As the Indianapolis Colts pile up a 13-0 record this season and become the winningest team of this (or any) decade, I’m
wondering what’s going through the minds of the people who were in power in Los Angeles at the turn of this decade.
That’s when the City of Angeles had a shot at luring the Colts to their city. Let’s not kid ourselves.
In 2001, it was becoming apparent the small and aging RCA Dome was no longer going to work as an NFL stadium.
As Indianapolis officials were trying to get a financial package and plans for a new stadium worked out, the Angelic ones
hovered, flirting with the Colts about moving team owner Jim Irsay and his posse out west.
There were rumblings
about moving a team into the L.A. Coliseum or the Rose Bowl in Pasadena. L.A. officials even commissioned a study which was
forwarded to the NFL. Among other things, the study laid out plans for stadium rehab and renovation and stated which team(s)
would be a good fit in L.A. Results of that study were not made public.
All this, naturally, put pressure on Indianapolis
officials and helped the Colts craft a deal to stay here for years to come. But amid all this commotion the tide pulling
the Colts out west hit a strange barrier.
I had several well-placed sources either within or very close to the
L.A. City Council in 2002 telling me L.A. didn’t want the Colts. I was surprised by the sentiment then, and even more
amazed by it in retrospect.
A primary concern is that Irsay would act like a college girl in a Girls Gone Wild
video when he got to L.A. Well, not act exactly like that, but you get the point.
Irsay was seen as too unpredictable—and
too self-centered—in a town already scarred by the antics of Raiders owner Al Davis, sources told me.
In
October, 2002, one source close to the L.A. City Council told IBJ: “We don't want your team. There’s a prevailing
sentiment among council members and other officials that the Colts and their ownership would not be a good fit here.”
To be fair, Irsay has had a few dust ups that I won’t go into here. But still, I couldn’t help think these
thoughts were a bit off base.
The comparison to Al Davis probably had more to do with Irsay’s dad,
(former team owner Robert Irsay) than it did with anything in Jim’s track record.
But the vibe from the West
Coast was overwhelming.
“The general sense is that people here are weary of incompetent ownership and that
would certainly include the Colts, [San Diego] Chargers and [Arizona] Cardinals,” Bill Shaikin, who covered sports business
for the L.A. Times, told IBJ in 2002.
The cruelest things the left coasters said about Irsay and the team’s
front office management were said off the record, and so were not printed in the IBJ. But here are a few tidbits that were
unleashed on the record in the fall of 2002.
“We certainly haven’t forgotten Al Davis,” said
L.A. Councilman Dennis P. Zine. “That could color the decision of which franchise to bring in. Al Davis has his own
best interest at heart and nothing else. There are owners in business and in the NFL who are shrewd, and then there are other
owners, well, like Davis.”
Zine and other council members made it clear they felt Irsay could leave a trail
of Davis-like debris in his path.
“People in L.A.’s guard is up,” said David Carter,
principal for Los Angeles-based Sports Business Group, which helped the council study the stadium issue. “We're not
going to tolerate a carpetbagger owner who’s not going to be concerned about the community.”
Again,
I’m not here to say Jim Irsay is a saint. But I think the Colts have been as community-minded as most other professional
sports teams.
And I’m not going to say the Colts front office—from football operations standpoint—hasn’t
made an error or two. But I don’t think there’s been an NFL owner more committed to winning this past decade than
Irsay, and the record demonstrates that.
Meanwhile, the City of Angels—when it comes to NFL involvement—is
still hovering.
Though they’re probably being weighed down a bit more these days by a heavy load of
regrets.








IBJ Conversations
29 Comments
Add Comment
You are wrong. Facts, observation of events at the time, and Jim Irsay's own words confirm it.
The Colts never were seriously considering moving to L.A. Never.
Talk about a new stadium was initiated by Indy's civic leaders, not Jim Irsay. They needed to expand the convention center and to simultaneously upgrade the Colts home field.
During discussions on how to play for it, certain realities were bandied about which confirmed the Colts needed to generate more money to compete. The city and Irsay were in agreement of this.
Talk about Irsay's threat to move the organization to L.A. NEVER HAPPENED. Though Irsay was aware, from a business angle, talk of a team move was to his benefit, he was never the instigator nor seriously considered it could happen. He knew Indy would not want or allow that to happen over getting a new stadium built.
The press gets a story going, and then since it's being reported, it gains steam and is reported elsewhere -- next thing you know, it's assumed by most that there's some truth to it.
The truth is, though, that Jim Irsay never threatened or considered moving the team to Los Angeles, and ever more inaccurate is your assertion that L.A. could have had the team but rejected them as unworthy.
Sorry, but this is a very poor example of journalism. Spreading vague rumors (the Colts were rejected) on top already unsubstantiated rumors.
The Colts were led by a very misguided Bob Irsay and a very young Jim Irsay in the old 1-15 years. They were an orphan team in a town that had been dominated by Bears, Bengals, Cowboy and Packers fans. Even then they averaged close to 50,000 a game. Now Jimmy is older and much wiser. He knows what his dad never did, which is hire good people and let them run the team. In addition, the Colts now have not only won over thousands of fans of other teams, locally and nationally, but a generation of young fans have grown up on Colts football and are buying tickets.
So I doubt we would ever return to the bad old days, but if we did, there is a stronger fan base to fill the stadium.
That said, Lucas Oil was built for much more than the 16 to 20 days a year the Colts play there. But facts never have mattered to haters like you.
When there's no health care, education keeps getting cut and the only jobs created in Indiana come with state and local subsidies or are in casinos, you can really stand up with pride and say it's only the Republican American way -- government subsidies for the rich but get government off the backs of the needy because they might benefit.
I really enjoy visiting your city, but your priorities are backwards. Keep making Indy a better and more cultured place and stop playing fools to rich team owners. How about ZERO dollars unless ALL team finances -- Colts and Pacers -- are made public in great detail. The public subsidies are public, so, too, should be the teams' books.
Just reporting the news.
The Colts built the stadium to keep up with every other team in the league. You have to keep up with Houston, Dallas, etc. The stadium is an investment to the city. Would Indy be hosting the Super Bowl in 2012 if we were still playing in the RCA Dome? Would we be attracting the Final Four if we were still in the RCA Dome. If we didn't tear down RCA Dome to expand the convention center would Indianapolis be attracting the large conventions?
It's not just about the Colts. People need to quit crying and realize it's the best thing for the city and that state of Indiana.
Bobby, you fail to understand simple economics as most who love to worship the government. The stadium was built for convention business first, then for the Colts. There was no BAILOUT of the team or the stadium. The entity that operates the stadium was underfunded because the legislature failed to do their job adequately. That leaves the city and the state with the issue to resolve. And, note the biggest part of the job of that entity, in addition to operating the stadium and Conseco, is to promote city convention business.
Perhaps you should study how much income the city and state have generated because of the city's bold move with the convention center, dome, and now stadium. Also, how many jobs have been created as a result. And, the growth and rebirth of this great city's downtown. Add to that the tax generated from the dollars being spent in those facilities from people outside this area as well. Study also how the success of Indy has been noted and imitated in many other cities.
Next time, leave your rant for the State of California. Perhaps when they get their border secure, you can then put on your big boy pants and resume your rant against us Hoosiers.
The reason California cities do not give subsidies to business or sports team is because you guys cannot afford to do so. You have high taxes and people are leaving your state in droves. Indy may need to improve in other areas, but I would much rather live in a state where we can balance a budget and not run business down the road. When it comes to education, I would not brag about California either. L.A. schools are some of the worst in the country. Let us worry about our own matters, Bay City Bob.
Like Bob, not only are you economically illiterate, but you also can't read. NO ONE said the stadium was built only for conventions, rather that was the MAIN purpose. There are more dates in that faciility for high school events than there are for the Colts. Add NCAA, BIG TEN, College games and the multitude of covention dates. Just how much revenue comes from other sources for the stadium as opposed to the 10 dates the Colts have?
Duh, gee, I never thunked 'bout thet, says 'ol Dave in Indy. This city's means and facilities are admired all over the nation for what has been accomplished and the revenue generated.
Read up, dude, do your research. And stop whining about benefits for the rich guys. One thing's for sure, you'll never be one of those.
Liberals and dufuses, sheesh........
But don't let the facts get in the way of your rants.
---
Let's start a more-realistic rumor: Jacksonville Jags to LA, (and the NFC West) and St. Louis to the AFC South in exchange. Gives the Jags a real market; cuts travel for the Rams by keeping their away-division games close.
And thanks Brett for demonstrating what I mean by hater. I could have explained it, but you showed everyone.
Oh well......
Berwick asks "Just how much revenue comes from other sources for the stadium as opposed to the 10 dates the Colts have?" Good question. If someone can answer that question i would be interested. I've read 50% goes to the Colts so what's left? Not enough based upon the CIB problems.
If Jimmy wanted to screw Indy, he would either have taken the team elsewhere, or he would be cutting costs to the bone like his old man did.