ownership.  The media has asked Holmgren directly and that's the answer they/we got.

I've seen no evidence whatsoever to doubt Holmgren's veracity on this.  I would think that if Lerner was insisting he approve free agent signings or putting arbitrary limits on how much Holmgren can spend, it would be pretty widely known around the league by now.  Surely someone from ESPN or Fox or PFW or CBS or somewhere would have been delighted to break that story if true.  But not a peep.  Or some disgruntled ex-employee, at least, say a George Kokinis or Phil Savage or Eric Mangini, would certainly have leaked such interesting news by now.  But again, not a peep. 

Lots of folks seem to cling to this as if "it has to be true."  But in fact, so far as I can see now, that dog isn't hunting.

"I agree with DW take."

-- Okay. It's believable and apparently has a Holmgren quote that backs it up. I'm not one to lean on link-addiction in this case. Any public evidence supports it, apparently. The silence of media outlets or former employees could be based on simple honesty- or could be based on financial concerns or other factors. But again, there is nothing out there that can now be used to support that idea.

If that view is correct, then any nonsigning of FAs is a result of free FO decisions based on talent or cost or philosophy- or a mixture of the 3. Or based partly on any FA reluctance.

I suppose any financial ramifications of that enter the realm of "cap space" and seem to be open to interpretation.

I would support the approach of building a team through the draft and using FAs in a limited and carefully thought out manner. As long as the "limited and carefully thought out manner" is done by the FO and not done by ownership.

Anyway, the balance of the FO on one hand and ownership on the other hand is, in my opinion, significant and the first factor that needs to be understood.