Andrew and Peyton

[oldunclemark]

On ‎4‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 9:35 PM, JPFolks said:

Though I disagree with everything you said, I appreciate the effort and thought you put into the response nonetheless.  People can disagree, it doesn't bother me.  When they launch personal attacks, they're trolls, as some of those above have demonstrated. 

 

The 3 bolded points: 

 

If Indy didn't upgrade the RCA dome, the Colts had already floated the possibility of moving to LA, a common sleaze tactic NFL teams use to blackmail cities into building new stadiums.  The RCA Dome hadn't made it a quarter century before they decided it was in need of destruction.  Ridiculous waste of city money.  The fact that Indy makes money from the new facility means nothing, they made it at the old one too.  The fact that Indy needed the Colts and the Colts used that need to force a new stadium earlier than needed (the structure was sound in all ways and seated about the same or perhaps even more people than the current one, simply with less boxes.  The RCA Dome was directly attached to the convention center and was wildly successful. I know, I helped open the facility and managed events there in the beginning.  The citizens paid for the facility, not Peyton Manning, thus it was NOT the stadium Manning built, it was the stadium Indy was forced to build under threat of losing Manning's entire team.  

 

As for him retiring as a Colt, I linked the reporting.  He was offered the option of signing a one day contract and retiring as a Colt according to the reporting.  Perhaps it was to take place at a later time, or with an agreement that should he return to the NFL, his rights would revert to the Broncos.  But the offer was made and days after insisting he was a "COLT FOR LIFE" he turned down the chance to memorialize that fact by retiring as a Colt, which is a very common tradition for players who switch teams late in their career.  

 

The Jordan comparison is Apples and Oranges.  The NBA isn't the NFL. NFL tradition supports my case. 

 

You won't change my mind with the above arguments, and it appears I won't change yours.  And life goes one, no harm no foul.  

I don't think the Jordan/ Peyton statute comparison is apples and oranges...

Iconic athletes with statues even though they went on to play for another team . Its okay.

 

If Indy didn't upgrade the RCA Dome,. you're exactly right..the Colts might have left.

And with their lack of tradition..had they been 7-9, the city might have let them leave,.

Remember when weren't a pro football hub then.

Of course the citizens paid for the facility..Obviously Peyton Manning didn't fund it.

Don't be so literal.  You'd have to agree there would have been little effort to keep a losing team which was really still in many respects the Baltimore Colts at that time.

The Cardinals would still be in St. Louis if they'd have built a stadium, right? 

The Chargers and Raiders will leave without new stadiums. ..The city builds them or they don't....and its easier to push for them if the team is a source of pride and not residing in the cellar. So, in effect, Peyton helping the team win every year 'builds' the stadium.  I know you understand what's being said there.

 

I was in the RCA Dome many times for high school finals football. I;ve wandered around in the hallways and  the 'undercarrriage' and it got old fast. My opinion of it isn't as high as yours.

But set that aside. There's no Super Bowl without a new stadium,. No Final 4

..and possibly/probably..no Colts..

 

.....And even if you think Peyton could actually sign a contract with Indy when he'd retired with one year left in Denver,  I thought Peyton didn't want to disrespect Denver by signing with the Colts (even in ceremony) so soon after he retired.

He didn't lie, in my opinion, he honored both towns. His speech in Indy was classic. His days as a Colt. His memories. You cant really be upset with him

[JPFolks]

20 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

You didn't write the check for it either. Irsay did and who are you to question what Irsay does with his money? As far as the RCA dome being connected to the convention center, it was proven the city was losing money by the convention center not being big enough to utilize what could be made. Since the convention center was enlarged the profits have gone up. So you personal opinion really has no bearing.

Wow.. sometimes the ridiculous things said to me are shocking in their complete lack of facts or understanding of truth. 

 

Read this... educate yourself a little.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/taxpayers-nfl-stadiums_us_55f08313e4b002d5c077b8ac

 

PS: To the mods: There's a weird glitch going on with the quote feature. 

 

Posted 11 minutes ago · Report post

27 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

 

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, JPFolks said:

Wow.. sometimes the ridiculous things said to me are shocking in their complete lack of facts or understanding of truth. 

 

Read this... educate yourself a little.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/taxpayers-nfl-stadiums_us_55f08313e4b002d5c077b8ac

 

PS: To the mods: There's a weird glitch going on with the quote feature. 

 

Posted 11 minutes ago · Report post

 

That has zero to do with Indy and the RCA dome, the convention center and the need to expand the convention center. The city was loosing too much money with the set up of the RCA dome and the convention center. You may deflect with all the links you can to but that is what it is, a deflection to the facts.

[JPFolks]

7 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

That has zero to do with Indy and the RCA dome, the convention center and the need to expand the convention center. The city was loosing too much money with the set up of the RCA dome and the convention center. You may deflect with all the links you can to but that is what it is, a deflection to the facts.

Ah, so when proven wrong (you said IRSAY paid for it... uh.. not 600 million worth he didn't) you change your argument to something you have no real understanding about.  Have you worked for either facility? Have you bid for events, budgeted them, made sure they made the city money and went smoothly?  I doubt it.  

 

Yes, it IS inconvenient for you when I prove you wrong with documented FACTS.  Blather all you want, but you were once again WRONG about Irsay paying the cost.  You didn't mention that little 600 million dollars the city got billed for, perhaps because you don't pay taxes in Indy, but if you do, that would mean we both have contributed to the cost via taxes paid.  

[JPFolks]

34 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

I was in the RCA Dome many times for high school finals football. I;ve wandered around in the hallways and  the 'undercarrriage' and it got old fast. My opinion of it isn't as high as yours.

But set that aside. There's no Super Bowl without a new stadium,. No Final 4

..and possibly/probably..no Colts..

Actually the RCA dome was VERY popular as an NCAA tourney site including hosting 4 final 4's in 1991, 1997, 2000, 2006 and earlier rounds in 1987, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1996, 1999, 2003, 2005.  For that matter Market Square Arena also hosted a Final 4 and some earlier rounds in it's history before that.  (1980 was the final 4 year).  

 

The rest of your post is quite reasonable, but I consider Manning part politician and mostly businessman and thus the sincerity of anything said or done should be taken in that context.  He's the same guy who focused attention on Budweiser multiple times instead of his teammates after the Super Bowl, something that for me was as low class as it gets.

 

Thanks again for the polite debate.  Quite refreshing.  

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, JPFolks said:

Ah, so when proven wrong (you said IRSAY paid for it... uh.. not 600 million worth he didn't) you change your argument to something you have no real understanding about.  Have you worked for either facility? Have you bid for events, budgeted them, made sure they made the city money and went smoothly?  I doubt it.  

 

Yes, it IS inconvenient for you when I prove you wrong with documented FACTS.  Blather all you want, but you were once again WRONG about Irsay paying the cost.  You didn't mention that little 600 million dollars the city got billed for, perhaps because you don't pay taxes in Indy, but if you do, that would mean we both have contributed to the cost via taxes paid.  

You didn't prove anything wrong. You working for anyone does not make you right either. Once again your reading comprehension overlooked what I said. Irsay paid for the statue is what I said. Your reading comprehension also omitted my point in loosing money. I did not say they were loosing money, I said they were losing money by leaving money on the table. That is because they couldn't handle the amount of people that bigger and more conventions could bring. There had to be more hotel-motel rooms made ready also. You think because you worked somewhere that makes you more knowledgeable? No it don't. Does it really have to be explained to you why LOS is commonly known as the house that Manning built? We all know who and how the stadium was built.

[Traines]

I hope you have to drive by that statue and see it in all it's glory every day

[ColtsBlueFL]

On 3/27/2016 at 5:58 AM, JPFolks said:

Here's one of many results of a simple search on the topic... it was also reported on ESPN, Fox Sports, NBC Sports and a variety of other networks and sites when it happened.  

 

http://www.rantsports.com/nfl/2016/03/22/peyton-manning-turns-down-one-day-contract-to-retire-with-indianapolis-colts/

 

Bottom line,,, he lied to us all.  He won't "always be a Colt.":  He'll always be a Bronco.  If they build a statue to a Bronco to place outside our publicly built stadium, I hope people deface it regularly.  At the very least they should put a plaque indicating the Colts beat him 3 out of 4 times after he left for his chosen team and city. 

 

I felt his response was metaphorical, not literal. As in a 'I appreciate my 14 years here as a Colt.  I will always remember my time here in this organization.'  Then the unwritten and unspoken corollary- 'Since I was released and cannot play here anymore, I will look for work on another team until my career concludes.'

 

Besides, he didn't leave, Irsay cut him.

 

"At a podium alongside owner Jim Irsay, who cut the injured star Wednesday rather than pay a whopping $28 million bonus due this week, Manning was by turns wistful, nostalgic -- "

 

And you only remeber the always be a Colt line, others remember these he said as well in the same speech...

 

"Nobody loves their job more than I do. Nobody loves playing quarterback more than I do. I still want to play. But there is no other team I wanted to play for," 

"We all know that nothing lasts forever. Times change, circumstances change, and that's the reality of playing in the NFL."

 

He will always be a Colt and a Bronco.  And I have no anger toward Manning nor Irsay.

[JPFolks]

On 4/4/2016 at 11:43 PM, crazycolt1 said:

You didn't prove anything wrong. You working for anyone does not make you right either. Once again your reading comprehension overlooked what I said. Irsay paid for the statue is what I said. Your reading comprehension also omitted my point in loosing money. I did not say they were loosing money, I said they were losing money by leaving money on the table. That is because they couldn't handle the amount of people that bigger and more conventions could bring. There had to be more hotel-motel rooms made ready also. You think because you worked somewhere that makes you more knowledgeable? No it don't. Does it really have to be explained to you why LOS is commonly known as the house that Manning built? We all know who and how the stadium was built.

Where to start with so much blather above.... 

 

The discussion was about "the house that Manning built" and you made the common that Irsay paid for it.  Each time I supply evidence proving you wrong, you weakly attempt to parse words and change your argument.  Neither Manning, nor Irsay built the new hotels, nor did the city.  The private sector did that.  So your comment about more hotel-motel (motels? really?) has no relevance to anything in the discussion.  

 

I'd love to simply play grammar police with the bolded comment, but everyone makes including me makes plenty of typing mistakes.  But the idea behind it exposes the problems with all your arguments.  Facts, proof, first hand knowledge and experience mean nothing to you.  That's because if you ever allowed yourself to argue based on those factors, you'd see how hollow your arguments are.  You have opinions based not on experience, first hand knowledge, facts or truths and you won't accept any of those things no matter how many are offered up.  You prefer to remain low information with random opinions based I guess on emotion or some other intangible set of realities.  It is one thing to be wrong, anyone can be, and everyone is, wrong on many occasions.  So the best you can do is offer up a myriad of facts and experiences to support your point.  But when someone ignores all of it, then it devolves into child-like statements which sound quite a bit like "no it don't"  which I hear from my 2 and 4 year old nephews when they argue. So putting it in a way perhaps you'll understand more clearly: "whatever dude" may suffice.  

[crazycolt1]

44 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

Where to start with so much blather above.... 

 

The discussion was about "the house that Manning built" and you made the common that Irsay paid for it.  Each time I supply evidence proving you wrong, you weakly attempt to parse words and change your argument.  Neither Manning, nor Irsay built the new hotels, nor did the city.  The private sector did that.  So your comment about more hotel-motel (motels? really?) has no relevance to anything in the discussion.  

 

I'd love to simply play grammar police with the bolded comment, but everyone makes including me makes plenty of typing mistakes.  But the idea behind it exposes the problems with all your arguments.  Facts, proof, first hand knowledge and experience mean nothing to you.  That's because if you ever allowed yourself to argue based on those factors, you'd see how hollow your arguments are.  You have opinions based not on experience, first hand knowledge, facts or truths and you won't accept any of those things no matter how many are offered up.  You prefer to remain low information with random opinions based I guess on emotion or some other intangible set of realities.  It is one thing to be wrong, anyone can be, and everyone is, wrong on many occasions.  So the best you can do is offer up a myriad of facts and experiences to support your point.  But when someone ignores all of it, then it devolves into child-like statements which sound quite a bit like "no it don't"  which I hear from my 2 and 4 year old nephews when they argue. So putting it in a way perhaps you'll understand more clearly: "whatever dude" may suffice.  

I guess your reading comprehension is as poor as your attitude. I said Irsay paid for the statue, not the stadium. Your writing of long winded replies is old and lame.

[RollerColt]

Is the 600 million a hefty price tag? You better believe it is. But I think it was worth every penny. The avenue itself has changed the city and state in a positive way. I live in the Southeastern region, and I will say this: every time there is an event in Indy regarding Lucas Oil, our little town on I-74 gets lit up with travelers i.e. customers. 

 

Over the years my area has seen a great deal of development and attention. The streets are cleaner, the people are happier... For me, Lucas Oil has significantly changed the surrounding areas of Indiana for the better. 

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

On 3/19/2016 at 1:52 AM, LJpalmbeacher said:

 

Yes, there was a certain female trainer there he had his eyes on. HaHaHa

So Sorry..... but that was tooooo easy and couldn't help myself.

It was'nt his eyes ..  from all accounts .