This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
April 28, 2009
Colts: We won't help with stadium losses
Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay has made clear that he's not willing to pay more rent or ticket taxes to help bail out the city's stadium board, despite dire warnings that it might have to close his new stadium if it can't fill its $47-million-a-year budget gap. Said Irsay:
"I'm not going to renegotiate. That's the bottom line. All we did was negotiate in good faith. We've done everything we can to have a great organization. We've lived up to our part. We've exceeded our part."
Irsay's part, you'll recall, was to kick in all of $100 million toward a nearly $700 million stadium project — $48 million of which he got back via a "lease termination fee" from the city. Meanwhile, Irsay is getting $6 million a year in naming-rights money from Lucas Oil, while paying all of $250,000 a year in rent. I wouldn't want to renegotiate either.
I like this statement in the article: Irsay said the CIB's problems aren't unexpected.
Posted by Jimmy P on April 28, 2009 01:08 PM
The Colts got such a sweet deal every NFL team should be clamoring for equal treatment. To wit; all advertising, naming rights, 48 million for the lease termination of the Dome, parking, consessions and all suite revenue. The Colts contribute 25k per game, per year.
As to Irsay's 100 million in the game, no money came out of his pocket; 48 million to terminate he old lease and the rest a standard NFL loan payable over 27 years. Irsay's take is an estimated 41 million dollar per year increase over the old Dome.
He is right, why renegotiate why you already have bleed the city dry!
Posted by Avarice on April 28, 2009 09:43 PM
The Colts got such a sweet deal every NFL team should be clamoring for equal treatment. To wit; all advertising, naming rights, 48 million for the lease termination of the Dome, parking, consessions and all suite revenue. The Colts contribute 25k per game, per year.
As to Irsay's 100 million in the game, no money came out of his pocket; 48 million to terminate he old lease and the rest a standard NFL loan payable over 27 years. Irsay's take is an estimated 41 million dollar per year increase over the old Dome.
He is right, why renegotiate why you already have bleed the city dry!
Posted by Avarice on April 28, 2009 09:44 PM
The Colts got such a sweet deal every NFL team should be clamoring for equal treatment. To wit; all advertising, naming rights, 48 million for the lease termination of the Dome, parking, consessions and all suite revenue. The Colts contribute 25k per game, per year.
As to Irsay's 100 million in the game, no money came out of his pocket; 48 million to terminate he old lease and the rest a standard NFL loan payable over 27 years. Irsay's take is an estimated 41 million dollar per year increase over the old Dome.
He is right, why renegotiate why you already have bleed the city dry!
Posted by Avarice on April 28, 2009 09:44 PM
Am I surprised at this from the Irsays? These are the folks who stole away from Baltimore in the night.
I think the city needs to tell Irsay that the community has supported them, and it is fair to see them put their money where their mouth is and help out the community. Failing that, if they still get the cold shoulder, Indianapolis should go to the press and paint the Irsays as much as possible as a typical greedy sports owner who cares only for the bottom line.
Posted by silverkris on April 29, 2009 01:35 PM
Am I surprised at this from the Irsays? These are the folks who stole away from Baltimore in the night.
I think the city needs to tell Irsay that the community has supported them, and it is fair to see them put their money where their mouth is and help out the community. Failing that, if they still get the cold shoulder, Indianapolis should go to the press and paint the Irsays as much as possible as a typical greedy sports owner who cares only for the bottom line.
Posted by silverkris on April 29, 2009 01:53 PM
San Antonio, come on down, you will be the next new home of an NFL club, the once and former Baltimore and now Indianapolis Colts !
Is this a possibility ? If the worse case scenario eventuates and the Colts are left homeless, will they hit the road again ?
Besides San Antonio, what alternatives exist that are ready even on a minimal basis -- one could mention Birmingham, Memphis, Orlando, Salt Lake City, or maybe even sharing a stadium in another NFL city -- can you say Dallas Colts ?
Posted by George on April 30, 2009 02:09 AM
I don't know if Jerry Jones would want the competition (in other words, 'absolutely not'), but the Mayor of Chicago Richard M. Daley would absolutely love a 2nd NFL team in Chicago. He's been pretty vocal about it, thinks the city could easily support two teams again; would love to see Soldier Field operating 16+ of 17 weeks a year, since the Park District owns the stadium. This is a hardcore Bears town and I wonder what fans (even worse it being the hated Colts) would even show up. The stadium would be mostly Indy Colts fans and disgruntled former Bears fans. Of course, all Daley sees is it as tax generating revenue; folks spending money in the city. That's all there is to it.
And what does the NFL see? It sees Chicago has luxury suites, San Antonio does not, and a consolation prize in the 3rd largest market as opposed in the 2nd largest market. Would I root for the Colts? No way in hell.
Posted by Mark on April 30, 2009 02:48 PM
^^^ Hadn't thought of that possibility, but once you look it up in the back of the book it makes eminent sense that transferring an AFC side from Indianapolis to Chicago to fill in the gaps at Soldier Field when the NFC Bears are out of town would give people ideas.
Can't see any of the other cities mooted being viable. San Antonio gave up on the CFL Texans, despite the Alamodome being the only US CFL venue capable at the time of accommodating a regulation Canadian field and 55,000 fans. Birmingham and Memphis, home respectively to the CFL's Barracudas and Mad Dogs in 1995, failed in spectacular fashion. Orlando's proximity to three other Florida NFL cities pretty much rules it out, whereas Salt Lake City is too isolated by geography to be much of a candidate city.
Posted by Beltliner on April 30, 2009 03:27 PM