Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Pm Contract Question/ownership

coltsfanmilyman

By coltsfanmilyman
in Colts Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

FireJimCaldwell Walk On

FireJimCaldwell

Posted
Posted

Th anks for the info but do you know why he can't own and play at the same time? Is it something in the CBA or something?

I'm sure it is addressed either in the CBA or the league bylaws.

For example if we wanted to name Manning Offensive Coordinator while he was playing, he would only be able to earn the average salary of people in the same position to have that portion of his total salary credited against the cap. We couldn't pay him 10 million as OC and 1 million as a player. They wouldn't allow that to happen.

It's like that in most leagues. Jordan acquired a portion of the Wizards when he first went there as a GM. He had to sell it when he returned to playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UndecidedFrog Walk On

UndecidedFrog

Posted
Posted

Owners can't also be players. Like in the NBA, Jordan had to give up ownership in order to play for the Wizards when he returned.

Yes, there is an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to voting for or against a new CBA, either from an owner's perspective or a player's perspective.

However, there is one way around this. If the Colts ownership is split into voting class A shares and non-voting class B shares. The downside of this approach is the relative unattractiveness of ownership without representation. Yet there are many examples of corporations with this type of structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MAC Walk On

MAC

Posted
Posted

I have a question regarding this whole debacle regarding Peyton and the Colts. Is it possible that Irsay could offer/ negotiate with Peyton a small portion of ownership instead of the 28 million he is owed or build it into a new contract if he is released?

Just thinking outside of the box with this?

Probably more important than "could he", the question is "why would he". The Colts are Irsay's baby. He isn't giving up a piece of it just to avoid coming up with 28 million. It's not "that much" money. If you are thinking that it's a way around the salary cap, I can't see how. It does nothing to address the bonus problem, and if Peyton were allowed to be a FA, than you could resort to conventional means to resolve the problem. Peytons just a player. Irsay has no incentive to change the fundamental dynamics of his own existence just to appease him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shakedownstreet Hall of Famer

shakedownstreet

Posted
Posted

even if this were possible, the percentage of ownership would have to be translated into dollars based on the current estimated value of the team. and that amount would count against the cap the same way dollars paid out would

irsay's only motivation for this would be if he was hurting for dough. with all the new revenues that came with the new stadium, i highly doubt that

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoColts8818 Ring of Honor

GoColts8818

Posted
Posted

Actually i think Peyton deserves to own a part of the colts. Even if it comes after he retires.

I disagree just because someone is good at their job doesn't mean they should be given ownership of a private business which the Colts are. I think Jim Irsay views the Colts as his family and his family's alone when it comes to ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shakedownstreet Hall of Famer

shakedownstreet

Posted
Posted

I disagree just because someone is good at their job doesn't mean they should be given ownership of a private business which the Colts are. I think Jim Irsay views the Colts as his family and his family's alone when it comes to ownership.

yeah he doesn't deserve it just because he is peyton freakin manning. ownership of a billion dollar franchise simply CANNOT be based on sentimentality

if irsay felt manning would be useful as a co-owner, then that's one thing, however unlikely

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bavanlan Walk On

bavanlan

Posted
Posted

even if this were possible, the percentage of ownership would have to be translated into dollars based on the current estimated value of the team. and that amount would count against the cap the same way dollars paid out would

irsay's only motivation for this would be if he was hurting for dough. with all the new revenues that came with the new stadium, i highly doubt that

:thmup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoColts8818 Ring of Honor

GoColts8818

Posted
Posted

yeah he doesn't deserve it just because he is peyton freakin manning. ownership of a billion dollar franchise simply CANNOT be based on sentimentality

if irsay felt manning would be useful as a co-owner, then that's one thing, however unlikely

Build him a statue, retire his number, give him his own spot in the Ring of Honor, offer him a job in the Colts front office if you would like but I don't think Irsay is going to give Manning any form of ownership in the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
P-Money Walk On

P-Money

Posted
Posted

Build him a statue, retire his number, give him his own spot in the Ring of Honor, offer him a job in the Colts front office if you would like but I don't think Irsay is going to give Manning any form of ownership in the team.

Exactly right. Only a foolish owner would ever offer that unless he had no kids to hand it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldManP Walk On

OldManP

Posted
Posted

Yes, there is an inherent conflict of interest when it comes to voting for or against a new CBA, either from an owner's perspective or a player's perspective.

However, there is one way around this. If the Colts ownership is split into voting class A shares and non-voting class B shares. The downside of this approach is the relative unattractiveness of ownership without representation. Yet there are many examples of corporations with this type of structure.

My brother is a Packers fan (moved there), and Packers fans are thrilled to buy worthless pieces of paper for $250 that say "One Share".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoColts8818 Ring of Honor

GoColts8818

Posted
Posted

My brother is a Packers fan (moved there), and Packers fans are thrilled to buy worthless pieces of paper for $250 that say "One Share".

So what are you saying? Peyton would take ownership that doesn't really mean anything like the Packers fans in place of money or that because the Packers (who are owned by a city not by one owner) are willing to sell meaningless ownership to fans to make them feel good as an example that Irsay who is the sole owner of the Colts would be willing to give Manning meaningful ownership in the team?

Irsay giving Manning ownership of the team takes money out of his pocket that he can never go back. Rather than getting 100% of the profits he now only gets a % of what he owns of the team again. Irsay is not going to do that to keep Manning. He's would rather just pay him the contract rather than pretty much be paying Peyton for life. Also if Manning has ownership in the team that means Irsay is no longer the only one calling all the shots. It means he has to talk to Manning about what he wants to do with things and I just don't think Irsay is going to want to do that.

It's a nice thought and I'd agree with the first poster is trying to think outside the box but once you stop and look at it you quickly see it's not realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldunclemark Walk On

oldunclemark

Posted
Posted

I have a question regarding this whole debacle regarding Peyton and the Colts. Is it possible that Irsay could offer/ negotiate with Peyton a small portion of ownership instead of the 28 million he is owed or build it into a new contract if he is released?

Just thinking outside of the box with this?

..that's an original thought, FAN MAN...

..but Peyton and Eli grew up in the south and I think they'd like to go back there when their playing days are done

Link to comment
Share on other sites
betheafan41 Walk On

betheafan41

Posted
Posted

the only thing i can see happening inorder to keep manning a colt, is release him and then negotiate a 1 year contract for like 9 or 10 million until he gets completely healthy and can prove he can still throw like he did before the procedure. then after the season if he still wants to play bring him and luck into the GM office sit down talk to them both tell manning they would like to keep him for another year at like 12 to 14 million for that year and after that luck will take over the starting job and would like manning to stay on as the QB coach or OC come 2014 season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UndecidedFrog Walk On

UndecidedFrog

Posted
Posted

the only thing i can see happening inorder to keep manning a colt, is release him and then negotiate a 1 year contract for like 9 or 10 million until he gets completely healthy and can prove he can still throw like he did before the procedure. then after the season if he still wants to play bring him and luck into the GM office sit down talk to them both tell manning they would like to keep him for another year at like 12 to 14 million for that year and after that luck will take over the starting job and would like manning to stay on as the QB coach or OC come 2014 season.

Here is the cap effect of what you suggest:

Your scenario: Release PM, results in a $10.4MM cap hit, 1-year salary at $10MM = $20.4MM cap hit for 2012.

Current scenario: Pay PM $28MM option bonus due March 8, contractual salary for 2012 is $7.4MM = $17MM cap hit for 2012.

Under your scenario, we would be $3MM worse off in cap space for 2012. This upcoming 2012 cap is very important, as the owner has already stated that this is a rebuilding year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...