Andy Lyons - Getty Images
7 months ago: INDIANAPOLIS, IN - OCTOBER 09: Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts watches his team warm up before the NFL game against the Kansas City Chiefs at Lucas Oil Stadium on October 9, 2011 in Indianapolis, Indiana. (Photo by Andy Lyons/Getty Images)
Well, Manning-Watch '12 certainly just got a little more interesting.
If you happen to be rooting for Peyton Manning to finish his career as a Colt, Jim Irsay is doing his best to put a small smile on your face and/or make the situation even more intense. The Colts appear to want #18 back in the saddle:
"We can make it work if he wants to be here,’’ Irsay said today. "We’d be excited to have him back and finish his career with us.
Manning and Irsay have engaged in an intense chess match for weeks and now we're likely witnessing Irsay calling Manning's bluff. It's funny and quite hypocritical that Irsay was upset with Manning for not keeping his thoughts "in house", yet Irsay has now decided to one-up (again) Manning and relay this information to the press.
According to Irsay, if Manning truly wants to remain a Colt, the door just swiftly blew open for perfect harmony to exist:
"I want him to be able to make the choice. We would love to have him back here if he can get healthy and we can look at doing a contract that reflects the uncertainty of the . . . healing process with the regeneration of the nerve.’’
"There’s no question it can be worked out if he wants to be here,’’ said Irsay, who has concerns over Manning’s long-term health. "It can work if he wants to come back and can get back to being the old Peyton.’’
This isn't the first time Irsay has been vocal about the decision being in the hands of Manning, but now the entire world knows. Irsay called Manning a "politician" for his interview with Bob Kravitz, but this is politicking at its finest.
Sounds fair enough, right? But is Manning willing to play under such a deal for the Colts?
First, let me just preface my thoughts by stating that contract matters don't always tend to be as cut and dry as people would like to believe. We can say that Irsay is giving Manning a chance to return (and he is), but until we know the specifics of any said deal, we cannot fairly judge the outcome.
That considered, Manning appears to have firm control of his destiny and legacy as a Colt. If Irsay is ready to negotiate, a fair deal can be finalized to circumvent the option bonus Manning is due by March 8th. Of course, it's no secret that teams are coyly campaigning to win the services of the 36-year-old. And even in uncertain health, some team will be willing to pay Manning a boatload of money, unlike Irsay. There's also the fact that if he decides to join another team (like the Texans), his chances of securing another ring will be all but guaranteed. That much is obvious. However, if he decides this is his best option, what about the thought of abandonment that could ooze from Indianapolis? His legacy reaches far beyond the brink of winning another Super Bowl ring. Peyton Manning came into the NFL as a Colt and he should leave the NFL as a Colt. But through these trying times, Irsay's fumbling of the situation, and the elimination of virtually every connection from his past, how far can Manning's loyalty stretch? Is it possible that Manning feels abandoned in his own regard?
Only time will tell. Yes. More time.
The resources are in place to get the job done and we're all aware that Manning is a class act. Actually, if you look up class in the dictionary, Manning's glorious forehead is pictured directly to the right. After all, Manning was the one who allowed the Colts to protect themselves with his current contract (one year structure, four year option). And yes, like most of us in the world, he also enjoys his money. A lot of money, actually. I'm certainly not trying to suggest that he's greedy (his fortune is more than well-deserved), but if I may borrow a line from the classic film, Wall Street, "How many yachts can you water-ski behind? How much is enough, huh?"
When it comes to his legacy as a Colt, guaranteed money---his estimated net worth is approximately $115 million---should be the least important factor in his decision. If he can return to form, Manning will have plenty of money waiting for him. As for the rest, will the restructuring of his contract really be enough to keep him in Indy?
"The Decision" is upon us, friends.
1 recs | 238 comments
They already paid Manning 26 M and did not play or practice last year...
I think is fair for Irsay to ask for a paycut given the uncertainty of his health.
But also, this may not be about money, PM maybe just doesn’t want to be the mentor of Luck nor does he think we have a Championship caliber team.
COLTS_CR9 - February 15, 2012
Precisely.
I doubt it would be a “pay cut”. More so a playing time/incentive-based contract. If he can play, he should earn roughly the same amount.
Stew Blake - February 15, 2012 via mobile
Stew your a legend
Only one here who keeps coming up with worth while news. Aside from that Manning is definitely in the saddle to control his destiny. I agree an incentive-based would be the way to go. I wonder what conditions would he want. i.e sign Reggie for another year.. I guess if you’re going to make a comeback you want the components you trust to be there to make you successful.
kbreboot - February 15, 2012
That's a big "should".
Irsay might ultimately want him to take a hefty pay cut. This could be a big P.R. ploy and it’s clear that Irsay is now the one politicking. He could have relayed this information directly to Manning, but he didn’t. Quite hypocritical, actually.
And thanks for reading, everyone. You guys are the legends lol.
Stew Blake - February 15, 2012
Yeah Stew! You are the man and have been a great addition to the site!
And you are a native Buckeye and a part of the Scarlet and Grey nation! We need to get you blogging somewhere covering Urb & company!
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012 via mobile
Go Bucks!
Stew Blake - February 15, 2012
"DIRECTLY TO MANNING"
my thoughts exactly. why did he not communicate this PRIVATELY to peyton, gauge his reaction, then move on accordingly? What a terrible decision to come out with this. This is dumb. He couldn’t make a decision either way so he punted. Very dissapointed.
coltsgolfbeer - February 15, 2012
How do you know he didn't?
How do you know that Irsay didn’t already talk to Manning about this? Irsay is just trying to get ahead of the poor fan reaction he will receive when Manning leaves. I don’t blame him at all for making this move. Irsay is calling Manning’s bluff…If he wants to be a Colt, then be a Colt.
ColtsGM9001 - February 15, 2012
and at least Irsay lets us know what is going on and what he is thinking
unlike polian used to do
OBGYNOSUPREME - February 15, 2012
The soap opera continues....
…and it never should have been a soap opera. Irsay is making several mistakes in the way he’s handling this.
Ayrshire - February 15, 2012
They both have
Irsay’s certainly not blameless, but neither is Manning. Let’s not forget it was Manning who:
Manning has been deftly strong-arming the organization for weeks. I wish Irsay was smoother about how he handled it, but I’m not surprised he’s pushed back.
Chris S. - February 15, 2012
Manning fans will blame Irsay. It's inevitable.
James Broschat - February 15, 2012
I blame Irsay for how badly he’s handling all this. All of Manning’s responses were in lieu of everyone saying he’s going to retire even though he never said he was.
I mean I think if the man is going to retire let him say it its his career.
CF4L - February 15, 2012
Manning was the one who started the whole back and forth
with the Kravitz and NYT interviews where he said that the Colts’ facility was a bad place for healing and “everyone is walking on eggshells.”
James Broschat - February 15, 2012
Not it started with Rob Lowe’s tweet which obviously came from Jimbo who else would want that out there?
Jimbo was the one who overreacted here.
Really if Jimbo said this from jump he would’ve looked a lot better than calling Manning a politician and then turn around and talk about house business to anyone who’d listen
CF4L - February 16, 2012
lol
obviously a tweet from Rob Lowe is from Irsay. You’ll believe whatever you want to.
James Broschat - February 17, 2012
I agree with Chris S.
I think both of them should have kept the drama to themselves. When Bob Kravitz is acting as a conduit for your communication, something is very wrong.
Ayrshire - February 15, 2012
Agreed.
James Broschat - February 15, 2012
agreed, also
kinda makes you wish we had a secretive, uber-controlling, media-unfriendly GM at the helm, doesn’t it, Ayrshire?
zherebyonki - February 15, 2012
No.
Ayrshire - February 16, 2012
What real protection does an incentive-based contract offer the Colts?
If PM is healthy, he’ll probably reach any incentives (short of, “win the superbowl or get paid $0”), so how do those incentives affect his cap hit?
Do the incentives retroactively count against the cap for the current season, with any penalties caused by PM meeting those incentives taking away from the cap in following years? Does it purley tack on to future years of the contract?
LeftNutForAStarCenter - February 15, 2012
Sounds good to me!
Healthy Manning! Maybe a 2 yr Cap friendly deal! Luck waiting on the wings! Let’s make it happen Mr Irsay…
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012
I agree!
shoospa - February 15, 2012
it seems like a waste to me
to try and juggle both
muncie_in_this - February 15, 2012
It'd be nice, but I doubt it happens
As much as I’d love to see it go down, Ridah, I just don’t think Peyton will bite. If Manning thinks he can still play, he probably believes he has another 3-4 good years left in him. It’s unlikely then that he’d sign a two-year deal where he knows he’ll be gone at the end. I also doubt he’d want to play in a place with a hot prospect breathing down his neck.
Makes more sense to go somewhere like Miami (just as an example), where he’ll have some decent tools, they’ll likely give him a contract that would keep him around for 3-4 years, and the stiffest competition he’d have to hold off is Matt Moore.
Chris S. - February 15, 2012
Move forward and let' win
It’s been a great run for the Colts and Peyton Manning. Let the rebuilding begin today with a strong running game and take our chances with a capable & healthy Luck.
Obviously the next man up philosophy will not cut it. It has to be as a team, “this is how we do it.” there are players that can help the Colts forget about the 2-14 season. Let’s go back and get our crown!
Leroystayclean - February 15, 2012 via mobile
Now it's loyalty vs chance of winning
Can’t say it’s bad to choose either one.
Ty46 - February 15, 2012
I’ve felt for the past couple weeks it would be more about peyton winning than anything. I assumed that Irsay would take 18 back for a discount, which I believe is fair. And asking for that discount is enough to make Peyton say thanks, but no thanks and go to a team that can get him another ring or two.
I see no real negatives here. On one hand I lose Peyton Manning from a fan’s point of view, on the other I get to see him do what made me love him in the first place and that is win. Albeit in a different uniform. So it will be an extremely bittersweet day if 18 leaves.
cq.noble - February 15, 2012
I wouldn't expect Luck to come here if Peyton stays
Anyone think there Is there a possibility they pull off some trade where they take Luck with the pick but then trade him for RG3 and some additional picks?
No one is questioning that Luck is the better prospect, but RG3 seems like a better fit if Manning is going to stay long term…obviously they have to bring in a high level QB draft pick this year in case Peyton either isn’t ready for camp or cant play at all…I think RG3 has a the chance to be very good also just in a different kind of way…
Curious what my fellow fans think. I would probably be willing to pass on Luck for 4 more years of Peyton on a cap friendly deal, RG3, and maybe a few extra picks…
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012
I like it
I just don’t think that’s going to happen.
ruseriousclark? - February 15, 2012
I like your thinking.
Stew Blake - February 15, 2012 via mobile
I think they draft luck
The only way you don’t do that is that Grigson already said to Jim, take manning, and bolster the defense this draft using the pick as a trade. Grigson may have the philosophy of that balanced team where you don’t need such a great QB but one that can manage the game and have a good all round defense and a running game. Taking luck means same old thing as Manning, centralising your team based on one player, not good.
kbreboot - February 15, 2012
I don't know if having a good QB means they have to make it a one man show...
You want the best QB possible…which would be a healthy Manning. They just need to draft better and find talent on both sides of the ball and also spread the picks/FAs all around. Baltimore is a pretty balanced team but they can’t get over the hump because they has solid but not elite QB play…
I can’t see a scenario where they don’t end up with Luck or Griffin this year…
I personally would love to see a (healthy) Peyton at a cap friendly deal where they could bring in some help on the OL first and then the D…that makes them a playoff contender at least. If Peyton isn’t healthy or wants to go to a contender I am cool with them bringing in Luck. Either way you slice it I am very excited about the draft and the 2012 season!
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012
This is getting ridiculous
1. I don’t see a clear path to selecting Griffin if the colts trade the first pick. Obviously Cleveland becomes the favorite trade partner which would put us in the fourth spot. It seems that a two or three will be required to select Griffin. And while I think Griffin will be a fantastic qb in this league, I think our first pick should be used on Luck.
If proceeding with Manning becomes apparent, then yeah, trade the pick. But I think all those extra picks should be used on non QB positions.
mlc2656 - February 15, 2012 via mobile
Luck is the pick
If the Colts take Griffin at #1 and don’t get a bunch of other picks tied into that from a trade down then it will be a disaster.
AceOfSpades - February 15, 2012
they have to take Luck no matter what
cannot let him go
OBGYNOSUPREME - February 15, 2012
THEY WILL
draft Luck because he is the much better prospect. He has all the physical tools, prototypical size, has played under center in a pro style offense and has had success for longer than a year. He is the complete package and is a better draft prospect than Manning was when he was coming out of college. Drafting Luck is as much about his talent as it is about Manning’s health. A team simply cannot pass on a potential franchise QB.
Irsay lived through the Elway debacle that his dad created and will not repeat that mistake.
javen - February 15, 2012
Just for the record, RG3 had much more than just a single good season
In fact, his overall college stats are better than Luck’s:
RG3: 10,366 yards passing, 78 TDs, 17 INTS. He also had 33 rushing TDs with 2,257 rushing yards. Averaged 259 yds/g for his career.
Luck: 9,430 yards passing, 82 TDs, 22 INTS. Also had 7 rushing TDs with 957 rushing yards. Averaged 248 yds/g for his career.
Both had career completion percentages of 66.1%. Luck played in 38 games in his college career, RG3 played in 40.
Injury concerns – RG3 suffered an “isolated tear” of his ACL in 2009, causing him to miss the rest of the season after starting the first three games for Baylor. Luck had surgery on a finger in his throwing hand in 2009, causing him to miss the Sun Bowl.
I’d say both have rebounded nicely.
RG3 isn’t just a single-season aberration; he’s a fine football player and quarterback, and could be the 2nd best QB prospect since Manning. Luck’s still got the edge imo though. He just does everything the right way, learned from NFL coaches, has the size and vision and just wins.
I expect the Colts to still draft Luck. If they went with a trade and/or picked RG3 I wouldn’t be totally shocked just because he’s still an excellent QB, but I’d definitely be surprised.
BoilerUp1982 - February 15, 2012
You need to factor in the level of competition. Luck is the better NFL prospect.
TheAfghanTwilight - February 15, 2012
Where did I say Luck wasn't the better prospect?
The reason why I delineated the stats for both QBs is because some people are under the impression that RG3 was just a one-season wonder.
I still believe that Luck is the better QB, prospect and most likely to be a Colt.
BoilerUp1982 - February 15, 2012
You didn’t outright say it, but saying “his overall college stats are better than Luck’s” led me to believe you felt that way.
Hey, i’m just a jealous Bills fan watching this all unfold. It’s rare that a team is able to transition from one phenomenal player to another with similar traits. My favorite team has messed it up ever since Kelly retired.
TheAfghanTwilight - February 15, 2012
I think that the Media’s tactics of generating stories and pseudocontroversies is beginning to rub off on the populous :)
No harm, no foul. I can see how that conclusion was drawn.
BoilerUp1982 - February 15, 2012
i thought you were as clear as day
especially in the second from the last paragraph
thanks for the stats
zherebyonki - February 15, 2012
KIPER
said, and I know this has to be taken i with a grain of salt, that before the season started that there was discussion that Griffen would have to move to wide receiver in the pros. He is still a good prospect but to win in the NFL a QB has to be able to make plays in the pocket. Luck is much better equipped for that.
javen - February 15, 2012
Level of competition?
Pac12 Defenses suck… Big 12 isn’t much better, but it is better. I’m not a Pac 12 or Big 12 guy, but this is the first time I’ve heard the level of competition argument. My argument would be: ‘You have to look at how the offenses are run"
Stanford has a very good run game that sets up the pass. They probably have the best o-line in college football and don’t get too flashy with the playbook. Mostly short passes.
Baylor throws constantly and their opponents expect them to pass on each and every play. They have a great mix of long and short passes from sideline to sideline. We’ve seen a lot more of what RG3 can do. There is a lot we aren’t sure about with Luck.
Mark Olson - February 15, 2012
THERE IS VERY
little that they don’t know about Luck and I guarantee you they know he will be very good.
javen - February 16, 2012
RG3 is too small
will be injury prone like Vick
OBGYNOSUPREME - February 15, 2012
I am not at all suggesting that we take him over Luck - or that he's a better NFL prospect than Luck
I’m dispelling the idea that he’s inconsistent and the product of a single good season. He had a great college career.
BoilerUp1982 - February 15, 2012
true he had a great career
OBGYNOSUPREME - February 15, 2012
He is the same height and weight (listed) as Adrian Peterson.
udllama - February 15, 2012
I would have to imagine work out and conditioning routines vary between positions being played. Same physical stats doesn’t mean they’re equally prepared for the hits each position traditionally takes.
18forPrez - February 15, 2012
Same size as Aaron Rodgers
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012
This is what I've been preaching
People ripped me for it a few weeks ago. Now, it sounds like a smart idea with this recent Irsay comment. I could definitely see the Colts trading down for the boatload of picks, and trying to trade back up for RGIII. If they can’t, then they grab another good prospect this year. Then, they could grab another next year or the year after with one of the numerous picks they would have in the first few rounds.
I also want them to sign a NT free agent. That’s off topic, but that is my big hope this offseason after Peyton returning. I want a proven guy there, not another chance on a prospect.
PeytonTheManning - February 15, 2012
wow!
i’m shocked to hear this from u. i couldn’t disagree more. not sure why so many people are fascinated with players like RG3. vick, mcnair, vince young, soon to be cam newton and so on, (i’m sure i’m forgetting someone) these guys are all the same. inconsistant highlight reels! these kind of QB’s never have long term, high level success. steve young and john elway are the only “athletic” QB’s i can think of off the top of my head that ever had real success. i would throw up if they drafted RG3, what a complete waste……thank god that will never happen…..hopefully!
12over18 - February 15, 2012
Not debating if RG3 is the better prospect
We know Luck is.
My point was I don’t think you can have Luck and Peyton especially if he takes less money. Peyton will stay until he wants to leave…If he is healhy he isn’t gonna stay one year to appease fans then just retire. No way Luck sits for several years! So is it better to have Peyton for four years at reduced pay…and Griffin as the understudy or to start over with Luck.
If Peyton is healthy and will take a lower deal it may be reasonable to forfeit Luck in Indy…
Also RG3 is a pocket QB and is the same size as Aaron Rodgers. Luck is a much better prospect but Griffin could also be great
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012
noted
i guess, in my mind, i wouldn’t draft RG3 under any circumstance.
12over18 - February 15, 2012
With the 1st pick or period!
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012
not at all, i know that's crazy!
he may stand in the pocket and make SOME of the pro level throws, but he is considered “athletic”. “athletic” is just another word for “project”, i have no interest in a prayer like that. i’m not debating his talent, i just simply don’t want them to draft the guy.
12over18 - February 15, 2012
Well they won't so I wouldn't worry...
I am unsure if you have seen RG3 play! He is really good and and throws from the pocket. He isn’t like Michael Vick…he is more like an Aaron Rodgers type just much faster. He is smart accurate and a good worker and I think will be a STUD. If the Colts were sitting at 2 I would hope they get him…
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012
i saw 3 live games this year and a ton of highlights.
i am in no way challenging your football knowledge but don’t you remember all the scouts and analysts saying the same things about VY? i have never had a problem saying i’m wrong (and i’m not saying RG3 will suck) but i’ve seen this song and dance with guys like this before. in what i saw of him, he did keep his eyes down field but when things broke down, his first instinct was to run. obviously, he ran with good reason, he’s very quick. i just think when a lot of guys like him get to next level of speed, they tend to revert to their natural instinct of running.
12over18 - February 15, 2012
with a 12over18 moniker, I don't think you're biased at all...
The point is, if Manning is healthy enough and willing to ink with the Colts for less money… why would the Colts TAKE Luck. You are absolutely right saying he deserves to start. But should Peyton be healthy enough, RG3 is a good selection as a ‘project’. Then if Peyton is around for another couple years and it doesn’t appear RG3 progresses, he goes the way of Ryan Leif and we pull another stud from the SEC. Pretty simple logic Riddah is using to me.
And yes, ppl said the same thing about VY. Just like some criticized the Colts for not taking Leif. It’s a crapshoot.
Coltsince89 - February 15, 2012
Not sure.
I think RGIII will end up being an okay QB, but I have more doubts about him than Luck. Luck has been consistently better in college than RGIII. Only this last year did RGIII’s production match up to Luck’s. With the new rookie wage scale, I’m not sure RGIII’s contract would be that much smaller than Luck’s anyway. The main upside would be if another team was willing to give up high draft picks AND we would have to get RGIII.
NFLFan83 - February 15, 2012
i don't think he will suck
and i am looking forward to watching his highlights on espn, just as long as its with the Browns. i think he will have a good 10 yrs. of 8-8 records with maybe 2 playoff appearances. any Qb that has a tendency for running around like a RB in the NFL, never lasts long. this isn’t ground breaking news to anybody i’m sure, so why on earth would you want to draft this guy?
12over18 - February 15, 2012
Um.. I don't.
I made a case for not drafting RGIII…
NFLFan83 - February 15, 2012
dunno about Luck holdout talk
If Luck holds out because Peyton is healthy enough to play, the Colts will have a healthy Peyton. That’s a win.
If Luck doesn’t hold out, and Peyton is healthy enough to play, the Colts will have a healthy Peyton, and a future stud QB being groomed by the best of all time.
If Luck holds out and Peyton isn’t healthy enough to play, well that just isn’t a possible scenario.
If Luck doesn’t hold out and Peyton isn’t healthy enough to play, then Luck plays.
Aside from salary cap implications, there’s no downside to drafting Luck. I don’t see Luck as having a lot of leverage in terms of forcing the Colts to a) not draft him or b) trade him.
LeftNutForAStarCenter - February 15, 2012
You can't steal home with both feet on third base
Peyton Manning was good for his era. A new era is before us. I have both feet off third base and ready to steal home. I am looking forward to playing a physical style of football incorporating a respectable running game.
I don’t want to have to fit throws in a tiger window all the time. I want Luck to manage the game and win a 3-4 games on grit.
Leroystayclean - February 15, 2012 via mobile
odds of stealing homeplate=
.315. Just sayin…
Coltsince89 - February 15, 2012
what's a tiger window?
zherebyonki - February 16, 2012
Put me in the camp of not trading the pick
No way do you pass up the chance to draft Luck. Luck is said to be the most pro ready QB to come into the league in 20 years. If I own a team there is no way that I pass up the chance to take a prospect like Luck. I don’t care if you have Manning or not. “Potential” franchise quarterbacks don’t come along that often. You would have to be insane to trade that away for a couple picks.
The Colts were forced to trade away Elway back in 83. Denver goes on to play in like 5 Super Bowls and win 2. The Colts continued to be a perrennial loser until they happened to pull together a couple of good seasons before Manning came along and made them the winningest franchise of the 2000’s. You cannot pass up the chance to take another player who gives you that chance again. Its a no brainer.
modern_day_warrior - February 15, 2012
Talent over experience
Drafting Andrew Luck seems like the right move. I remember the Elway fiasco. I watched him in all those superbowls, too. John worked his way to glory.
I hope Irsay drafts Luck. It’s time to bring open a new page in Colts lore.
Leroystayclean - February 15, 2012 via mobile
Playing devils advocate...
What if Manning doesn’t want to stay unless they don’t draft Luck…what if Luck pulls an Eli and won’t come if he is at risk to sit 3-4 years…
Just my opinion. I don’t know if having both is as black and white as us fans want it to be. Hopefully I am wrong
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012 via mobile
Then I think they will take Luck and Manning goes
The chances are high that he goes anyway, but if he understood his medical situation and how it affects his contract, he would deal with Irsay on an incentive contract if he wanted to stay with the Colts to the end.
AceOfSpades - February 15, 2012
Sitting wouldn’t be the worst thing. People might point him to Aaron Rodgers’ situation. Though Rodgers wasn’t a sure thing.
TheAfghanTwilight - February 15, 2012
neither is luck?
muncie_in_this - February 15, 2012
Exactly. I didn’t want to say that, being that i’m an outsider here. But you won’t find a single team that would pass him up, given the opportunity to draft him.
TheAfghanTwilight - February 15, 2012
i have a feeling the packers might pass on him
but i get the point.
and don’t worry outsider, you’re welcome here.
sodapop curtis is wearing out his welcome, however
muncie_in_this - February 15, 2012
I loved that movie.
TheAfghanTwilight - February 15, 2012
i haven't even seen the movie!
i just love me some semi-obscure references and linking pictures hahaha
muncie_in_this - February 15, 2012
it was an award-winning young adult/teen book originally
zherebyonki - February 16, 2012
take Luck
have to go with 12-15 potential good yrs over 3 years he is too good to pass up
OBGYNOSUPREME - February 15, 2012
there is absolutely no question in what to do in this situation
Manning would be gone, and it would be the correct decision.
LeftNutForAStarCenter - February 15, 2012
Manning would have to agree to a new deal
That’s probably the only way this could get done.
AceOfSpades - February 15, 2012
Once again, it figures why BBS didnt write this
He never writes articles on any positive news about Peyton because he’s scared of being wrong about saying he’s done as a Colt
kballstar - February 15, 2012
How is this positive news about Peyton?
Unless if by positive, you mean that he is less likely to be a Colt now.
soforizo - February 15, 2012
Positive as in Irsay is willing to make arrangements for Peyton to finish his career in Indy
It’s now in Peyton’s hands to decide. And everyone knows he wants to finish his career in Indy so what the hell are you talking about
kballstar - February 15, 2012
Peyton already HAS an arrangement to finish his career in Indy
Irsay wants to scrap it and start all over otherwise Manning is cut; that’s not positive news to me.
soforizo - February 15, 2012
Irsay just said "We can make it work". Did u read his comments?
If Irsay was willing to “scrap it all” he would’ve cut Peyton by now. The positive news is that he just admitted he wants Peyton to finish his career in Indy, despite what all the speculation says
kballstar - February 15, 2012
Yes I read his comments, he won't pick up the option as is.
He even spoke as if Andrew Luck will be his selection in the upcoming draft; he also seemed to imply that he’d like Manning to play one more year and make way for the #1 pick. You can claim that’s positive news about Peyton; I think it makes it less likely he’ll be a Colt.
soforizo - February 15, 2012
I was thinking the same thing
It seems like BBS and Stew are like CNN and Fox News. They are each reporting from their vantage points. Quite entertaining to watch. I want Peyton to stay for two reasons. I want to see him play as a Colt for 4-5 more years, and I don’t want to see BBS go on a gloating bender on how right he was. We all know he won’t admit he was wrong. I just don’t want to read more ego stroking.
PeytonTheManning - February 15, 2012
Exactly lol
kballstar - February 15, 2012
I hope I'm CNN?! =)
We are both very opinionated fellows.
Stew Blake - February 15, 2012
There is the possibility
That they ARE communicating behind the scenes, and most of this is orchestrated. Many “public” disagreements in Hollywood, politics, etc. are carefully planned to the benefit of both sides.
indylator - February 15, 2012
I doubt Manning would agree to such a thing I mean really he tries to do this sort of thing low key
CF4L - February 15, 2012
but thats a good point too
muncie_in_this - February 15, 2012
Perhaps he has had the luxury of being low key
Because he has been on one team his whole career with little question that he was going to leave. All of this public commentary may be the real deal, but it is possible it is by design.
indylator - February 15, 2012
Yeah that’s it someone who’s low key will suddenly start talking because he has this blind loyalty to the Colts..
Sure that’s it. Like I said he doesn’t talk to the media unless he gains something out of it having this public doesn’t benefit him at all.
CF4L - February 16, 2012
this is a definite possibility
muncie_in_this - February 15, 2012
Anyone here the Mike and Mike take down of Jim Irsay this morning and the “Hypocrisy?” cologne joke? Very hilarious but true Irsay is a hypocrite and this is all very childish and just about money after all.
Pili-One - February 15, 2012
no but it sounds funny
does irsay wear too much cologne? hard to believe i know, but i actually have never been close enough to the guy to smell for myself
muncie_in_this - February 15, 2012
Irsay isn't a hypocrite.
Both Manning and Irsay have said/done things that were out of line/immature, but I see nothing wrong with Irsay’s recent comments.
James Broschat - February 15, 2012
He's a hypocrite AND a liar
He said keep things in the family. Then they issued a join statement to patch things up. Now he’s NOT keeping it in the family. That’s hypocrisy.
He said it’s not about money, it’s about his health. Well, it’s about money after all. He doesn’t want to pay Manning as much as the contract says. That’s dishonesty.
B-man - February 15, 2012
You are blinded by your Manning loyalty.
Irsay said
He didn’t say “don’t talk to the media.” He’s not painting Manning in a negative light. He’s saying he’s willing to work out a deal.
Yeah, it’s about health. Manning isn’t healthy. Signing him at the current contract would be idiotic. Any team who signs him should work out an incentive laden contract. Manning has no guarantee that he’ll be even close to healthy.
James Broschat - February 15, 2012
Again...
How’s it painting the horseshoe in a negative light when all Manning said was he and everyone there were worried they would be jobless on the next day? He never said Irsay was an a$$ for axing people. He didn’t say anything bad about the Colts, the ownership, or the new management.
I’m not blindly loyal to Manning. I’d preach the same thing (contract breach) if this happened to anyone else, whether it’s the player or the owner. Any player holding out so he can get paid more is a greedy, disrespectful bashtad. Any owner demanding a restructure so they can pay less is a cheap, disrespectful bashtad.
You don’t believe in Manning’s ability to play? Test him out and release him if you’re still not convinced. Don’t paint him as the bad guy if he doesn’t come back. And don’t try to cheat his bonus out of him because you don’t want to pay 2 huge salaries for 2 QBs.
B-man - February 15, 2012
THIS ISN'T A CONTRACT BREACH.
Good lord.
James Broschat - February 15, 2012
In my opinion, it's heading that way because...
Irsay is “forcing” Manning to renegotiate or suffer the consequence of being labelled as disloyal to the Colts.
If only Irsay kept it in the family, there would absolutely be no problem at all. If the negotiation breaks, just say that they can’t keep Manning because of the salary cap as opposed to telling everyone that Manning is disloyal to the Colts.
B-man - February 15, 2012
You forget that Manning is the one who started this PR war.
Both of them have made mistakes in how they’ve handled it, and both will deserve some credit/blame for whatever happens. Either way, any decision that is made will have pros and cons for both sides.
James Broschat - February 15, 2012
It is foolish to argue about this for our perspective.
We can all talk how Manning afford to take a pay cut because his “net worth is approximately $115 million”, but that argument is ridiculous. It’s easy for the guy making less, to talk about how the guy earning more can live with less; just as we can find some poor guy in some third-world country that thinks the poor in America have it pretty good.
Last year Manning agreed to take less money than what Irsay was willing to pay. Manning even went further and insisted in taking a contract with a built-in bonus option; had he not pushed for that, we would’ve been stuck with a contract with guaranteed money. Now some of you are calling for him to take less, for the chance of playing for the Colts; a team who is openly talked about its firm intention of drafting another QB with the #1 pick, instead of trading the pick and giving Manning the best chance of winning another title. So if the Colts are offering him the same amount of money as other teams, it boils down to: his legacy with the Colts VS. Legacy overall by possibly winning another championship(s) w/ another team. The latter sounds better and would likely earn him the title of GOAT, even if it’s just one more Super Bowl title.
soforizo - February 15, 2012
Nice
indylator - February 15, 2012
really well said.
muncie_in_this - February 15, 2012
G.O.A.T. Really?
What numbers suggest he PM is the GOAT? I would have preferred PM to play for the 16-0 season when he was healthy. Now some want him to play after 3 or 4 neck surgeries. Why drive a 1998 with two rebuil engines, dents and crack in the windshield when you can by a Bently or Austin Martin brand new?
Forget about PM the GOAT and all his past glory. Look forward to a brighter future with a stronger team philosophy and plenty of Luck
Leroystayclean - February 15, 2012 via mobile
Stronger team philosophy
and having Luck. Sounds alot like Jumbo Shrimp?
shoospa - February 16, 2012
Positive News
I don’t really see this as politicking. We all have been waiting for Irsay to say exactly what he wants to do with Peyton, and now we know. That is the story.
The issue now is that most writers and a few fans who think they are GM’s have been saying for some time now (over and over and over) that Peyton is not coming back. They basically disagree with Irsay saying he wants Peyton back because it goes against their logic and direction THEY want the team to go…
I’m sure Irsay and Peyton have been talking behind the scenes about this. They’ll finally come to a conclusion soon. Can’t wait to see what comes out of it. I’m tired of the issue dragging out so long but I understand why it has…
JohnHandburgers - February 15, 2012
Very well said. I agree 100%
kballstar - February 15, 2012
Um excuse ME??????
Irsay’s team just finished 2-14 WITHOUT Peyton and he should take a pay CUT?
The Gull.
odiesel - February 15, 2012
Yes - a cut
Precisely BECAUSE of last season. As a fan will you be ok with tons of cap space and real dollars used for an impaired, or heaven forbid, a Peyton that does not take the field for part or all of the season?
indylator - February 15, 2012
As a fan...
I want the organization and the owner to be a model organization and owner who are honest and respectful.
Even if the organization is bad for a year or two, it will still be better than winning more but getting laughed at by the rest of the NFL because of dishonesty and disrespectful business dealings.
B-man - February 15, 2012
I agree with odiesel
Peyton Manning deserves to be respected.
You sign the contract, you honor the contract. If you aren’t willing to do it, don’t sign it in the first place. You can’t tell your bank that you don’t want to reduce your debt because the value of your house has gone down or because your house is damaged by flood or storm.
It’s the same here.
B-man - February 15, 2012
Unfortunately, his health has changed.
When that happens, adjustments need to be made. If both parties work to a resolution, it can be done. ‘Incentive-based’ is the way to make it happen.
Ayrshire - February 15, 2012
Yeah they both will have to compromise...
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012
Yep, major compromise is needed.
Ayrshire - February 15, 2012
So...
if you hire a contractor to fix your bathroom and you both sign a contract for $500 and then halfway the contractor says the problem is very difficult to fix and wants another $500, will you do it? Will you restructure your contract because the contractor sayst that the situation has changed?
B-man - February 15, 2012
No it doesn't
A contract is a contract.
If it were Manning forcing the Colts to trade him or double his salary because Colts roster sucked from injuries or bad drafts/trades, what would your response be? Manning was a POS greedy bashtad, right?
The same here. Irsay is a POS cheap bashtad for not willing to honor the signed contract.
B-man - February 15, 2012
The contract has an out clause
So if Manning won’t restructure they can cut him out right. And they will
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012
The out clause say if they don't pay the bonus, Manning is a free agent
Not you have to restructure or you get cut. Huge difference.
If that’s the case, then say so. Don’t try to make it as if it’s Manning who’s the bad guy if he’s not coming back. Just say clearly that the Colts need to move on and are sad that they will have to let Manning go because of cap issue.
If they don’t try to put the blame on Manning and be an honest organization, I have no problem with the whole issue at all. I’ll be sad that Manning is let go, but that’s about it.
B-man - February 15, 2012
Oh ok...
I get your point…it’s not really dishonest. Irsay is just getting into semantics to cover his rear end…Neither side is wrong for what they want…Irsay is stupid for trying to win a PR war with Peyton
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012
Irsay's older and should supposedly be wiser, right?
He should be setting the example. ‘He said….he said’…never plays out well in a public forum. Ridah, I’m sure you’re aware of how emails sometimes don’t reflect the proper tone that the sender meant. The same goes for tweets. It’s just better to communicate directly and honestly.
Ayrshire - February 15, 2012
Yeah
The truth is I am here to infuse my hope that Manning comes back and plays for Indy but I don’t believe he will. I believe that he will (try) to come back elsewhere and think its a 50/50 shot he never plays again and a 60/40 shot that if he plays he will be severely limited.
But a man can dream!!!
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012
Sadly, you're probably correct.
Ayrshire - February 15, 2012
It hurt typing that :-(
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012
Irsay hasn't violated the contract.
As I understand it….and I haven’t seen it, ….but Irsay has an option in March. He can go one way or go another. There’s nothing dishonest about that. I heard Manning was the one who suggested the option be put in the contract.
Ayrshire - February 15, 2012
and to follow up...
if Irsay doesn’t pick up the option, thereby making Peyton a free agent, then anything done with the Colts in the future will be starting from ground zero. In other words, everything will be renegotiated. This happens all the time with contracts. Irsay, through the newspaper, is just giving Manning a heads up that he’s not going to pick up the option, due to the uncertainty of Manning’s health. And, he’s further saying that he open to renegotiation, after the option is not exercized. There’s nothing unethical about that. I would just keep those conversations private, if I was him.
Ayrshire - February 15, 2012
Agree with you 100%... keep the conversations private
as opposed to trying to paint Manning as the bad guy.
But Irsay did exactly the opposite because he just had to send twitter messages and talk to the reporters to cover his azz. He didn’t want to be known as “The guy who fired a legend”… a’la Jerry Glanville who traded Favre or Chargers execs who let Brees go.
B-man - February 15, 2012
and that signal of no intent...
to pick up the option tells other owners to contact Condon for potential tenders. This may give Condon and Manning an opportunity to test the waters. If no deal is really sexy, there’s always ole Jimmy.
Coltsince89 - February 15, 2012
Exactly.
James Broschat - February 15, 2012
I remember him publically boasting about making Manning the highest paid and thinking how stupid that was.
Clearly…
CF4L - February 15, 2012
this is true. irsay overcommitted in the first place
muncie_in_this - February 15, 2012
He didn't over commit
His decision then was based on the fact that Peyton was the BEST QB in NFL and was the second most durable QB after Favre. As such, Manning deserved to be paid that much if not more. It was Manning who decided not to be paid more because he cared for the organization and he wanted Colts to use the rest of the money to get good players. And what is he getting in return now? Total disrespect and betrayal. Irsay even tries to make Manning look bad if he decides not to restructure his contract.
Well, I’m highly educated and I’m not stupid. My job revolves around contracts everyday. I can read between the lines of what Irsay is trying to do.
B-man - February 15, 2012
Irsay IS honoring the contract
People seem to forget how this contract was designed — it was a one-year deal with a 4-year extension option, with the team given the right to choose whether or not to pick up the option. That option was put into the contract and agreed to BY BOTH SIDES to protect the club in case Manning wasn’t healthy.
Now we’re here, and Manning isn’t healthy. Irsay is making it clear that he won’t pick up the four-year option, which is his right. But he’s also trying to work out a deal that would keep Manning a Colt, while also protecting the team if Manning can’t play or can’t get back to his old self.
Chris S. - February 15, 2012
That's the way I understand it too.....from things I've read.
Ayrshire - February 15, 2012
If that's the real intention, then...
Keep it in the family… just like he said before. Don’t go out there and said it’s in Manning’s hand. He’s pretty much is saying that if Manning doesn’t come back it’s Manning’s fault.
He doesn’t want anyone to say bad things about the Colts (which Manning never did as he only said he and everyone were worried to be jobless the next day), so it’s only fair that he returns the favor to his employees.
B-man - February 15, 2012
FYI its "gall", not "gull"
although your misspelling made me think of Chekhov’s play as well as the Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner, both of which capture the dour, desperate mood of the Colts right now.
zherebyonki - February 16, 2012
So, in order to twist my guts up some more...............
There will be at least 500 more articles written before we finally hear the answer from the horse’s mouth. And 30 million more articles speculating on what was going on in the heads of the participants after what is going to happen, happens.
tim55 - February 15, 2012
of course there will be
OBGYNOSUPREME - February 15, 2012
I just hope we don't have to have Kravitz
be the messenger each time. It should be done between the parties.
Ayrshire - February 15, 2012
yes he is the biggest asshole, all the other ones are decent guys
OBGYNOSUPREME - February 15, 2012
QB starter
I think what Irsay is saying is that they will like peyton to stay but nothing of him being the starter. Politics in a nutshell. This statement saves Irsay’s face in case Peyton leaves the colts.
k1 - February 15, 2012
Nothing wrong with that
he paid him 26 million not to play this yr and kept him on the active roster ,,Irsay just wants the same thing as Peyton
TO WIN ANOTHER SBat least Irsay is keeping anything a secretOBGYNOSUPREME - February 15, 2012
It doesn't save Irsay's face
It makes him look like a POS owner. Have you read the commentators’ and bloggers’ response to that hypocrisy?
All he had to do was to either keep quiet (keeping it in the family as he said himself before) or to say what he really wants honestly (to cut Manning or to make him a backup QB). Don’t spin things to make him look good and make Manning look bad. That’s the job of lawyers and POS in Washington DC.
B-man - February 15, 2012
not keeping
anything a secret
OBGYNOSUPREME - February 15, 2012
Whatever Jimbo so much for keeping it in house eh?
They’re both politicking but at least Manning never publically accused Jimbo of such a thing.
It does make him look like a hypocrite and I don’t even like Mike Greenberg.
If you want to dump Manning cool but really its obvious you want to dump him but try to look like you aren’t the bad guy.
Look there’s always going to be someone disappointed can’t please everyone but you can at least be upfront which is something I don’t see Jimbo doing here with all this to begin with.
CF4L - February 15, 2012
Keeping things in house was about speaking bad about each other.
Irsay isn’t doing that at all.
James Broschat - February 15, 2012
Yes because saying Manning is a politician but doing the same exact thing doesn’t make him a hypocrite either right?
He’s the owner he can do whatever he wants of course but he put himself out there for criticism.
CF4L - February 15, 2012
Irsay said that in light of Manning saying the franchise
“wasn’t a good place for healing” and that “everyone was walking on eggshells.” Irsay talking about wanting to keep Manning is not anywhere close to the same thing.
James Broschat - February 15, 2012
Sure it isn’t because you know his future with the Colts isn’t house business or anything..
Oh wait..
CF4L - February 16, 2012
Since when is it banned to talk to the reporters about anything?
James Broschat - February 17, 2012
A couple things
How’s Manning saying that everyone is concerned about being let go be constructed as saying bad things about Colts or Irsay?
Yesterday’s announcement is Irsay saying this: “I want to restructure the contract, so don’t blame me if Manning is gone. Blame him because he doesn’t want to get paid less.”
Irsay said it was up to Manning to decide. NO. It’s up to him to decide whether he wants to pony up the money or not. As he said before, it wasn’t about the money, it was about Manning’s health. That sounds like a lie to me now.
B-man - February 15, 2012
Last question?
If Manning signed a contract under the premise that he could play an he ends up taking 55mil and never playing again does that make Manning a liar in your opinion?
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012
No one can predict what will happen in the future
Some rookie may sign a contract and got totally hurt on the first day of practice and cannot play again for his entire life. Does that make him a liar? No. It’s an unfortunate accident.
Manning would be a liar if he knew that he couldn’t play again when he signed the contract. The fact that he’s trying so hard to come back and is even willing to play for another team if Colts doesn’t honor the contract means he wasn’t a liar when he signed the contract back then.
B-man - February 15, 2012
Irsay is a POS politician
You sign a contract, you honor the contract. You can’t tell your bank that you won’t pay the remainder of your mortgage because the value of your house has gone down or because it got flooded or damaged by the storm.
Unless Irsay pays Manning in full and respects his legacy, I will become a Colts fan only as long as Manning plays there. If he retires or plays for another team, I will root against the Colts and that POS owner with all my heart.
Luck (or any other player), beware! Even if you become a legend in Colts, Irsay may still kick you to the curb when you’re close to retirement.
B-man - February 15, 2012
Truth is
Colts shouldn’t have signed this contract. Peyton was never healthy, so they should have protected themselves. Polians deserved to be fired for this too.
Ty46 - February 15, 2012
good point
OBGYNOSUPREME - February 15, 2012
Rec'd
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012
You honestly think Irsay wasn't 100% involved in the contract that Manning signed?
Polian probably drafted the document along with a bunch of lawyers, but Irsay gave his thumb up. His signature may even be in the document as well. Even if it’s not, the document was signed by the Colts organization, which is owned by Irsay. Irsay is bound to honor the contract 100%. Not 99.9999%. 100.00%.
B-man - February 15, 2012
The owner can't fire himself
Ty46 - February 15, 2012
No, but...
he has the option to be a good/grateful/respectable owner or a bad/ungrateful/dishonest one.
From the way things are going so far, Irsay sounds more and more like the later.
I can’t imagine Kraft doing this to Brady… shyt… I hate the Patriots… I can’t believe I use them as an example.
B-man - February 15, 2012
"You sign a contract, you honor the contract"
Hi, NFL here. Wait, scratch that – Hi, every sports organization ever, here. Contracts can be ripped up whenever and have penalties for that reason. They basically mean nothing. Teams cut players and players refuse to play until they get new contracts all the time.
James Brady - February 15, 2012
That's the definition of bad/greedy organization and bad/greedy player
Are you implying that Colts is a bad/greedy organization and/or Manning is a bad/greedy player?
Manning has been a role model as an athlete and a person in and out of the field ever since he joined the Colts organization. The same cannot be said about Irsay. Maybe that’s what it takes for someone to be a billionaire, huh?
B-man - February 15, 2012
I don't think it's greed....
It’s more of a salary cap issue….
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012
Has nothing to do with greed, and really has no bearing on which team or which player we're talking about.
That’s how it works in sports. If a contract doesn’t make sense, you try and get out of it. You rip it up and take the penalty, you trade the player or you get together with said player and restructure it.
On the flip-side, if you’re a player and you’re severely under-paid, you hold out and spur the team into action. It happens, and has for years and years.
James Brady - February 15, 2012
If you think that this kind of behavior is OK, then it's pointless to argue with you
Especially toward someone who has literally saved your organization for more than a decade.
Just a question… why do they create a contract in the first place if both parties can just rip it when things change for the better/worse? Why not make the employment like the rest of us? You don’t like your employer, you quit. Your employer doesn’t like you, they let you go.
B-man - February 15, 2012
When they made the contract the Colts assumed
That Manning would play and be healthy…there is no guarantee he can still play at all! They did pay Manning 25mil last year not to play. I’m ire you know the salary cap implications. If they offer an opportunity to renegotiate because they don’t want to lose him but don’t want to pay 28mil to someone who may not play I don’t think that makes Irsay the bad guy.
He should shut up and stop talking through the media though
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012
He's a hypocryte...
He told Manning to keep it in the family and stop making the Colts and Irsay look bad, yet he keeps talking to make Manning look bad. That makes him the bad guy in this mess.
B-man - February 15, 2012
Sounds like you hate the system, but are taking it out on Irsay.
James Broschat - February 15, 2012
The system is honor the signed contract
Occasionally, some bad owners/executives/players do otherwise.
Let’s say Manning is gone and Luck is in and win the SB through his brilliant plays and rocket arms. The second year, he holds out and ask Colts redo his contract to pay him more than Brady and totally screw up Colts salary cap. How do you feel about that? Is that behavior OK?
If you want the players to behave, then you must demand the organization to behave. It’s only fair. I know life is unfair, bla bla bla… but don’t you try to pursue fairness at all times?
B-man - February 15, 2012
Thanks for a good laugh...
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012
Manning's contract was assuming he'd play.
Now he may never play again. It’s not like this whole restructuring is coming out of the blue.
James Broschat - February 15, 2012
He Colts doesn't plan to play Manning ever again...
why do they want him to come back and reduce his salary?
The fact that they want him to come back means they know Manning can play. They just don’t want to pony up a huge sum of money for 2 QBs.
If they just want him to be Luck’s coach, then they should say they want to hire him as a QB coach.
Be honest. Don’t be sneaky. Irsay is being sneaky right now.
B-man - February 15, 2012
The fact that they want him back means they know he can play.
No. That’s stupid. They want him back because if he can play, he’s awesome.
James Broschat - February 15, 2012
^this^
Ayrshire - February 15, 2012
Sounds like what the Chargers did to Brees
No confidence to your best play maker and to someone who has defined your franchise for more than a decade.
B-man - February 15, 2012
Confidence when he's healthy
is completely different than confidence when he’s unhealthy and confidence in his ability to heal after three/four neck procedures and be effective again…..especially when you’re staring at a once-in-every-20 years prospect in Andrew Luck. Nobody likes Peyton more than me, but some tough decisions have to be made. Again, all this stuff should be kept private, which we agree about.
Ayrshire - February 15, 2012
Brees was hurt badly back then... on his throwing shoulder
That could be a career ending injury, just like what Peyton suffered.
B-man - February 15, 2012
Brees was 26...
wasn’t nearly the QB he is today and the Chargers already had Phil Rivers. It’s not even germane to this situation.
Yougotme - February 15, 2012
I don't see the situations
even close to being similar. Regardless, it’s the owner’s decision to do what he thinks is best for his franchise.
Ayrshire - February 15, 2012
The day contracts are as black and white...
as you apparently think they are is the day we can kiss lawyers good bye.
Of course, we’ll have flying pigs too, but maybe that day will come.
Yougotme - February 15, 2012
Contract is black and white as long as both parties want it black and white
If you don’t sign a contract like that, remind me to never sign a business deal with you.
Lawyers will always be needed to draft the contract. But once you sign it, you’re bound by it. Don’t try to be a sore loser and get out of it just because it turns out that the contract isn’t as good as you thought initially. But what do I know… I may be a minority who still think honesty and respect are good business practices here.
B-man - February 15, 2012
I hope you didn't refinance your home...
and be a sore loser to the bank because “it turns out that the contract isn’t as good as you thought initially.” After all, apparently a refi isn’t being honest and respectful in your world.
Yougotme - February 15, 2012
Home refinancing
is not renegotiating the original loan, it’s paying the original loan in full before the term is up whether it’s with your current bank or with a different one. I can go into more details but I won’t cause you won’t be convinced anyway.
A sore loser in mortgage issue would be to refuse to pay your mortgage because your home worth a lot less and then just let the bank take it over after you trash it completely.
B-man - February 15, 2012
Nope...
You’re changing the conditions of the original contract. Irsay is asking Manning for a refi because the conditions of the market have changed. Manning can say no to the refi.
Yougotme - February 15, 2012
Again...
that’s fine… but don’t paint him as the bad guy to the whole public. Do it in private as he said: “keep it in the house.”
How many times do I have to say that.
As for the mortgage refinance, you’re wrong. When you refinance, you will NEVER have the same loan number as the original. The original loan (contract) was closed. You get a new contract. It’s not a renegotiation. It’s a closure.
B-man - February 15, 2012
yougotme got you
you’re picking & choosing details of the refi metaphor. It works. The team has an option to extend the existing contract. They can take it, rework it (i.e., new contract), or let him go.
But we’re comparing the arcane work of mortgages to the even more arcane world of the NFL’s regulated capitalism. The comparison of Irsay being a sore loser and trashing a foreclosed house doesn’t fit at all.
I wouldn’t worry about Manning. He doesn’t have to do anything he doesn’t want to.
zherebyonki - February 16, 2012
Occasionally? It sounds to me like you're new to football, and I'm trying to say that in the nicest way possible.
This is how it has always worked. It’s not occasionally.
James Brady - February 15, 2012
I said it before
Irsay is honoring the contract. It was designed and agreed to BY BOTH PARTIES with an escape clause after one year, in case Manning wasn’t healthy. Manning’s not healthy. Ergo, Irsay is taking the escape clause. Now he’s trying to find a way to keep Manning on the roster while still protecting the best interests of the team, and you’re raking him over the coals for it?
Chris S. - February 15, 2012
He's "forcing" Manning to come back...
by pretty much implying that if he refuses to renegotiate, it’s Manning’s fault. So much for keeping int he family. And so much for respecting the only person who defined your team for more than a decade.
B-man - February 15, 2012
I believe you're generalizing a bit too much.
Stew Blake - February 15, 2012
so will orlovsky stay on as a backup/third stringer
Keysta101 - February 15, 2012
As long as we get rid of Painter sure.
CF4L - February 15, 2012
i hope we do
Keysta101 - February 15, 2012
Painter has to go he is totally worthless
has to be peyton- luck orlovsky or Luck- Orlovsky
OBGYNOSUPREME - February 15, 2012
Do it do it do it
Let’s really look at this, we can open up cap room because Kerry Collins is retiring, we can cut Orlovsky and Painter, and re-sign Peyton with a cheap deal and have Luck underneath him learning from the greatest quarterback. It seems like a huge win win for the Colts in my opinion. What else would this help with? Keeping Reggie, Robert, and maybe even Jeff. If this happens we might actually have an extremely quick turnaround.
StuckInTennessee - February 15, 2012
Yeah except we have a new coaching staff, GM and I don’t see Luck or Manning wanting to take a backseat to the other.
You really think Manning is going to take a cheap deal?
He’s not going to give up the leverage he has left. Irsay wants him out of Indy more than Manning does.
CF4L - February 15, 2012
If you're highly valued expert in a certain field...
Would you stay with your current organization that’s not treating you well or would you get another job with another employer who worship you and probably get paid even more?
B-man - February 15, 2012
How is the current organization not treating him well?
Nobody knows if he’ll even play again. It would be monumentally stupid for Irsay to sign the clause as it is.
James Broschat - February 15, 2012
It was already signed
Now it’s either honor it and pay him or don’t pay him and let him go as a free agent. But no, Irsay wants Manning to stay but he doesn’t want to pay as agreed. That’s called not treating him well and disrespecting someone who is THE COLTS for more than a decade.
B-man - February 15, 2012
No, it wasn't already signed.
It’s a contract with an extension. The extension hasn’t been signed.
James Broschat - February 15, 2012
It was signed with out clause
There’s nothing else to sign if Irsay ponies up the money.
The extension agreement says pay this much by this date and that’s that.
If Irsay doesn’t want to pay the bonus, then Manning is a free agent.
Trying to restructure the contract to get him back is basically saying that Irsay’s not willing to pay the bonus as agreed but wants Peyton to be loyal to the organization anyway.
Eventually it’s up to Peyton if he’s willing to be cheated out of his bonus or not. If I were him, I’d go somewhere else where I was wanted and respected.
B-man - February 15, 2012
LOL...
I have no idea what you’re background is with regards to contracts. Contracts are negotiated, re-negotiated and broken all the time.
The only immoral or unethical thing is to perpetrate fraud. Every contract has clauses written into it to deal with all sorts of “ifs” – Manning’s contract is no different. Asking Manning to renegotiate a contract that was signed under totally different circumstances is not being “mean” or disloyal to Manning. Manning can say no – that’s his right under the contract. Irsay will then exercise his option to cut Manning.
None of this is outside the normal business operating procedure. Apparently you think it is.
Yougotme - February 15, 2012
Then exercise his option and cut Manning
But don’t imply it to everyone that it’s Manning’s fault if he doesn’t come back.
If you were Manning, would you be OK not to be paid as promised if you come back? Would you be OK if your boss tells everyone that it’s your fault if you don’t come back?
Think about it and let me know.
B-man - February 15, 2012
I expect to be paid on my performance...
and if I can’t perform to expectations set when the contract is signed, I would expect my boss to release me from the contract or ask to renegotiate.
Here’s where your logic breaks down – Manning has already said he’s OK with a performance based contract because he realizes the risk involved in his health.
Yougotme - February 15, 2012
Manning is OK with performance based contract if he is released
Not if he stays with Colts. If he stays with Colts he wants the Colts to honor the contract signed last year.
Kudos to you if you’re willing to not be paid when you’re injured. You should preach that to our veterans who got injured in battlefields and disabled people receiving workers comp.
B-man - February 15, 2012
Really? When you just got paid $26M to not play last season?
How are the Colts NOT treating Manning well?
Yougotme - February 15, 2012
Monetarily they’ve treated him more than fair but really Jimbo is being less than upfront with Manning.
If you don’t want him say it to his face like a man and let him go.
It may bother some fans but at least those fans would respect your honesty
CF4L - February 15, 2012
What are you going on about?
How is he not being upfront? Have you been in the meetings between the two?
Irsay would keep a healthy Manning in a heartbeat. The problem is he’s not healthy.
Yougotme - February 15, 2012
Probably because he’s saying this to the media instead of directly to his face.
I mean really if you want to keep it in house he’s doing a bad job of it.
You like Manning to remain a Colt?
Cool then meet with him and then ask for him to take a paycut. That’s being upfront and direct.
CF4L - February 15, 2012
How do you know that's not happened?
Yougotme - February 15, 2012
Because we’re hearing about it now.
Call me crazy but if they met face to face why say it to the media at all?
CF4L - February 16, 2012
They didn't pay him his salary
The insurance did. The insurance always pay the salary of injured players.
Colts probably paid the bonus money though.
B-man - February 15, 2012
The team paid the money
While Manning was injured, he was never placed on injured reserve. You really think an insurance company would pony up millions when they can point out the guy was “healthy enough” to be on the active roster all year?
But even if insurance did pay the salary, Manning’s salary this year was only $6M. The other $20M came from the signing bonus, and that was paid by the team.
Chris S. - February 15, 2012
Right... the Colts must pay Manning the bonus this year...
or let him go as a free agent. That’s the exact deal. So do it.
Let him go OR pony up the money. Don’t paint him as the one to blame if he refuses to restructure because that’s what Irsay is doing now. He wants to keep Manning either to play and be Luck’s mentor for a year or two or to be Luck’s backup but doesn’t want to pay him as agreed.
B-man - February 15, 2012
No, that's not the deal...
The deal is three fold:
1. Pay him
2. Cut him
3. Renegotiate
The conditions when the deal was originally signed are not the same. If Manning were perfectly healthy, you’d have a leg to stand on. But he’s not.
Yougotme - February 15, 2012
Exactly. Think of it as contracting to buy a house
with a built-in option (escape clause) that gives the buyer, after inspecting, sole discretion to cancel the contract if the home doesn’t meet his inspection standards. That doesn’t prevent the buyer from going back after the contract is null and void….and renegotiating a contract at a lesser price.
Ayrshire - February 15, 2012
Which is fine
But don’t go out there and tell (imply) to the whole world that it’s Manning’s fault if he doesn’t come back because he doesn’t want to renegotiate. See my below comment.
How do you feel if you’re the one selling the house and your potential buying went to the newspaper and tell everyone not to buy your house because it has some issues?
B-man - February 15, 2012
I guess I'd feel like I need to resolve the issues...
that are a problem with my home.
Yougotme - February 15, 2012
Sure...
and you expect the other potential buyers to know that you’ve fixed the issue? Or you don’t think they will be turned off and not even look at your house?
Don’t be a hypocrite. I know you will be pissed if someone tries to say bad things about you and your family and your property unless you have no heart.
B-man - February 15, 2012
Uhhh...
Your example is beyond absurd. I mean you take it further and further and further…
To use your example, as stupid as it is, you would have to say that the potential buyer went to the paper and said, “We’d love to buy the house as long as the roof is fixed and the air conditioner is replaced.”
That isn’t saying “bad things”. That’s being honest.
You’re reading WAY too much into what Irsay is saying.
Yougotme - February 15, 2012
Talking to the media is a dangerous thing, my friend
especially when the issue is very sensitive like this.
If you don’t know how to clearly relay your message, don’t talk because it WILL be interpreted in many different ways.
B-man - February 15, 2012
I don't disagree...
Irsay and Manning should both keep their mouths shut. We certainly agree on that point.
Yougotme - February 15, 2012
I don't think Irsay is implying to the whole
world that it’s Manning’s fault if he doesn’t come back. He’s just making it known that there will be an option for Peyton to come back, if he wants to renegotiate. It’s ultimately up to Peyton, and I respect his choice whatever it is…..although I hope he stays a Colt.
Ayrshire - February 15, 2012
I disagree.
The deal is pay him or cut him. There’s no renegotiate clause. Sorry, but I think you’re making this up to back up Irsay.
If Manning isn’t healthy, then don’t bring him back. Release him. Simple. But don’t try to force Manning to come back by painting him as the bad guy if he doesn’t and at the same time telling him that he’s not gonna get paid as agreed originally.
B-man - February 15, 2012
Could you be doing this as a joke?!
If so its really hilarious! Keep up the great work
(206)NightRidah - February 15, 2012
I told you
I have been saying since day one he will be a Colt…now we will see if he wants to be…for weeks it is non stop no on here…Manning is worthless…he is gone….he is never going to be good again…no way he and Luck can be on the same team…and on and on and on non atop….now you see what the real scoop is….if he is healthy and wants to be a Colts he will be….
Colts53 - February 15, 2012
He could be healthy and not want to be here either that is if he wants another ring which sadly he won’t get here.
CF4L - February 16, 2012
Irsay left the door open...
But essentially, he said he will not pay the option bonus. If Peyton does come back, it will be on new terms decided by Irsay. I will be surprised if they come to terms on a renogiated contract. I think both men what different things. Manning wants a Super Bowl and a commitment, Irsay wants to rebuild around Luck.
thomasezekiel77 - February 15, 2012
so where is Peyton's much ballyhooed agent in all of this?
shouldn’t he be working to keep things amicable and behind-the-scenes and keep his client’s golden boy reputation untarnished by these unseemly developments?
Or is he out of the loop? Or is he intent on seeing this fester and come to a head?
zherebyonki - February 16, 2012
Why say anything? After all its really simple come March 8th will Manning get paid or cut?
Really best to say nothing time will tell the truth one way or another.
CF4L - February 16, 2012
You thinking that this is simple
makes you very hard to take seriously.
James Broschat - February 17, 2012
Yes because everything we’ve heard so far has been true in SB week it started that Manning will end up retiring to Manning being cleared to play football again.
After that hard to take anything the media says seriously so why play into it.
Its up to Irsay if you want Manning to stay pay him otherwise kick him to the curb.
If he’s “damaged goods” yes its a simple decision.
CF4L - February 17, 2012
Politicking?
Who’s the politician now? Man, Irsay, preserve some dignity in this. I think the greatest player to ever don a uniform deserves face to face, private discussions rather than Twitter jabs…that is if you genuinely care about him and truly want to keep him as a member of your team.
coxandreweric - February 16, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Stampede Blue to post a comment.