How the Indianapolis Colts might've become the Los Angeles Colts

[GoColts8818]

2 hours ago, JCPatriot said:

 

Do you have a source to back that up, or are you just making stuff up?  The Hoosier Dome opened in 1984.  The first time that the state basketball finals were played there was in 1990.  From 1984 to 1990, they played the state finals at Market Square.  I have a hard time believing that they built the Hoosier Dome to keep the state basketball finals in Indy (it would be crazy to put that kind of money into an arena for a high school event anyway) and then waited six years after the Hoosier Dome opened to actually start playing the finals there.

 

 

Of course it was a fraction of the cost of LOS.  It was built almost 25 years before LOS.  And Indy is still making payments on it after it has been hauled away in pieces.

It's been a while since I watched it but it came from a great documentary produced by WFYI (local PBS station) called from Naptown to Super City which retraced the history of sports in Indianapolis up until the Super Bowl was here. 

 

http://video.wfyi.org/video/2282207842/

 

It can be found there.  With that said, I am now second guessing myself as it might have been MSA that was built to keep to the boys state finals in Indianapolis rather than the RCA Dome.  Like I said before it's been a couple of years since I watched it.  While the goal was to land a major league baseball or football team when it was built it was also built for the convention center as well. 

 

With that said cost is a major factor the RCA Dome cost 80 million to build and the LOS cost 720 million.  Even adjust for inflation the RCA Dome was far cheaper than LOS and it shows LOS is a football palace while the RCA Dome was the NFL's smallest stadium for years and had little to nothing to make it stand out. 

 

People would not have swallowed the 720 price tag for LOS with all it's extra bells and whistles if the Colts had not been so popular at the time, especially with the Dome already standing.  While you might be able to argue people would have probably agreed to build a new stadium odds are if people had a ho hum feeling about the Colts it probably would not have had all the extra bells and whistles that LOS has and that might have very well impacted if the Colts stayed or left.  There is no question that because the Colts were so popular made it far easier for a deal to get done to build a new stadium. 

 

[grmasterb]

23 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

It's been a while since I watched it but it came from a great documentary produced by WFYI (local PBS station) called from Naptown to Super City which retraced the history of sports in Indianapolis up until the Super Bowl was here. 

 

http://video.wfyi.org/video/2282207842/

 

It can be found there.  With that said, I am now second guessing myself as it might have been MSA that was built to keep to the boys state finals in Indianapolis rather than the RCA Dome.  Like I said before it's been a couple of years since I watched it.  While the goal was to land a major league baseball or football team when it was built it was also built for the convention center as well. 

 

With that said cost is a major factor the RCA Dome cost 80 million to build and the LOS cost 720 million.  Even adjust for inflation the RCA Dome was far cheaper than LOS and it shows LOS is a football palace while the RCA Dome was the NFL's smallest stadium for years and had little to nothing to make it stand out. 

 

People would not have swallowed the 720 price tag for LOS with all it's extra bells and whistles if the Colts had not been so popular at the time, especially with the Dome already standing.  While you might be able to argue people would have probably agreed to build a new stadium odds are if people had a ho hum feeling about the Colts it probably would not have had all the extra bells and whistles that LOS has and that might have very well impacted if the Colts stayed or left.  There is no question that because the Colts were so popular made it far easier for a deal to get done to build a new stadium. 

 

The discussion regarding LOS and the expanded convention center began before Peyton Manning had even won a playoff game. Conventions are major economic and fiscal driver for Indianapolis. The RCA Dome stood in the way of that expansion. The city needed an upgraded facility to accommodate the NCAA. The dome lease negotiated in 1999 put the city on the hook for huge payments to the Colts. Make no mistake -- LOS was getting constructed. Both political parties knew it had to happen. Much of the tax revenue used to pay for LOS comes from ticket buyers and visitors to Indy. That, along with the shared burden from the donut counties through the restaurant tax, helped ensure political support. Anyone who wanted to vote out a politician for supporting LOS construction and convention center expansion was unlikely to find a like-minded alternative.

[JCPatriot]

1 hour ago, GoColts8818 said:

With that said cost is a major factor the RCA Dome cost 80 million to build and the LOS cost 720 million.

 

 

Yes, LOS was more expensive to build than the Hoosier Dome, even adjusted for inflation.  I am not contesting that; however, you said....

 

20 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

You don't vote to raise some taxes and build a multi-million dollar stadium if people are just kinda ho hum about the team that is going to call it home.  That's when people point out there are better things to spend the money on. 

 

This clearly isn't true as a general rule.  The Hoosier Dome was a multi-million dollar stadium.  It was a cheaper multi-million dollar stadium than LOS, but it was a multi-million dollar stadium nonetheless.  And Indy voted to raise taxes to build this multi-million dollar stadium not just for a team that people were kinda ho hum about, but for a team that they might not even get.......ever.  That is insanely bold when you think about it.  So the idea of raising taxes to pay for a new stadium for the team that Indy had doesn't seem all that impossible when you consider that they raised taxes to pay for a stadium for a team that they might not ever even get.  Especially when you factor in what is reported in this article, that the people negotiating for the city had to push Irsay hard to get him to consider a new stadium as an option.  By these reports, Irsay didn't even want a new stadium.  The people negotiating for the city had to talk him into it.

 

1 hour ago, GoColts8818 said:

People would not have swallowed the 720 price tag for LOS with all it's extra bells and whistles if the Colts had not been so popular at the time, especially with the Dome already standing.  While you might be able to argue people would have probably agreed to build a new stadium odds are if people had a ho hum feeling about the Colts it probably would not have had all the extra bells and whistles that LOS has and that might have very well impacted if the Colts stayed or left.  There is no question that because the Colts were so popular made it far easier for a deal to get done to build a new stadium.

 

 

Sure.  I'm not going to argue that.  Ultimately, deciding how much money to spend on a long-term facility like LOS based on the current success of a football team is ridiculously short-sighted, but people can be ridiculously short-sighted so I don't have any doubt that the success of the Colts made it easier to sell the deal to the public.  Making it easier to sell to the public is a far cry from assuming that it would not have gotten done otherwise, though.  It would have required more political savvy if the Colts were still the Colts, but I think there is a fair chance that it would have gotten done.  It probably wouldn't be LOS as we see it now.  It probably wouldn't have a retractable roof.  It might not have the big windows that face toward the city skyline.  It might have ended up being a $400 million stadium instead of a $720 million stadium, but I think it is likely that an agreement would have been reached.

 

The real question is without Manning putting butts in the seats, would the Colts have had enough revenue potential even with a new stadium to convince Irsay to back away from the revenue guarantee that he had from the city and force him to assume the risk associated with relying on ticket sales for revenue.  Irsay had a pretty sweet deal (for him, lousy for the taxpayers) prior to LOS.  Getting him to let that go might not have been doable if the potential for attendance at the new stadium was not strong.  In my mind, the potential snag was not selling the stadium to the public.  It was selling the stadium to Irsay.  That could have been a show stopper, and the success of the Colts at the time probably did play a role in convincing Irsay to give up his revenue guarantee.

[GoColts8818]

2 hours ago, grmasterb said:

The discussion regarding LOS and the expanded convention center began before Peyton Manning had even won a playoff game. Conventions are major economic and fiscal driver for Indianapolis. The RCA Dome stood in the way of that expansion. The city needed an upgraded facility to accommodate the NCAA. The dome lease negotiated in 1999 put the city on the hook for huge payments to the Colts. Make no mistake -- LOS was getting constructed. Both political parties knew it had to happen. Much of the tax revenue used to pay for LOS comes from ticket buyers and visitors to Indy. That, along with the shared burden from the donut counties through the restaurant tax, helped ensure political support. Anyone who wanted to vote out a politician for supporting LOS construction and convention center expansion was unlikely to find a like-minded alternative.

I never said the new stadium had anything to do with the Colts winning a playoff game.  The Colts were 13-3 in Peyton's second season here and started selling out every home game (a game here or there exception).  The Colts went from an afterthought in the Indianapolis sports landscape to the main focus. 

 

The city could have easily built another smaller (and less expensive) stadium similar to the Dome just to support the NCAA basketball tournament but that would have not kept the Colts here.  Had Peyton not come along most people would have just shrugged their shoulders to the Colts leaving because they weren't invested in the product (the Colts attendance numbers pre-Peyton back this up) so there wasn't public pressure to keep them here.  Once people became invested people would have flipped out had the Colts left town and Irsay knew it and used it to his advantage to get a palace of a stadium and an ultra team friendly lease. 

 

Make no mistake if the Colts were not as popular as they were thanks in large part to them winning thanks in large part to Peyton Manning the story of Lucas Oil Stadium would have played out very differently.

[GoColts8818]

1 hour ago, JCPatriot said:

 

Yes, LOS was more expensive to build than the Hoosier Dome, even adjusted for inflation.  I am not contesting that; however, you said....

 

And you said it was built 25 years ago like that some how explains the difference in cost.  LOS was significantly more expensive than the RCA Dome regardless of when they were built. 

 

1 hour ago, JCPatriot said:

This clearly isn't true as a general rule.  The Hoosier Dome was a multi-million dollar stadium.  It was a cheaper multi-million dollar stadium than LOS, but it was a multi-million dollar stadium nonetheless.  And Indy voted to raise taxes to build this multi-million dollar stadium not just for a team that people were kinda ho hum about, but for a team that they might not even get.......ever.  That is insanely bold when you think about it.  So the idea of raising taxes to pay for a new stadium for the team that Indy had doesn't seem all that impossible when you consider that they raised taxes to pay for a stadium for a team that they might not ever even get.  Especially when you factor in what is reported in this article, that the people negotiating for the city had to push Irsay hard to get him to consider a new stadium as an option.  By these reports, Irsay didn't even want a new stadium.  The people negotiating for the city had to talk him into it.

 

The RCA Dome was built with a plan to get a baseball team or football team along with hosting other events.  At the time it was also needed for the convention center as well.  It also had a fairly reasonable price tag of 80 million.  If you can't see difference between spending 80 million and 720 million on stadiums we aren't going to have much to talk about. Cities don't just build 720 million dollar stadiums unless the public is fully behind it.  The public would not have been fully behind the idea of spending 720 million dollars on a stadium unless they had an attachment to the team that was going to call it home.  Spending $80 million on a stadium is significantly different than spending $720 million. 

 

1 hour ago, JCPatriot said:

 

 

Sure.  I'm not going to argue that.  Ultimately, deciding how much money to spend on a long-term facility like LOS based on the current success of a football team is ridiculously short-sighted, but people can be ridiculously short-sighted so I don't have any doubt that the success of the Colts made it easier to sell the deal to the public.  Making it easier to sell to the public is a far cry from assuming that it would not have gotten done otherwise, though.  It would have required more political savvy if the Colts were still the Colts, but I think there is a fair chance that it would have gotten done.  It probably wouldn't be LOS as we see it now.  It probably wouldn't have a retractable roof.  It might not have the big windows that face toward the city skyline.  It might have ended up being a $400 million stadium instead of a $720 million stadium, but I think it is likely that an agreement would have been reached.

 

Had people not cared about the Colts staying in Indianapolis the city wasn't going to cough up the money it costs to keep them.  Irsay knew the leverage he had and used every bit of it.  He had that leverage thanks to the Colts being so popular.  So again make no mistake the Colts being popular thanks to them winning played a large role in the stadium being built.  Had the city elected to play hard ball Irsay might have gone to LA and had they given him a better deal it's very possible the Colts are the LA Colts right now.  The chances of the city playing hardball goes up the less the public cares about the Colts. 

 

1 hour ago, JCPatriot said:

The real question is without Manning putting butts in the seats, would the Colts have had enough revenue potential even with a new stadium to convince Irsay to back away from the revenue guarantee that he had from the city and force him to assume the risk associated with relying on ticket sales for revenue.  Irsay had a pretty sweet deal (for him, lousy for the taxpayers) prior to LOS.  Getting him to let that go might not have been doable if the potential for attendance at the new stadium was not strong.  In my mind, the potential snag was not selling the stadium to the public.  It was selling the stadium to Irsay.  That could have been a show stopper, and the success of the Colts at the time probably did play a role in convincing Irsay to give up his revenue guarantee.

 

Which means no matter how you cut it the Colts winning played a role in how the new stadium came to be.  If the Colts weren't winning the story of LOS stadium plays out very differently.  How differently we will never fully know.  So back to the original point that started all of this Peyton played a role in the stadium getting built because Peyton changed the way the Colts were seen in the city.  That's what people are talking about when they the house Peyton built.  Do many other people deserve credit?  Without question and without question those people played a much larger role than he did.

[grmasterb]

4 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

I never said the new stadium had anything to do with the Colts winning a playoff game.  The Colts were 13-3 in Peyton's second season here and started selling out every home game (a game here or there exception).  The Colts went from an afterthought in the Indianapolis sports landscape to the main focus. 

 

The city could have easily built another smaller (and less expensive) stadium similar to the Dome just to support the NCAA basketball tournament but that would have not kept the Colts here.  Had Peyton not come along most people would have just shrugged their shoulders to the Colts leaving because they weren't invested in the product (the Colts attendance numbers pre-Peyton back this up) so there wasn't public pressure to keep them here.  Once people became invested people would have flipped out had the Colts left town and Irsay knew it and used it to his advantage to get a palace of a stadium and an ultra team friendly lease. 

 

Make no mistake if the Colts were not as popular as they were thanks in large part to them winning thanks in large part to Peyton Manning the story of Lucas Oil Stadium would have played out very differently.

Nothing in Kravitz's article backs up your assertion about Irsay and the "palace of a stadium." Did you read the article? 

[MR. Blueblood]

On 2/1/2016 at 10:53 AM, ÅÐØNϧ 1 said:

 

The Hoosier dome later renamed the RCA dome got the COLTS here but it was not gonna keep them here ,

 

Before 1998 the Colts were mediocre at best by the time Peyton Manning moved on the Colts had 2 SB appearances with 1 Win & a decade of excellence & a fan base of dedicated NFL fans  our small market team has to compete with the big boys the City & State has to do whats best for the City unlike in Baltimore our Politicians got it .

 

Zealots no just good Colts fans with both feet planted squarely in reality 18 put us on the map with out him we would still only be a basketball state .

 

With out which there would be no LOS Peyton Manning the face of the franchise proved to our State politicians that the Colts were worth the investment & with out eminent domain threats the 2 sides reached an agreement the 2 sides had there reasons for the deal .

 

It all centered around the fact that the Colts led by Peyton Manning was a great asset that was worth keeping .

 

We may not have understood everything at the time but it is clear we could have lost our team like St Louis did had our politicians been as short sighted as those in St Louis or Baltimore . 

 

Years of excellence on the field made it easy for all concerned to reach the deal .

 

 

Did you even read the article?

 

It was stated that the NFL Commissioner told the mayor that if Indy let the Colts go they would NEVER get another NFL Franchise.  That was the motivating factor to keep the Colts.

 

Build the stadium and keep the Colts, or lose a pro football team and possibly the other revenue (NCAA, etc. etc) that went along with it by not doing so.

 

Manning did a lot, but that has nothing to do with anything stated in this article.  

[GoColts8818]

4 hours ago, grmasterb said:

Nothing in Kravitz's article backs up your assertion about Irsay and the "palace of a stadium." Did you read the article? 

Yes, and I fully agree that there were other people who made the deal happen.  I just disagree with your orginal point that Peyton had nothing to do with it.  While it's true he didn't have anything with the talks themselves he is the main reason how the Colts were viewed in the city changed.  Thanks to Peyton Manning the team went from afterthought to the main focus in the sports world here.  That helped set the table to be able to do a deal to keep the Colts here.  That's why people call it the house Peyton built.  Did other people have more to do with the deal?  100% agree on that part.  

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

2 hours ago, MR. Blueblood said:

Did you even read the article?

 

It was stated that the NFL Commissioner told the mayor that if Indy let the Colts go they would NEVER get another NFL Franchise.  That was the motivating factor to keep the Colts.

 

Build the stadium and keep the Colts, or lose a pro football team and possibly the other revenue (NCAA, etc. etc) that went along with it by not doing so.

 

Manning did a lot, but that has nothing to do with anything stated in this article.  

 

I did before I commented actually & after a quick look back its obvious to me you should as well especially if your gonna try to be rude .

 

Try reading where it says it was a bad deal for the City in 2000 the City realized it could not spend enough to keep the Colts past 2013  ,

 

And that Irsay liked the deal as is , 

 

Had the Colts & the City had tried to work out the deal prior to 1995 no one would have cared about the Colts we were still a basketball town & state after Captain Comeback & then Peyton Manning the City & State felt the urgency realizing the financial situation. I lived downtown before the Hoosier Dome & Zoo were built the City has changed alot since the early 80's Conventions & Superbowls bring worldwide exposure for Indiana .

 

Remember its all about the Benjamins .

 

Make no mistake Peyton Manning & The Colts & the Pacers & The Indy 500  are the pearls of the City Winning Teams in a Winning State an identity the City  has worked hard to build .

 

18 whether you like it or not will always get the credit for LOS he proved to the City leaders it was in there best interest to keep the NFL in Indy it took some time but both sides were happy a win win .

 

 

 

 

 

[MR. Blueblood]

20 hours ago, ÅÐØNϧ 1 said:

 

I did before I commented actually & after a quick look back its obvious to me you should as well especially if your gonna try to be rude .

 

Try reading where it says it was a bad deal for the City in 2000 the City realized it could not spend enough to keep the Colts past 2013  ,

 

And that Irsay liked the deal as is , 

 

Had the Colts & the City had tried to work out the deal prior to 1995 no one would have cared about the Colts we were still a basketball town & state after Captain Comeback & then Peyton Manning the City & State felt the urgency realizing the financial situation. I lived downtown before the Hoosier Dome & Zoo were built the City has changed alot since the early 80's Conventions & Superbowls bring worldwide exposure for Indiana .

 

Remember its all about the Benjamins .

 

Make no mistake Peyton Manning & The Colts & the Pacers & The Indy 500  are the pearls of the City Winning Teams in a Winning State an identity the City  has worked hard to build .

 

18 whether you like it or not will always get the credit for LOS he proved to the City leaders it was in there best interest to keep the NFL in Indy it took some time but both sides were happy a win win .

 

 

 

 

 

nothing I said was rude, and nothing I said was anything that wasn't taken from the article itself, unlike the conjecture that you want to make about Manning.

 

The fear of losing the NFL forever plus the appeal of adding to the convention center, and not paying the Colts the revenue loss were the driving forces.  Nothing in that article supports your stance that Manning is responsible for LOS being built....nice try though.

[GoColts8818]

1 hour ago, MR. Blueblood said:

nothing I said was rude, and nothing I said was anything that wasn't taken from the article itself, unlike the conjecture that you want to make about Manning.

 

The fear of losing the NFL forever plus the appeal of adding to the convention center, and not paying the Colts the revenue loss were the driving forces.  Nothing in that article supports your stance that Manning is responsible for LOS being built....nice try though.

 

You don't need an article to realize Peyton Manning changed the sports landscape in Indianapolis and it's very niave to think that the Colts increased public support didn't play a role in the stadium being built.  That's all a few of us are saying and explaining why people say it's the house Peyton built because he's the main reason the way the Colts were perceived in Indianapolis changed.

 

is he the one that sat down and hammered out the dial?  No, Kravitz peace does a very good job telling that story and gives people who deserve credit but haven't gotten it credit.  

[The Old Crow]

Guys, very interesting comments. My thoughts are Peyton definitely had a role in getting the stadium built. That being said, definitely a great plan by the Indiana politicos putting together a great bundle. 

 

I've often wondered what might have happened if Elway would have come to Baltimore in 1983. Maybe our fortunes would have risen, and maybe there would have been a climate for a new stadium for the Colts. A great QB, and at least giving the fans some hope, definitely fills the stands, and may have persuaded the politicos to build a stadium, rather than eminent domain. 

 

The thing that is similar between the elder and younger Irsay, is the need for guarantees. Like all owners, they'd much rather due business on the cities or taxpayers dime , than their own. At least Irsay took the LOS deal, because Kroenke wouldn't have because the vast riches of LA were too tempting. 

[mahagga73]

If Colts don't get Peyton I bet they aren't in Indy anymore. The honeymoon had wore out by then, half the fans in town were still Bears fans.

[jvan1973]

On 1/30/2016 at 6:49 PM, grmasterb said:

Did you even bother to read the article? 

I lived through it.   No way LOS is built if the team continued to put up less than mediocre success.  Lucas oil is called the house that Manning built for a reason.   If you weren't in the dome and saw the thousands of empty seats in 90's you wouldn't understand

[grmasterb]

4 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

I lived through it.   No way LOS is built if the team continued to put up less than mediocre success.  Lucas oil is called the house that Manning built for a reason.   If you weren't in the dome and saw the thousands of empty seats in 90's you wouldn't understand

I lived through it, too.

[BlueShoe]

On 1/30/2016 at 1:40 PM, grmasterb said:

Not according for former Indy mayor Bart Peterson. Even Mortensen's 2002 report fails to quote Jim Irsay.

 

I lost all respect fro Mort Anderson that day. Haven't respected a word he has said since then. And to do it seconds before the Colts opening day kickoff too. What a waste of space for ESPN. 

[jvan1973]

19 hours ago, grmasterb said:

I lived through it, too.

Then you should know why it's called the house that Peyton built 

[The Old Crow]

4 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Then you should know why it's called the house that Peyton built 

 

I think if not for Manning , the Colts would surely be in LA. His dad originally bought the Rams, and if the Colts continued to struggle like 84- 97, the situation would have been similar to St. Louis or Baltimore. 

I know both Irsays were big on stadium and attendance guarantees, as well as sky boxes. The big difference is Jim and Polian got Manning, and their fortunes changed , while Bob didn't listen to Ernie Accorsi and traded Elway for Hinton, back up QB Hermann, and a 1 the next year. After Art Schlichter and Mike Pagel, it was pretty discouraging. 

[crazycolt1]

6 minutes ago, The Old Crow said:

 

I think if not for Manning , the Colts would surely be in LA. His dad originally bought the Rams, and if the Colts continued to struggle like 84- 97, the situation would have been similar to St. Louis or Baltimore. 

I know both Irsays were big on stadium and attendance guarantees, as well as sky boxes. The big difference is Jim and Polian got Manning, and their fortunes changed , while Bob didn't listen to Ernie Accorsi and traded Elway for Hinton, back up QB Hermann, and a 1 the next year. After Art Schlichter and Mike Pagel, it was pretty discouraging. 

Maybe LOS might have not been built but you cant come to the conclusion the Colts would be in LA. The Colts had just came out of the AFC championship game and the fans were back in the seats. Jim Harbaugh was the QB and had Harrison already. The Colts were on the upswing and the fan base was pretty excited. Irsay has never said or made a threat to move the team anywhere. All this nonsense was brought up by the media. I agree that Manning and his play had a hand in getting LOS built but as far as the Colts moving that was all useless nonsense.

[jvan1973]

55 minutes ago, The Old Crow said:

 

I think if not for Manning , the Colts would surely be in LA. His dad originally bought the Rams, and if the Colts continued to struggle like 84- 97, the situation would have been similar to St. Louis or Baltimore. 

I know both Irsays were big on stadium and attendance guarantees, as well as sky boxes. The big difference is Jim and Polian got Manning, and their fortunes changed , while Bob didn't listen to Ernie Accorsi and traded Elway for Hinton, back up QB Hermann, and a 1 the next year. After Art Schlichter and Mike Pagel, it was pretty discouraging. 

And Jeff george,  Jack Trudeau,  Craig erickson, chris chandler, Paul justin.   Etc

[jvan1973]

43 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Maybe LOS might have not been built but you cant come to the conclusion the Colts would be in LA. The Colts had just came out of the AFC championship game and the fans were back in the seats. Jim Harbaugh was the QB and had Harrison already. The Colts were on the upswing and the fan base was pretty excited. Irsay has never said or made a threat to move the team anywhere. All this nonsense was brought up by the media. I agree that Manning and his play had a hand in getting LOS built but as far as the Colts moving that was all useless nonsense.

The Colts wouldn't have stayed without a new stadium.   So,   if LOS wasn't built the Colts wouldn't have signed a new lease with the city.   With out a lease keeping the team in town they would have left.  Any owner would have

[jvan1973]

14 hours ago, BlueShoe said:

 

I lost all respect fro Mort Anderson that day. Haven't respected a word he has said since then. And to do it seconds before the Colts opening day kickoff too. What a waste of space for ESPN. 

The saints kicker? 

[The Old Crow]

1 hour ago, crazycolt1 said:

Maybe LOS might have not been built but you cant come to the conclusion the Colts would be in LA. The Colts had just came out of the AFC championship game and the fans were back in the seats. Jim Harbaugh was the QB and had Harrison already. The Colts were on the upswing and the fan base was pretty excited. Irsay has never said or made a threat to move the team anywhere. All this nonsense was brought up by the media. I agree that Manning and his play had a hand in getting LOS built but as far as the Colts moving that was all useless nonsense.

 

We didn't think Irsay would leave either, but when they move once, you really don't have to put out a threat, it's self implied. 

 

 

[The Old Crow]

23 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

And Jeff george,  Jack Trudeau,  Craig erickson, chris chandler, Paul justin.   Etc

 

Yep, it continued into the Indy era . The first thirteen years in Indy were very similar to the last 11 in Baltimore. Elway could have been Manning years earlier , but only Peyton did the right thing and went where he was drafted. His brother Eli, however ,played the spoiled brat like Elway, while Archie starred as mean Jack Elway. It's another reason Peyton has my respect. 

[MR. Blueblood]

6 minutes ago, The Old Crow said:

 

We didn't think Irsay would leave either, but when they move once, you really don't have to put out a threat, it's self implied. 

 

 

So I suppose he should've just stayed and lost the team to Eminent Domain?

 

That's also something that wasn't going to happen in Indy as there was definitely no threat from the state politicians to do so.

 

There is no way that you can make the leap from what Bob did to keep his team to what Jim may or may not have done

[ColtRider]

On February 4, 2016 at 8:58 AM, GoColts8818 said:

 

You don't need an article to realize Peyton Manning changed the sports landscape in Indianapolis and it's very niave to think that the Colts increased public support didn't play a role in the stadium being built.  That's all a few of us are saying and explaining why people say it's the house Peyton built because he's the main reason the way the Colts were perceived in Indianapolis changed.

 

is he the one that sat down and hammered out the dial?  No, Kravitz peace does a very good job telling that story and gives people who deserve credit but haven't gotten it credit.  

 

Absolutely 100% fact. Taxpayers do not approve the appropriated funds to build LOS without Peyton Manning & the Colts success. You can't dissect this any way else. It's just what happened. If the tax is voted down? Indianapolis would've faced grave & dire consequences. It may not have been right away, but the anvil would've come down on the city extremely hard.

[MR. Blueblood]

30 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

The Colts wouldn't have stayed without a new stadium.   So,   if LOS wasn't built the Colts wouldn't have signed a new lease with the city.   With out a lease keeping the team in town they would have left.  Any owner would have

Irsay was completely fine with the stadium deal and the guaranteed money coming from the city to make up the revenue loss.  The new stadium wasn't his idea in the first place and was something that he eventually agreed upon.  To say they wouldn't have stayed without the new stadium is inaccurate at best.

[jvan1973]

1 minute ago, MR. Blueblood said:

Irsay was completely fine with the stadium deal and the guaranteed money coming from the city to make up the revenue loss.  The new stadium wasn't his idea in the first place and was something that he eventually agreed upon.  To say they wouldn't have stayed without the new stadium is inaccurate at best.

No,   no it isn't.    They wanted luxury boxes and the ability to host superbowls.   You need to go back and read a little bit

[MR. Blueblood]

1 minute ago, jvan1973 said:

No,   no it isn't.    They wanted luxury boxes and the ability to host superbowls.   You need to go back and read a little bit

a qoute from the article linked in this thread

 

"In most cities, owners point a gun at the city’s head and say, “Build us a stadium or we’re gone to Los Angeles.’’ In Indianapolis, Irsay didn’t want a new stadium. He wanted to stick with the existing Goldsmith agreement. He wanted that financial guarantee. It was the city, then, who had to convince Irsay that a stadium-based deal would not only be best for the Colts, but would keep NCAA basketball in the city for years to come and would allow the city to expand the convention center – which was losing conventions because it wasn’t big enough."

 

Maybe you need to do the reading

[jvan1973]

1 minute ago, MR. Blueblood said:

a qoute from the article linked in this thread

 

"In most cities, owners point a gun at the city’s head and say, “Build us a stadium or we’re gone to Los Angeles.’’ In Indianapolis, Irsay didn’t want a new stadium. He wanted to stick with the existing Goldsmith agreement. He wanted that financial guarantee. It was the city, then, who had to convince Irsay that a stadium-based deal would not only be best for the Colts, but would keep NCAA basketball in the city for years to come and would allow the city to expand the convention center – which was losing conventions because it wasn’t big enough."

 

Maybe you need to do the reading

I read it and I say it's nonsense.  Irsay knew the financial guarantees couldn't be met with the Dome.   Everyone knows that

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

I read it and I say it's nonsense.  Irsay knew the financial guarantees couldn't be met with the Dome.   Everyone knows that

Because you assume something does not mean it's a fact.

[jvan1973]

20 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Because you assume something does not mean it's a fact.

It's common sense

[grmasterb]

4 hours ago, ColtRider said:

 

Absolutely 100% fact. Taxpayers do not approve the appropriated funds to build LOS without Peyton Manning & the Colts success. You can't dissect this any way else. It's just what happened. If the tax is voted down? Indianapolis would've faced grave & dire consequences. It may not have been right away, but the anvil would've come down on the city extremely hard.

Once again, taxpayers didn't get a vote on the tax increases that funded LOS. Those who insist voters could've voted out the politicians who voted for the increases obviously don't follow Indy-area politics. The taxes that do fund LOS have little impact on area residents anyway.

[grmasterb]

6 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Then you should know why it's called the house that Peyton built 

It's a popular narrative -- one not totally supported by the facts.

[ColtRider]

2 hours ago, grmasterb said:

Once again, taxpayers didn't get a vote on the tax increases that funded LOS. Those who insist voters could've voted out the politicians who voted for the increases obviously don't follow Indy-area politics. The taxes that do fund LOS have little impact on area residents anyway.

 

You know, you're correct. I mis-spoke. Was thinking about Paul Brown Stadium in Cincy. However, the taxpayers of the state, city, and counties surrounding Indy got stuck paying 86% of the total cost of $720 million through raised taxes on food/beverages among other increased goods.

[The Old Crow]

7 hours ago, MR. Blueblood said:

So I suppose he should've just stayed and lost the team to Eminent Domain?

 

That's also something that wasn't going to happen in Indy as there was definitely no threat from the state politicians to do so.

 

There is no way that you can make the leap from what Bob did to keep his team to what Jim may or may not have done

 

With Jim it was implied, Bob just went on open tours of other cities while still in Baltimore. The paranoia of losing the team because of the visits to other cities, helped lead to that stupid piece of legislation. The point I was trying to make is that the family business has already moved from LA, traded to Baltimore, negotiated with Phoenix, Jacksonville, Charlotte, and Indy, then finally went to Indy. It wasn't much of a jump for the Colts to move to LA if guarantees were not in place. As I've said , your politicians seem a lot smarter than the ones we have in Baltimore or St. Louis.