Jim Irsay Rated NFL's 2nd Best Owner

[The Old Crow]

I believe years ago GreenBay sold shares to raise money and survive the depression.  And I believe current rules disallow that.  Green Bay was grandfathered in.  It is pretty cool how they are a throwback to smaller market days.  Many didn't survive.

 

There is a lot that I miss about the way the NFL used to be.

 

Sometimes I feel like it is just 'too hollywood' now and not as accessible to families as it used to be.  And that makes me sad. But I also  wonder how far down this path they can go. If fans cannot afford to go to the games......are the teams bringing in the 'next generation' of football fans the way they used to?

 

I guess we'll see what happens..........so far the NFL is thriving that way.

 

I also miss the old dome.........even though we now have one of the best stadiums in the league.

 

The team depends on the city feeling 'ownership', that's true.

 

But I think the NFL has done a pretty good job making this game popular so, maybe they are doing something right

 

And I think JIm Irsay had a hand in the love that Indiana has for this team.

 

I think you and I differ on Jim Irsay not caring how the fans feel.

 

Ultimately though, he is the steward of the franchise and has to do what he thinks is best.  It is a business relationship between the city and the team. But it is also more than that.  So I see what you are saying

 

But if he felt that the team needed a new stadium and another city invited him to come talk to them.......I don't think that's out of line.  I think that's also where you and I differ.

 

Nature of the market that other cities will want our team.  That's how Indy got the team to begin with.

 

Just to clarify, I think Jimmy does care about the fans, however the LA deal did smack a little like his father's tactics. Had the Colts actually moved to LA, I suspect Brian, and others, might be singing a different tune.

 

I admit he seems to be a good natured guy that is involved with the fans, more than most owners, and in all fairness, I've said he has become one of the better owners in the league. I just don't like owners leveraging the fans and the city, to gouge every dollar out of things. I'm not accusing Jimmy totally of doing this, but I'm just saying it seems like the fans are always secondary in these business considerations. If it was like Green Bay, city's and fans wouldn't be subject to Bob Irsay's, Al Davis's, Georgia Frontiere's, Bill Bidwells,  and even Art Modell.

[Nadine]

Just to clarify, I think Jimmy does care about the fans, however the LA deal did smack a little like his father's tactics. Had the Colts actually moved to LA, I suspect Brian, and others, might be singing a different tune.

 

I admit he seems to be a good natured guy that is involved with the fans, more than most owners, and in all fairness, I've said he has become one of the better owners in the league. I just don't like owners leveraging the fans and the city, to gouge every dollar out of things. I'm not accusing Jimmy totally of doing this, but I'm just saying it seems like the fans are always secondary in these business considerations. If it was like Green Bay, city's and fans wouldn't be subject to Bob Irsay's, Al Davis's, Georgia Frontiere's, Bill Bidwells,  and even Art Modell.

 

I imagine the fans,while really really important........not as important as the bottom line

tough because they are very much intertwined

[GoColts8818]

I think Irsay cares about the fans opinion as much if not more than most owners in sports. Which means fans are not as important as they think they are but he hears their voice. You can't tell me with him on twitter that he can tune all of it out. With that said he's not going to run the franchise based on what the fans tell him to do. No owner does so the fact that Irsay does not is not a case against him.

Just to compare him to the Simons or well Simon now since one brother died that own the Pacers you see Jim Irsay in the local news ALL the time and almost always about the Colts. I have seen the Pacers owner around the media when it comes to their team three times, when they honored Reggie Miller, the honored the passing of his brother, and at the height of the pacers behavior issues for lack of a better term. Other than that he is completely hands off. Even if Jim Irsay doesn't care about the fans (which I think he does care a out them) he has at least figured out acting like you do matters.

Also just about every owner that has tried to get a new stadium since the rams and raiders left LA has used the LA card at some point. Some has floated a theory that part of the reason the NFL will not give LA a team is because of the bargaining chip it gives teams in stadium negotiations. Again the fact Irsay flirted with LA is not major news. Most owners in his spot of wanting a new stadium has done that at some point.

As for the attempts some do to try to link Jim to his father really need to read up on the two men and realize they couldn't be more different. Jim is friendly in person and on the media and gives back to the community a lot and puts winning above all else. His dad was a cold hearted person who wanted things done his way or the highway who cared about the bottom line above all else.

[The Old Crow]

I imagine the fans,while really really important........not as important as the bottom line

tough because they are very much intertwined

 

 

Yeah, that's the way it appears to be. You have a nice stadium out there. I just don't like relocating teams, unless it is absolutely necessary, especially if the fans have supported the team over the years. As I've told people, I didn't like the way we got the Brown's either, I would have far preferred an expansion team. Most Colt fans are just glad they got the Colts. I certainly get that, and I'm glad we got pro football back in baltimore. I'm also glad Cleveland got a team. I still don't get why LA doesn't have a team, but they certainly deserve one. It is a big market that should have had a NFL team long ago. You can't change the past, but you can still right some wrongs.

[The Old Crow]

I think Irsay cares about the fans opinion as much if not more than most owners in sports. Which means fans are not as important as they think they are but he hears their voice. You can't tell me with him on twitter that he can tune all of it out. With that said he's not going to run the franchise based on what the fans tell him to do. No owner does so the fact that Irsay does not is not a case against him.

Also just about every owner that has tried to get a new stadium since the rams and raiders left LA has used the LA card at some point. Some has floated a theory that part of the reason the NFL will not give LA a team is because of the bargaining chip it gives teams in stadium negotiations. Again the fact Irsay flirted with LA is not major news. Most owners in his spot of wanting a new stadium has done that at some point.

As for the attempts some do to try to link Jim to his father really need to read up on the two men and realize they couldn't be more different. Jim is friendly in person and on the media and gives back to the community a lot and puts winning above all else. His dad was a cold hearted person who wanted things done his way or the highway who cared about the bottom line above all else.

 

 

 I agree. I think Jim has done a good job at distancing himself from his father. The fact that he is winning, and cares about the product he puts out for the fans, shows a clear distinction from the father. That is why he is moving up my ownership list. The fact that he also gave a bar owner money to keep things open, also moves him up ! He's entitled to a free drink there, for sure.

[HarassedOffTheSite]

Brian, I can't believe you stooped to the " Troll" card. I will get around to eventually writing up something, but it's a time factor.

 

You are simply being intellectually dishonest about the entire issue. Regardless, until you do "get around" to writing something and sourcing every point you are where this issue is concerned, a troll. That is prima facie. This, like many other threads has nothing to do with the FACTS surrounding the move of the franchise to Indianapolis. Yet once again you have attempted to take a played out, excuse making, bitter, narrative that is at it's core full of ad hominem against the previous owner of this franchise and the deceased father of the current owner and introduce it into a thread that has nothing to do with him. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself. 

[The Old Crow]

You are simply being intellectually dishonest about the entire issue. Regardless, until you do "get around" to writing something and sourcing every point you are where this issue is concerned, a troll. That is prima facie. This, like many other threads has nothing to do with the FACTS surrounding the move of the franchise to Indianapolis. Yet once again you have attempted to take a played out, excuse making, bitter, narrative that is at it's core full of ad hominem against the previous owner of this franchise and the deceased father of the current owner and introduce it into a thread that has nothing to do with him. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself. 

 

I do not feel ashamed at all, bitter, or am I being intellectually dishonest. This writing deal is just another one of your tactics you use to hammer more timid forum members. It doesn't work here. Most of your sourcing is one source, Wikipedia. If I do an expose, it will be balanced, and multi-sourced, explaining the full story. That will take time.

 

Basically, I've rebutted all your points, including the eminent domain issue, which you've avoided commenting on, as it is the total crux of your argument, putting all blame on Baltimore. I find your " absolutism" astounding, as you want nothing to do with any part of the story that may shed any light on Bob Irsay and Indianapolis.

 

I think forum members have seen that some of my views have changed since the beginning, when I first came on the forum. I don't give Baltimore a free pass on many issues that other Baltimore fans might. Your opinions are intractable down to you telling people you are right, and they are wrong. Your piece of journalism isn't the definitive piece on the move, I have news for you. I've clearly pointed out much that you have left out of the story. It's all there in black and white for people to examine, if they have an interest in this part of NFL history. 

 

My point of bringing up the Irsay record in judging best owners, is that there are different ways to look at it. If you just judge Jimmy's ownership record, it's one thing, if you judge the Irsay family ownership, it's another. You can break down the Rooney family along similar lines. It's fair game as a criteria, unless you just intended to put out a propoganda piece based on tweets and good deeds. I already conceded he is probably at the top of the heap in that respect. I think a 5-7 ranking of Mr. Irsay is fair, and based on many criteria.

[HarassedOffTheSite]

I do not feel ashamed at all...

 

smh

[HarassedOffTheSite]

Most of your sourcing is one source, Wikipedia.

 

You cannot be that uninformed?! I included all of the links from my 'original' wikipedia article....those links go to the actual external links that I originally posted on wikipedia. LOLOL and the only internal wikipedia links are to the personalities or organizations involved. Hahaha that is a common practice at wikipedia so that readers do not have to run off and look up those individuals or organizations. And the original author does not have to internal-link those people and organizations....anyone reading it can. 

 

Wow.

 

Just logoff.

[The Old Crow]

You cannot be that uninformed?! I included all of the links from my 'original' wikipedia article....those links go to the actual external links that I originally posted on wikipedia. LOLOL and the only internal wikipedia links are to the personalities or organizations involved. Hahaha that is a common practice at wikipedia so that readers do not have to run off and look up those individuals or organizations. And the original author does not have to internal-link those people and organizations....anyone reading it can. 

 

Wow.

 

Just logoff.

 

 

Lets put it in terms we can all understand. Wikipedia, and it's sources, are not always 100 % correct. It's like the commercial with the girl dating the French model. It must be true, it's on the internet ! That being said, this is a minor point. The main point is your overuse of excerpts, that only give one side of the story. You also do that in rebuttals, when you take pieces of quotes out of context, and pounce on them, like you won an Olympic Gold Medal.  

 

If you want a more well-rounded view of events, here are a couple of books that you may want to look at. " When the Colts Belonged to Baltimore," by William Gildea, and "From Colts to Ravens," by John F. Steadman. Both of these books may give you a more well-rounded view of events. That is my challenge to you, if you are ever interested in getting the whole story !!!

[The Old Crow]

You cannot be that uninformed?! I included all of the links from my 'original' wikipedia article....those links go to the actual external links that I originally posted on wikipedia. LOLOL and the only internal wikipedia links are to the personalities or organizations involved. Hahaha that is a common practice at wikipedia so that readers do not have to run off and look up those individuals or organizations. And the original author does not have to internal-link those people and organizations....anyone reading it can. 

 

Wow.

 

Just logoff.

 

Game, set, and match!

[HarassedOffTheSite]

Lets put it in terms we can all understand. Wikipedia, and it's sources, are not always 100 % correct.

 

LOLOL wait, what?

 

They're not wikipedia sources. LOLOL they're hyperlinks FROM the wikipedia website TO external websites like Sports Illustrated, Google Books, New York Times, ESPN, US Congressional testimony etc, etc. Those aren't wikipedia's sources, they're mine. I placed them on the wikipedia page. You can actually follow those links to (unlike your assertions) confirm what I've written from credible, independent sources. That is what everyone else who attempts to write serious material calls "sourcing".

 

WOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

 

Embarrassing.

[The Old Crow]

LOLOL wait, what?

 

They're not wikipedia sources. LOLOL they're hyperlinks FROM the wikipedia website TO external websites like Sports Illustrated, Google Books, New York Times, ESPN, US Congressional testimony etc, etc. Those aren't wikipedia's sources, they're mine. I placed them on the wikipedia page. You can actually follow those links to (unlike your assertions) confirm what I've written from credible, independent sources. That is what everyone else who attempts to write serious material calls "sourcing".

 

WOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

 

Embarrassing.

 

 

Really, Google books ! Try some of the books I gave you, with guys who were on the street ,and  in the trenches, when the move happened. Were you even born when the move happened ? I know alot of the people involved, and even met Bob Irsay !! Try the Sports Illustrated article that described the feelings of Bob Irsay's wife and mother. Oh, of course, that wasn't part of your, " The Move to Indianapolis" The Whitewashing.  How the heck could you leave the whole Irsay and Indianapolis element out of the story ! C'mon man, be fair, you know there is more to the story than the excerpts you picked to include, that just justify your narrow views.

[The Old Crow]

LOLOL wait, what?

 

They're not wikipedia sources. LOLOL they're hyperlinks FROM the wikipedia website TO external websites like Sports Illustrated, Google Books, New York Times, ESPN, US Congressional testimony etc, etc. Those aren't wikipedia's sources, they're mine. I placed them on the wikipedia page. You can actually follow those links to (unlike your assertions) confirm what I've written from credible, independent sources. That is what everyone else who attempts to write serious material calls "sourcing".

 

WOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

 

Embarrassing.

 

 

You've been battered on the Eminent Domain isuue, and I've debunked most of your other theories without rebuttal. You're pretty much down to playing a game about sourcing, and not rebutting any of the facts presented. I've already seen some of your credible, independent sources. However, none are from Baltimore, or the Baltimore point of view. On the other hand, I do take into account the Indianapolis side of the story. Many more fair Indianapolis Colts fans have seen to that, and I have taken into account their point of view. Your one point of view is your blog. You wear it as a badge of honor, and it is intractible. If you really think you've presented a truly balanced story, that is  embarrassing. You know darn well you left out a alot in your quick synopsis of the Colts move. The holes in your story are as large as the holes in the hull of the Titanic. Just call this piece what it is," The Indianapolis Side of the Story of the Colt's Move. That would be a more appropriate title ,and I think that is what you wanted to accomplish. Just admit it.

[GoColts8818]

You've been battered on the Eminent Domain isuue, and I've debunked most of your other theories without rebuttal. You're pretty much down to playing a game about sourcing, and not rebutting any of the facts presented. I've already seen some of your credible, independent sources. However, none are from Baltimore, or the Baltimore point of view. On the other hand, I do take into account the Indianapolis side of the story. Many more fair Indianapolis Colts fans have seen to that, and I have taken into account their point of view. Your one point of view is your blog. You wear it as a badge of honor, and it is intractible. If you really think you've presented a truly balanced story, that is  embarrassing. You know darn well you left out a alot in your quick synopsis of the Colts move. The holes in your story are as large as the holes in the hull of the Titanic. Just call this piece what it is," The Indianapolis Side of the Story of the Colt's Move. That would be a more appropriate title ,and I think that is what you wanted to accomplish. Just admit it.

So it has to be from Baltimore to be the story of what happened?  Sorry, they tend to spin that story so they look like the victim in it and leave out key details which I think was his point.  He's trying to show you how people outside of Baltimore see things and frankly people who don't work for the Colts or Baltimore or Indianapolis probably have a much more objective view of what happened than anyone else because they don't have a side.  I am sure people from Indianapolis and the Colts put their own spin on it too I am not going to sit here and say Baltimore is the only ones who do.  However, if you only go off of what people in Baltimore say about it then you are only getting their point of view.  We've heard the people of Baltimore's point of view from you so why tell you something you already know?

 

I did a whole research project on this in college.  Yes, Bob Irsay was a jerk no one is going to argue about that and yes he was openly flirting with other cities about moving the team.  However, he really didn't want to go to Indianapolis he was going out of his way to find a place to take the team besides Indianapolis and frankly other cities were telling him no, Phoenix and Jacksonville had all dropped out of negations with the Colts by then.  It wasn't till Baltimore tried to take his prosperity away form him and forced his hand that he bolted for Indy.  Now, had they not done that would it have stopped the move from happening?  I don't know, it's very possible that the Colts and Indianapolis would have still come to an agreement and moved the team at a later date or another city would have become interested.  It's also possible that they turned down Indianapolis or it drags out so long that Indianapolis gets the Cardinals when they moved and the Colts are still in Baltimore.  No one knows what would have happened because none of us have a time machine handy to go back and see what would have happened.  However, the idea that the Colts just packed up in the middle of the night and moved to stick it to Baltimore as an extra slimy thing to do on the way out as most Baltimore people paint is false.  They did it because had they stayed then Bob Irsay would have lost the ownership of the team to the city of Baltimore.  Put aside your I hate Bob Irsay hate for a second and ask yourself what would have done if you were in his shoes.  You have spent your familes savings to buy this product and now the city that you live in threating to take it away from you and give you nothing in return.  Your only two options are to move that property to another city where they can't touch you or let the city have it.  What would you do?  99.9% are going to move the property.  I know that's ignoring everything else that happened to get to that point but at the end of the day that was the choice that faced Bob Irsay. 

 

Now, does that mean people in Baltimore should be happy about it?  No.  Honestly, I don't think anyone in Indianapolis took in joy in the fact that Baltimore lost their team.  Honestly if anything they felt bad for the people of Baltimore losing the Colts.  With that said, they were still thrilled to have them which was well with in their right.  That's the sad thing when cities and teams fight it's always the fans who get hurt in the end either via taxes to pay for something for the team or losing the team.  Baltimore has been on both sides of this process though, losing the team and gaining the team.  It's a part of the sports world and yes I am sure it does stink to go threw losing their team but just because it stinks doesn't mean that Baltimore didn't make a fateful decision by electing to try to take ownership of the Colts.  Had they not done that who knows what would have happened.  I do know this, there is a reason why you don't see cities try that move since Baltimore tried it, they know it means if you try that the team is gone.  They learned from Baltimore. 

 

With that all said this has majorly hijacked this thread which has NOTHING to do with the move or Bob Irsay for that matter.  It's about Jim Irsay being ranked as the second best owner in football according to a guy who writes for CBS.  Jim Irsay was not the owner of the Colts when they moved so why don't we let this thread get back on topic?  So if you want to respond to this feel free but unless you are talking about Jim Irsay and him being ranked as the second best owner in the NFL I am not going to continue this discussion anymore because this is not the place for it. 

[Dustin]

The name 'Irsay' is Old Crows version of the Bat-Signal. He appears every time it's used.

[The Old Crow]

The name 'Irsay' is Old Crows version of the Bat-Signal. He appears every time it's used.

 

 

Yeah, because some guy tries to make Baltimore look like The Joker.

[The Old Crow]

So it has to be from Baltimore to be the story of what happened?  Sorry, they tend to spin that story so they look like the victim in it and leave out key details which I think was his point.  He's trying to show you how people outside of Baltimore see things and frankly people who don't work for the Colts or Baltimore or Indianapolis probably have a much more objective view of what happened than anyone else because they don't have a side.  I am sure people from Indianapolis and the Colts put their own spin on it too I am not going to sit here and say Baltimore is the only ones who do.  However, if you only go off of what people in Baltimore say about it then you are only getting their point of view.  We've heard the people of Baltimore's point of view from you so why tell you something you already know?

 

I did a whole research project on this in college.  Yes, Bob Irsay was a jerk no one is going to argue about that and yes he was openly flirting with other cities about moving the team.  However, he really didn't want to go to Indianapolis he was going out of his way to find a place to take the team besides Indianapolis and frankly other cities were telling him no, Phoenix and Jacksonville had all dropped out of negations with the Colts by then.  It wasn't till Baltimore tried to take his prosperity away form him and forced his hand that he bolted for Indy.  Now, had they not done that would it have stopped the move from happening?  I don't know, it's very possible that the Colts and Indianapolis would have still come to an agreement and moved the team at a later date or another city would have become interested.  It's also possible that they turned down Indianapolis or it drags out so long that Indianapolis gets the Cardinals when they moved and the Colts are still in Baltimore.  No one knows what would have happened because none of us have a time machine handy to go back and see what would have happened.  However, the idea that the Colts just packed up in the middle of the night and moved to stick it to Baltimore as an extra slimy thing to do on the way out as most Baltimore people paint is false.  They did it because had they stayed then Bob Irsay would have lost the ownership of the team to the city of Baltimore.  Put aside your I hate Bob Irsay hate for a second and ask yourself what would have done if you were in his shoes.  You have spent your familes savings to buy this product and now the city that you live in threating to take it away from you and give you nothing in return.  Your only two options are to move that property to another city where they can't touch you or let the city have it.  What would you do?  99.9% are going to move the property.  I know that's ignoring everything else that happened to get to that point but at the end of the day that was the choice that faced Bob Irsay. 

 

Now, does that mean people in Baltimore should be happy about it?  No.  Honestly, I don't think anyone in Indianapolis took in joy in the fact that Baltimore lost their team.  Honestly if anything they felt bad for the people of Baltimore losing the Colts.  With that said, they were still thrilled to have them which was well with in their right.  That's the sad thing when cities and teams fight it's always the fans who get hurt in the end either via taxes to pay for something for the team or losing the team.  Baltimore has been on both sides of this process though, losing the team and gaining the team.  It's a part of the sports world and yes I am sure it does stink to go threw losing their team but just because it stinks doesn't mean that Baltimore didn't make a fateful decision by electing to try to take ownership of the Colts.  Had they not done that who knows what would have happened.  I do know this, there is a reason why you don't see cities try that move since Baltimore tried it, they know it means if you try that the team is gone.  They learned from Baltimore. 

 

With that all said this has majorly hijacked this thread which has NOTHING to do with the move or Bob Irsay for that matter.  It's about Jim Irsay being ranked as the second best owner in football according to a guy who writes for CBS.  Jim Irsay was not the owner of the Colts when they moved so why don't we let this thread get back on topic?  So if you want to respond to this feel free but unless you are talking about Jim Irsay and him being ranked as the second best owner in the NFL I am not going to continue this discussion anymore because this is not the place for it. 

 

I think I responded to the thread in a fair manner where I thought Jim Irsay should be placed on the list. Old Colt made a comment about the ownership situation in it's entirety, and I responded. Look, every time I comment, I don't attach a blog about The Baltimore Story- How we were wronged, or something like that. If you have read my threads you know I've also hammered Baltimore for the many mistakes they've made also. One guy is trying to portray me as some kind of stereotypical, bitter Baltimore guy that maybe gave him a hard time about the move, or something. I'm not that guy, but he can think what he wants.

 

I actually think you have a better handle on the story than the other guy. But here's the deal, if I'm challenged, I'm going to defend my point of view in a fair, and civil manner. I agree with you about keeping a thread on topic, but occasionally they drift off a bit. Honestly, if you don't like the thread, it's like the radio or TV, just turn it off, don't discuss or comment on it, or just ignore it. That is certainly your perogative.

[BOTT]

Funny how the Irsay family is so loved in Indy when I remember him talking of going to LA if we didn't build a new stadium. If Peyton had not come along, Indy may not have a team and the Irsay name would be hated as much as it was in Baltimore.

Mike Chappell has repeatedly said that was a complete myth. But maybe you have a link to prove Chappell wrong?

[HarassedOffTheSite]

You've been battered on the Eminent Domain isuue

 

LOLOL why, because you’ve attempted to justify Baltimore’s use of eminent domain laws? Trying to steal a profitable business from a private citizen because you simply do not like the private citizen? That is your justification? That is what you rest your argument on? I appreciate that you really want the eminent domain issue to disappear. And in its place you want your ad hominem attacks on Robert Irsay to drive the discussion. But that is not how mature, reasonable people consider facts. Children do that. Now if you want to log onto ABC kids club and try to hustle them, you may have some success. But you obviously won’t here.

 

The eminent domain issue is the evidence that lays the blame for the move to Indianapolis squarely at the feet of the elected officials in Baltimore and Maryland (and by extension, the citizens). Unfortunately for you, rambling off a bunch of unsupported nonsense doesn’t make it go away. It is the crux on which the entire story changes from one of the Baltimore Colts to that of the Indianapolis Colts. Robert Irsay didn’t attempt to use eminent domain laws, Baltimore and Maryland did. Indianapolis didn’t attempt to use eminent domain laws, Baltimore and Maryland did. You pretend to dress your argument up in a cloak of fairness or sensibility but the truth is that you want to diminish the real factors that led directly to the Colts franchise leaving Baltimore. And you try to reinforce this deception by attempting to stress the factors that are not directly related to it.

 

and I've debunked most of your other theories without rebuttal.

 

What theories? Do you understand the English language? Do you understand that words have meaning? I have put forward NO theories. I have written facts. And again, (unlike you) I have supported those facts with credible, independent sourcing. Having a contrary contention or argument does not justify itself. You have to support it with facts. Not anecdotes and conjecture. Simply logging on and typing something doesn’t mean you’ve done anything more than logged on and typed something. And when faced with a thoroughly sourced entry like mine, you can't just type something and magically think it  has an equal amount of credibility. It simply does not.

 

You're pretty much down to playing a game about sourcing

 

What imaginary world are you living in? Sourcing a story is not a game; it is how adults write about subjects…..unless of course they’re writing fantasy.

 

Unlike you, I have put forth facts and sourced them. I've challenged you to do the same and you refuse to do so (for some fairly obvious reasons). Instead, like the rest of this subject you've chozen the lazy and shallow approach; attack people personally.

 

I've already seen some of your credible, independent sources. However, none are from Baltimore, or the Baltimore point of view.

 

I want to repeat that...

 

 

 

I've already seen some of your credible, independent sources. However, none are from Baltimore, or the Baltimore point of view.

 

 

This is the key statement.

 

 

After all of your hyperbole. All of your slander. All of your exaggeration. After all of your attempts to deflect. After all of your non-sequiturs. This sentence is where your personal failings come to the foreground.

 

You do not want facts to be spoken if they contradict your perspective.

 

You insist on trying to make the truth fit a Baltimore narrative. And this is why you fail. This is why you cannot write anything credible. This is why you cannot support anything with independent sources. This why you either outright or obliquely attack or slander anyone who speaks the truth.

 

For my part, I think this is enough to explain why I will not discuss this with you anymore. You're obviously biased and unwilling to acknowledge the truth.

[HarassedOffTheSite]

So it has to be from Baltimore to be the story of what happened?

 

I think the answer would seem to be yes. Anything that is not written with a built in bias…is not credible. I’m going to pause and let that sink in.

 

 

 

 

Anything that is not biased…..is biased.

 

 

 

 

That is the logic that drives him. And he filters every bit of information through that prism. The people in Baltimore and Maryland do not accept that their actions caused the move itself. Therefore, nobody can say it, even if facts show it to be true.

 

The Baltimore narrative is that Robert Irsay was a major jerk. And it is from that fountain that everything flows:

 

It was Irsay’s fault that Baltimore's Memorial Stadium was inadequate.

 

It was Irsay’s fault that the team’s former owner Carol Rosenbloom announced that the team would not return to Memorial Stadium.

 

It was Irsay’s fault that 10,000 of the stadium's seats had views that were "less than desirable".

 

It was Irsay’s fault that 20,000 seats were out-dated bench seats that had no back support.

 

It was Irsay’s fault that 7,000 so called seats were actually poorly constructed temporary bleachers that were installed for football games only.

 

It was Irsay’s fault that there was not enough office space for the front offices of either the Orioles or Colts, much less both teams combined.

 

It was Irsay’s fault that both teams had to share locker rooms.

 

It was Irsay’s fault that the State of Maryland's elected legislature chose not to fund the project was to create a facility near the city's Inner Harbor known as Camden Yards.

 

It was Irsay’s fault that the owner of the Orioles stated "I will bow to the will of the people. They have told us what they want to tell us. First, they don't want a new park and second, they don't want a club."

 

It was Irsay’s fault for saying "It’s not a matter of saying that there will be no stadium. It’s a matter of getting the facts together so everybody is happy when they build the stadium. I'm a patient man. I think the people of Baltimore are going to see those new stadiums in New Orleans and Seattle opening in a year or two around the country, and they are going to realize they need a stadium ... for conventions and other things besides football."

 

It was Irsay’s fault that after all of these facts were apparent, the citizens of Baltimore still voted not to allow public funds to be used to build a new stadium.

 

It was Irsay’s fault that 27,934 fans showed up for their final home game.

 

It was Irsay’s fault that on March 2, 1983 NFL owners voted to give Irsay permission to leave Baltimore.

 

It was Irsay’s fault that Baltimore's mayor Schaefer publically announced, "We're not going to build a new stadium…unless private enterprise builds it, we won’t build it.”

 

It was Irsay’s fault that the state of Maryland didn’t choose to offer him $40 million to purchase the team…and instead chose to try to condemn the Colts and begin eminent domain proceedings to take the team from Irsay outright.

 

It was Irsay’s fault that the Maryland Senate passed legislation giving the city of Baltimore the legal right to seize ownership of the Colts Franchise.

 

It was Irsay’s fault that John Moag, Jr., chairman of the Maryland Stadium Authority, stated in sworn testimony before the United States Senate that "It was the failure of our local (Baltimore) and state elected officials in Maryland to provide the Colts with a firm proposal for a new stadium that led Mr. Irsay to accept an offer from Indianapolis to play in a new dome in that city."

 

How anyone can look at all of these facts and not come to the obvious conclusion that the move was Irsay's fault, that he was a jerk who could not be negotiated with (even though Indianapolis, Phoenix and Jacksonville were able to) and that this is why he stole the team (that he owned) in the middle of the night is beyond him.

[HarassedOffTheSite]

And the fall back will be...

 

"I'm not saying Baltimore and Maryland did not play a part. But that their part is equal to the blame I assign to Irsay  for being a jerk (for being a smart businessman and making sure he had options if the city of Baltimore failed to come through) and Indianapolis for stealing the Colts (for doing what Baltimore did before Baltimore eventually did it and built a stadium in order to host an NFL franchise)."

 

This is the "12 amps required" logic.

 

"You can't run a vacuum cleaner on 12 amps, John!"

[HarassedOffTheSite]

Mike Chappell has repeatedly said that was a complete myth. But maybe you have a link to prove Chappell wrong?

 

HARUMGH!!!

 

Mike Chappell is not from Baltimore. So, he has no credibility.

 

:bag:

[The Old Crow]

Was it Baltimore's fault Irsay tore the team down and traded away it's best players ?

 

Was it Baltimore's fault Irsay put a horrible product on the field that killed attendance ?

 

Was it Baltimore fan's fault that predatory city's built stadiums to lure teams ?

 

Was it Baltimore's fault Irsay traded John Elway for virtually nothing ?

 

Was it Baltimore's fault Irsay put together teams that had losing records 8 out of the 11 years he owned the team ?

 

 

Irsay would have moved with or without the eminent domain, I believe. This was a last minute tactic to stop a process that was already moving forward. Baltimore lost the suit , because they were no longer in Baltimore, however, they were awarded the Super Bowl 5 Lombardi trophy which tells me the NFL, at least somewhat, recognizes the Colts heritage in Baltimore. The fact that Green Bay exists as a community run team, tells me the suit may have had some merit had the Colts not already moved out of town. If Irsay thought he had a slam dunk in court, he would have not snuck out in the middle of the night. Maybe, because of his incompetence in running the team, perhaps he would have lost the team and been awarded compensation. We'll never know because that isn't the way things went down.

 

You bring up many of Baltimore's failings, and I've said that many of them are true. You bring up poor attendance, but not the reason why. Your attendance slipped in Indy also because of the poor product Bob Irsay put on the field. You bring up eminent domain, but not the reasons that led up to it. You skirt around the tours Irsay had in Phoenix, Jacksonsville, and Indy, that rattled these politicians. You don't take into account economic conditions in Baltimore in the late 1970's and early 1980's. It wasn't the richest city, but Irsay was still very profitable. There was a package on the table to help Irsay, but predatory city's tampered with those negotiations.

 

That being said, I am personally fine with Irsay leaving. It was a long time ago, you guys have the Colts, and I'm glad we have Mr. Bisciotti and the Ravens. Baltimore has moved on to the Ravens, we have our great memories of the Colts, you guys have the Indy Colts, and you like Jimmy Irsay. I hope no city ever has to endure incompetent ownership as exemplified by Bob Irsay in Baltimore, and Indianapolis. Frankly, I'm glad he left, but I just wish he would have made a clean break and left the history in Baltimore. The point I've been trying to get across to you, I guess fruitlessly, is that there is more to the story than your true, complete, story. Yes, you state some facts, but not what led up to the occurences. For example, you'll throw out fault about Baltimore's attendance, but then never follow up about Irsay's 8 losing seasons in eleven years as a factor in low attendance. You view is, attendance is low, so Irsay was forced to leave, and Baltimore was bad. I think you need to add more substance to your presentation, not just facts that lead to a certain conclusion .

Edited May 19, 2013 by Nadine
removed bold

[shakedownstreet]

[GoColts8818]

Yep this thread is completely off track.

 

BTW anyone here that Jim Irsay was ranked as the second best owner in the NFL by a writer for CBS?

 

(that's a joke/half hearted attempt to get this back on topic)

[HarassedOffTheSite]

....

 

 

Yep this thread is completely off track. BTW anyone here that Jim Irsay was ranked as the second best owner in the NFL by a writer for CBS? (that's a joke/half hearted attempt to get this back on topic)

 

You gentlemen ok? Or is carrying a thread with condescending images your normal contribution? TheOldCrow and I are having a serious conversation. It happens where it happens. Feel free not to read it if it gets you too worked up.

 

IMHO Jim is the best owner in the league. Getting what he has gotten out of this market required business acumen, very good sports management and lots of $$$. Irsay has invested all three at levels no other small market team has. New Orleans comes close but that was the result of an owner desperately trying to avoid being tarred & feathered after Katrina. On topic enough for you?

[OldSchoolColt]

Mike Chappell has repeatedly said that was a complete myth. But maybe you have a link to prove Chappell wrong?

 

You can use google to find many articles from that time on the topic. Here is part of just one article on Indy considering the LA market:

 

"Jim Irsay, the Colts owner, also reiterated last week that he is "hopeful" and "I'm an optimist ... although I have people I trust who think I'm hopelessly optimistic about this situation." Translated, Irsay is working hard with mayor Peterson to come up with a solution while his confidants believe the solution isn't easy.

 

Leverage for a new stadium? Nope. Irsay has been honest enough to state clearly in the past year that a new stadium is not a cure-all to the Colts' problems.

The Indianapolis market does not project the means to make this a success story. It's unlikely it can sell all the luxury suites, club seats and season tickets that it will take to make the Colts a financially competitive franchise in today's NFL. Moreover, the subsidization arrangement currently in place -- in which the city writes the team a check to cover a shortage in revenues -- is now frowned upon by the league. For one, it's morally wrong. For another, it's a band-aid, not a long-term solution, and ultimately creates ill will, such as the Chargers are experiencing in San Diego. "

 

http://espn.go.com/chrismortensen/s/2002/0912/1430810.html

 

Only Irsay knows what exactly had to happen for him to stay here, but the NFL is still a business and without a new stadium/income, he would not have had a choice.

 

I do think Irsay has done the Colts and its fans well and is a good man.

[BOTT]

You can use google to find many articles from that time on the topic. Here is part of just one article on Indy considering the LA market:

"Jim Irsay, the Colts owner, also reiterated last week that he is "hopeful" and "I'm an optimist ... although I have people I trust who think I'm hopelessly optimistic about this situation." Translated, Irsay is working hard with mayor Peterson to come up with a solution while his confidants believe the solution isn't easy.

Leverage for a new stadium? Nope. Irsay has been honest enough to state clearly in the past year that a new stadium is not a cure-all to the Colts' problems.

The Indianapolis market does not project the means to make this a success story. It's unlikely it can sell all the luxury suites, club seats and season tickets that it will take to make the Colts a financially competitive franchise in today's NFL. Moreover, the subsidization arrangement currently in place -- in which the city writes the team a check to cover a shortage in revenues -- is now frowned upon by the league. For one, it's morally wrong. For another, it's a band-aid, not a long-term solution, and ultimately creates ill will, such as the Chargers are experiencing in San Diego. "

http://espn.go.com/chrismortensen/s/2002/0912/1430810.html

Only Irsay knows what exactly had to happen for him to stay here, but the NFL is still a business and without a new stadium/income, he would not have had a choice.

I do think Irsay has done the Colts and its fans well and is a good man.

That was just a bunch of speculation and "sources" from ESPN...not the most reliable. There was nothing in there to prove Chappell wrong. In fact the only thing it proved was Chris Mortenson being totally wrong about the Indy market.

[jmac_48]

wow he's only 53, looks waaaay older

That's what that 2-14 season did to him...

[braveheartcolt]

Wow. We should have a poll on this.

 

Who is right. BC or TOC?

 

Clue, there will be a third option: WHO CARES.

[HarassedOffTheSite]

Wow. We should have a poll on this. Who is right. BC or TOC? Clue, there will be a third option: WHO CARES.

 

I'd think "Who Cares" would win. Unfortunately all of Colts Nation taken together has a sizable number of crudites that are about as deep as a cup of coffee.

[HarassedOffTheSite]

---

 

 

---

 

I think OldSchoolColt said it best...

 

"Only Irsay knows what exactly had to happen for him to stay here, but the NFL is still a business and without a new stadium/income, he would not have had a choice.  I do think Irsay has done the Colts and its fans well and is a good man."

 

I'd have to agree; it is a business and he is a good man.

[The Old Crow]

I'd think "Who Cares" would win. Unfortunately Colts Nation has a sizable number of crudites that are about as deep as a cup of coffee.

 

 

A crudite ! It's Sunday ! LOL

[The Old Crow]

Wow. We should have a poll on this.

 

Who is right. BC or TOC?

 

Clue, there will be a third option: WHO CARES.

 

 

Sometimes threads go off course a little bit, but in a way, they still pertain to the topic. Anyone who sets up a poll on this forum will get responses based on how you ask the question, and what the motivation is on the thread. I don't think anyone wants a forum where you just bleed pro-Colts news. Even Colt fans disagree on topics within their own team. I guess some people want to milk toast forum, with no disagreement or debate. No thread is going to stay 100% on topic.

[HarassedOffTheSite]

A crudite ! It's Sunday ! LOL

 

...my bad.

[The Old Crow]

...my bad.

 

No big deal. I've heard of hutterites,  amelekites, but never the crudite. I have to admit I like it.