IBJNews

Colts owner wants negotiations, not litigation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Jim Irsay thought NFL owners and players were getting closer to a new collective bargaining agreement last week.

Now the Colts owner is pleading for everyone to get out of the courts and back to the negotiating table.

Irsay said Monday he's "optimistic" the league will not lose the 2011 season or next year's Super Bowl in Indianapolis because of the current lockout, though he is "disappointed" that players have resorted to making their case through the legal system.

"I think we have our differences, but I feel there's a framework for a deal," Irsay said. "I was disappointed Friday because I felt when we came with another proposal, we really had a chance to continue to mediate, negotiate and do the things to get a deal done. There's work to get done, it can get done, but it's not going to get done through the courts."

Irsay spent 45 minutes fielding a wide array of questions about the lockout and insisted little will change at the team complex.

Though players and team officials are barred from contacting one another and players cannot use the team's workout facilities, Irsay insisted team employees would not be treated any differently during the league's first work stoppage since 1987.

That means no furloughs, no layoffs and no pay cuts.

"I look at someone who's making $40,000 or $50,000 a year, who has rent to pay, and I just don't see it for me, as an owner, to be asking them for anything," he said.

Irsay doesn't feel quite the same way about the players' association, though.

On Friday night, Irsay chided the dissolution of the NFLPA, calling it a "sham." The weekend did not change Irsay's opinion.

"In terms of being decertified and that sort of thing, that is something where you have to negotiate in good faith and you can't decertify with the intention of coming back and certifying," he said. "That's something under law that you cannot do."

Decertification means players no longer are protected under labor law but instead are now allowed to take their chances in federal court under antitrust law.

Players, meanwhile, insist they were never close to an agreement last week.

George Atallah, the top spokesman for the league's players, said Monday that the perception the two sides were close to a deal was inaccurate. New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees even called the owners' latest proposal "all a show, with no real intent to get a deal done."

Irsay disputes the notion and contends the players turned down a "good" deal.

The impact of the lockout has already created some odd twists in Indy.

Colts Pro Bowl center Jeff Saturday has been a regular participant in negotiations, and Irsay spent part of Monday's news conference describing the close ties he has with Saturday.

Four-time league MVP Peyton Manning is among the group of players who also have filed a request for an injunction against the owners in U.S. District Court in Minnesota. The goal: stopping the lockout.

The Colts also used the exclusive franchise tag on Manning last month, a move that would normally prevent him from negotiating with other teams. But the players contend franchise tags no longer exist, a point Irsay strongly disputes.

"I have never seen a situation where the tag is in jeopardy," he said. "What sort of situation can develop, I don't want to project on that. The No. 1 dynamic is you want to get a long-term deal done for Peyton, and we've offered the highest contract that's ever been paid in the National Football League. So, again, I see things getting done."

Is he taking any of this personally?

Not a chance.

"Peyton, Jeff Saturday are very close friends of mine and this isn't about us against them," Irsay said. "However, I do believe when the lawyers get involved and you get away from mediation and negotiation, it's not productive. On Friday, we were left with no one to negotiate with."

The most recent CBA was signed in 2006. Owners exercised a clause in 2008 that let them opt out.

League owners are seeking a greater percentage of the roughly $9 billion in annual revenue that is shared with the players. Among the other significant topics in negotiations are a rookie wage scale; the owners' push to expand the regular season from 16 games to 18 while reducing the preseason by two games; and benefits for retired players.

And Irsay, who is in one of the league's smallest markets, is convinced it can all be worked out — if they keep talking.

"I have great optimism that we will have a season, we will have a Super Bowl," Irsay said. "But you can't just say optimism will get things done. There's a lot of heavy lifting that has to get done."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Think of someone else beside yourselfs
    Middle class people cant afford to attend these games these guys are wanting to split billions. Lots of fans love football but the game has gotten out of control money from the game tickets to concessions. I know it takes money to make money and all the stars have to have there piece of cake. So lets punish the fans with ticket prices and parking and concessions. Try to take 4 of your family to a game. I couldnt afford it would the billionaires consider dropping ticket prices with the tv money given 30 percent to owners 30 percent to players 30 percent to the fans as of concessions in ticket prices and 10 percent to the veterans of the league from the past to cover there insurance and injuries from when there was real football and we didnt have babies playing or not playing for a stub turf toe. Alot of players are out of money especially the non super stars. Maybe the stars can start payday loans company to help the others thru this. Just seems like a bunch of people who care more for themselves and there pocketbooks instead of the sport and the fans. I dont what to hear about union this owners that your grown adults act like it.
  • hang tough
    hang tough jim i dont want to lose the superbowl either,but if that the outcome so be it. ya got to take a stand sometime.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. Why not take some time to do some research before traveling to that Indiana town or city, and find the ones that are no smoking either inside, or have a patio? People like yourself are just being selfish, and unnecessarily trying to take away all indoor venues that smokers can enjoy themselves at. Last time I checked, it is still a free country, and businesses do respond to market pressure and will ban smoking, if there's enough demand by customers for it(i.e. Linebacker Lounge in South Bend, and Rack and Helen's in New Haven, IN, outside of Fort Wayne). Indiana law already unnecessarily forced restaurants with a bar area to be no smoking, so why not support those restaurants that were forced to ban smoking against their will? Also, I'm always surprised at the number of bars that chose to ban smoking on their own, in non-ban parts of Indiana I'll sometimes travel into. Whiting, IN(just southeast of Chicago) has at least a few bars that went no smoking on their own accord, and despite no selfish government ban forcing those bars to make that move against their will! I'd much rather have a balance of both smoking and non-smoking bars, rather than a complete bar smoking ban that'll only force more bars to close their doors. And besides IMO, there are much worser things to worry about, than cigarette smoke inside a bar. If you feel a bar is too smoky, then simply walk out and take your business to a different bar!

    2. As other states are realizing the harm in jailing offenders of marijuana...Indiana steps backwards into the script of Reefer Madness. Well...you guys voted for your Gov...up to you to vote him out. Signed, Citizen of Florida...the next state to have medical marijuana.

    3. It's empowering for this niche community to know that they have an advocate on their side in case things go awry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrst9VXVKfE

    4. Apparently the settlement over Angie's List "bundling" charges hasn't stopped the practice! My membership is up for renewal, and I'm on my third email trying to get a "basic" membership rather than the "bundled" version they're trying to charge me for. Frustrating!!

    5. Well....as a vendor to both of these builders I guess I have the right to comment. Davis closed his doors with integrity.He paid me every penny he owed me. Estridge,STILL owes me thousands and thousands of dollars. The last few years of my life have been spent working 2 jobs, paying off the suppliers I used to work on Estridge jobs and just struggling to survive. Shame on you Paul...and shame on you IBJ! Maybe you should have contacted the hundreds of vendors that Paul stiffed. I'm sure your "rises from the ashes" spin on reporting would have contained true stories of real people who have struggled to find work and pay of their debts (something that Paul didn't even attempt to do).

    ADVERTISEMENT