- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Baltimore Colts question
Posted on 3/17/14 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 3/17/14 at 3:48 pm
With Irsay being in the news today with his DUI, I thought about this.
I was 5 and not from Baltimore so I have no idea how this actually went down, but I've gathered this much:
Robert Irsay wants a new stadium in Baltimore (or improvements to Memorial Stadium). Baltimore fails to do so, Irsay shops his team.
Now up to this point it sounds like a typical owner trying to squeeze his city into a new venue.
But, here is where it gets interesting to me. The Maryland legislature starts the process of passing a bill that would allow the city of Baltimore the right to seize the team under eminent domain. Irsay could lose his team, so he agrees to move to Indy and does so in the middle of the night. The next day, the bill clears the Maryland legislature and the governor signs it. So basically, if he hadn't left in the middle of the night, the city would've taken the team over.
My question is why does history treat Irsay as the bad guy? I mean he could have been the biggest douche and a-hole in history, but why make a man out to be the villain when he was protecting his company?
Am I missing some info here?
I was 5 and not from Baltimore so I have no idea how this actually went down, but I've gathered this much:
Robert Irsay wants a new stadium in Baltimore (or improvements to Memorial Stadium). Baltimore fails to do so, Irsay shops his team.
Now up to this point it sounds like a typical owner trying to squeeze his city into a new venue.
But, here is where it gets interesting to me. The Maryland legislature starts the process of passing a bill that would allow the city of Baltimore the right to seize the team under eminent domain. Irsay could lose his team, so he agrees to move to Indy and does so in the middle of the night. The next day, the bill clears the Maryland legislature and the governor signs it. So basically, if he hadn't left in the middle of the night, the city would've taken the team over.
My question is why does history treat Irsay as the bad guy? I mean he could have been the biggest douche and a-hole in history, but why make a man out to be the villain when he was protecting his company?
Am I missing some info here?
3
Posted on 3/17/14 at 3:51 pm to tigerman03
I don't remember the whole story, but the guy made no friends in Baltimore. He was a drunk and a douche bag.
Some of my neighbors have a hard time even getting into the Ravens because the Colts left such a bad taste in their mouth. They are all Die-Hard O's fans.
Some of my neighbors have a hard time even getting into the Ravens because the Colts left such a bad taste in their mouth. They are all Die-Hard O's fans.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 3:55 pm to Sevendust912
It's funny how the Ravnes won't put Colts on the scoreboard when the Colts play in Baltimore.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:00 pm to Tiger Stadium 11
quote:
It's funny how the Ravnes won't put Colts on the scoreboard when the Colts play in Baltimore.
Yeah it's no joke, they HATE the Colts and the Irsay family.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:06 pm to Tiger Stadium 11
quote:
It's funny how the Ravnes won't put Colts on the scoreboard when the Colts play in Baltimore
really?
that's awesome
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:07 pm to Sevendust912
quote:
Yeah it's no joke, they HATE the Colts and the Irsay family.
I understand their hate. I'm really talking about the national media. They always mention the scumbag middle of the night move, complete with Mayflower trucks in the background. I can't recall seeing a mention of the city/state's tactics.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:08 pm to Tiger Stadium 11
quote:
It's funny how the Ravnes won't put Colts on the scoreboard when the Colts play in Baltimore.
what do they put up there then?
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:09 pm to LSUSoulja08
quote:
really?
that's awesome
IDK if they do anymore but they def. used to when Modell was the owner.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:10 pm to iAmBatman
quote:
what do they put up there then?
"Indianapolis" but every other team gets the team name
This post was edited on 3/17/14 at 4:10 pm
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:14 pm to tigerman03
quote:
I understand their hate. I'm really talking about the national media. They always mention the scumbag middle of the night move, complete with Mayflower trucks in the background. I can't recall seeing a mention of the city/state's tactics.
I think the national media talks about it that way, because Irsay was not a well liked guy. He was a dick to the media and was not pleasant to be around.
While it's true he broke no laws or technically did nothing wrong, many people (not just in Bmore) looked at it as a snake in the grass move. He just up and dipped out never to face the people of Baltimore.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:17 pm to tigerman03
the people of Baltimore can hate the Irsay family all they want, but the City of Baltimore and the Maryland legislature led the Colts and the Orioles on for over a decade with their mess.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:18 pm to tigerman03
It's a lot longer and more compelx than that, but if you think the city of Baltimore was going to give a blank check to a drunk like Irsay who was running the Colts into the ground, well, you're as addled as he usually was. Irsay was shopping his team everywhere, but this is a guy who drove his own brother out of the family business. He is wholly without scruples.
I cannot recommend this old SI piece on Irsay highly enough:
LINK
Seriously, Bob Irsay is one of the worst people ever.
I cannot recommend this old SI piece on Irsay highly enough:
LINK
Seriously, Bob Irsay is one of the worst people ever.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:20 pm to Baloo
but how do you justify that the Orioles were having same concerns as colts?
if irsay had not left in manner he did, or if state would have taken over franchise, i truly believe that the o's might have left baltimore
if irsay had not left in manner he did, or if state would have taken over franchise, i truly believe that the o's might have left baltimore
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:27 pm to Rouge
The O's won the World Series in 1983. They were not leaving Baltimore. There were rumors he was going to move the team to DC when he bought the team in 1980, but that was never all that serious. Not like Irsay.
Owners have been bitching about Oakland since about 1970, the A's are still there. In fact, baseball teams very rarely move (unlike football). The threat of relocation was not very real.
Owners have been bitching about Oakland since about 1970, the A's are still there. In fact, baseball teams very rarely move (unlike football). The threat of relocation was not very real.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:48 pm to Baloo
Even though they were 7-9 the year before they left, they were (outside of perhaps the Saints) the worst-run franchise in the NFL at the time. They had hired Frank Kush as HC, who was an A#1 a-hole and one of the biggest reasons why John Elway refused to play for them.
They were a modern-day Cleveland Browns. Two years before they left, they became the first modern non-expansion franchise to have a winless regular season. They were 2-22-1 in 1981 and 1982.
They were a modern-day Cleveland Browns. Two years before they left, they became the first modern non-expansion franchise to have a winless regular season. They were 2-22-1 in 1981 and 1982.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:57 pm to Tiger Stadium 11
quote:
what do they put up there then?
This post was edited on 3/17/14 at 4:59 pm
Posted on 3/17/14 at 5:10 pm to Sevendust912
quote:
Modell
Speaking of douchebags....
Posted on 3/17/14 at 7:07 pm to Baloo
quote:
In fact, baseball teams very rarely move (unlike football). The threat of relocation was not very real.
You know more than I about the relocation threat of the O's, and hindsight is 20/20. But if you go back to 1980 when he bought the team and look at the 25 years prior there was a lot of relocation in baseball.
Just off the top of my head
Browns- St. Louis to Balt.
Braves- Boston, Milwaukee, Atlanta
Senators twice- Minnesota & Dallas
A's- Philly, KC, Oakland
Dodgers- Brooklyn to LA
Giants- NY to SF
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:03 pm to Baloo
The thing that grabs me is the eminent domain bill. I mean frick that. The owner's a prick and all, but what country is this? Since when can a municipal government threaten to take ownership?
I would've moved in the middle of the night too.
I would've moved in the middle of the night too.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:43 pm to TigerintheNO
1954 Browns- St. Louis to Balt.
1953 and 65 Braves- Boston, Milwaukee, Atlanta
1960 and 72 Senators twice- Minnesota & Dallas
1955 and 68 A's- Philly, KC, Oakland
1958 Dodgers- Brooklyn to LA
1958 Giants- NY to SF
Sure, the 1950s were volatile. But in 1984, the time of the Colts move, there had been four baseball franchise moves in 25 years and only 1 in the past 15 years, and that was 13 years ago. Baseball has settled into relative stability in the divisional play era.
1953 and 65 Braves- Boston, Milwaukee, Atlanta
1960 and 72 Senators twice- Minnesota & Dallas
1955 and 68 A's- Philly, KC, Oakland
1958 Dodgers- Brooklyn to LA
1958 Giants- NY to SF
Sure, the 1950s were volatile. But in 1984, the time of the Colts move, there had been four baseball franchise moves in 25 years and only 1 in the past 15 years, and that was 13 years ago. Baseball has settled into relative stability in the divisional play era.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News