Skip to content

Irsay, Peyton say divorce wasn’t about the money

Jim Irsay, Peyton Manning AP

Thanks to the PFT crew for keeping the content coming during Wednesday’s special edition of PFT Live, which featured a live stream of the press conference regarding the Colts’ decision to release quarterback Peyton Manning.

Much can be said about the event.  For now, I’ll focus on the comments that got lodged in the officially-licensed PFT bovine excrement filter.

Both Colts owner Jim Irsay and Manning said that the decision wasn’t about the money.  Which means, as it always does, that it was about the money.

And it was.  Required to pay Manning $28 million very, very soon and forced to carry a $17 million cap number in 2012 for a guy who may or may not be healthy enough to play in 2012, Irsay had no other choice.  If the number had instead been, say, $10 million to Manning and a $7 million cap number, Irsay likely is inclined to keep Peyton around.  Somewhere been the two extremes there was a go/no-go line.

For Manning, money was an issue because taking less was never an option.  Delaying the due date for the $28 million by even a week was never regarded as a possibility, because Manning never showed the slightest willingness to do it.

The money lines were drawn last year, when Manning’s agents installed a plutonium pill into his new contract, forcing the team to pay or get off the pot before the launch of 2012 free agency.  Period.

So, yes, it was about the money.

Just like it will be about the money, at least in large part, when Peyton picks his next team.  No matter how many times he says it isn’t.

Permalink 53 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Indianapolis Colts, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
53 Responses to “Irsay, Peyton say divorce wasn’t about the money”
  1. medtxpack says: Mar 7, 2012 1:20 PM

    which one is the victimized wife in this scenario?!

  2. joetoronto says: Mar 7, 2012 1:21 PM

    When they say it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.

  3. transam7816 says: Mar 7, 2012 1:22 PM

    True

  4. sterilizecromartie says: Mar 7, 2012 1:24 PM

    Actually, it wasn’t about the money. Even if Peyton was willing to play for 50 cents this year, how does that benefit the Colts? They were the worst team in the NFL last year. Take away Wayne, Garcon, Freeney, Addai, and Clarke and they are BY FAR the worst team in the league next year. If Peyton Manning played on this depleted Colts team next year, what does that get them? 6 wins? 8 wins? 9 wins and a first round playoff loss at the absolute best? Meanwhile, Luck is riding the bench when he could be out there taking his lumps his rookie year just like Peyton did.

    Colts rebuild with a rookie QB, which they HAVE TO do. Peyton gets released and actually gets a chance to play for a contender in the last few years of his career. Money has nothing to do with this decision.

  5. calebrobertson17 says: Mar 7, 2012 1:25 PM

    There is a difference between money being a factor and the salary cap being a factor.

  6. palewook says: Mar 7, 2012 1:26 PM

    is that like saying, “it’s not you, it’s me.”

  7. hboc01 says: Mar 7, 2012 1:27 PM

    It’s ALWAYS about the money, ALWAYS!

  8. vegaskid21 says: Mar 7, 2012 1:29 PM

    To quote Jim Rome, “If they say it’s not about the money; It’s about the money.”

  9. unitedstateoftexas says: Mar 7, 2012 1:31 PM

    Considering the fact that it’s highly unlikely they would have cut Manning were he making the vet minimum I’d say it was 100% about the money.

  10. neko02011980 says: Mar 7, 2012 1:31 PM

    He is a good owner, and he made the right decision. However, if Manning is healthy, and picks the right team, I think he will do ok next year.

  11. mvp43 says: Mar 7, 2012 1:32 PM

    It would be refreshing to hear an owner or player admit it was about the money for once, instead of constantly insulting my intelligence.

  12. bigjdve says: Mar 7, 2012 1:32 PM

    Sure it wasn’t about the money. I am sure that everyone believes that.

  13. rascalmanny says: Mar 7, 2012 1:33 PM

    Not about the money? Then sign Peyton.

    Irsay’s gonna be paying for a rookie QB versus paying for a proven leader.

  14. zor9999 says: Mar 7, 2012 1:35 PM

    I would have respected the press conference more if they both confirmed that although not the sole reason for the decision, money was considered.

  15. jchap00 says: Mar 7, 2012 1:38 PM

    Is it just me or does Irsay look like a drunk?

  16. bobothegreatest says: Mar 7, 2012 1:42 PM

    This comes as no surprise.

    The NFL is not about money at all..

  17. mjkelly77 says: Mar 7, 2012 1:48 PM

    Irsay, Peyton say divorce wasn’t about the money
    _________________________

    It was about the fact that Manning can no longer throw even though he’s ready to take more money from any fool who thinks he can.

  18. purplengold says: Mar 7, 2012 1:49 PM

    Mr. Irsay, sir, our accountant would like a word with you.

  19. clayton43 says: Mar 7, 2012 1:49 PM

    I think its crap… IF Peyton wanted to stay.. he could have … he already received 26 million for sitting out a year… and wanted another 28 million plus 7 million for actually playing ??? … I am all for players ” getting thiers”.. but Manning could have worked something out on that and the Colts could have traded out of the 1st spot and gotten 4 or more drafts picks as comp. I think this was a Dog and Pony show so the fans didnt hate them both and place blame on them both.

  20. hooterdawg says: Mar 7, 2012 1:49 PM

    Manning has always been just about the money. His demand for the highest possible contract – and his pressure to pay his offensive cast among the highest in the league for their position – helped put the Colts in cap hell every season. It doesn’t surprise me that Peyton refused to cut the Colts some slack and renegotiate his contract. But now that he is gone, the Colts can also cut many of the bloated salaries from the roster.

  21. mjkelly77 says: Mar 7, 2012 1:52 PM

    For Manning, money was an issue because taking less was never an option. Delaying the due date for the $28 million by even a week was never regarded as a possibility, because Manning never showed the slightest willingness to do it.
    _______________________

    Manning could have renegotiated his contract but refused to do it. Greedy Swamp Boy.

  22. icanspeel says: Mar 7, 2012 1:57 PM

    It has to be about money since every other headline is “Insert Team” Is interested in Manning. Why else would you lose interest in a player lots of other teams have interest in? Money.

  23. pixelito says: Mar 7, 2012 1:57 PM

    So basically, Andrew Luck has just cost Peyton $28 Million?

  24. jjbadd says: Mar 7, 2012 2:04 PM

    Sure it was part of it, but to anyone who thinks it was the determining factor are not thinking straight. To the average person, like me, 28 million is a lot. But to a near billionaire likke Irsay its a drop in a bucket. I can’t believe people who haven’t given this circumstance more thought. It truly is the best outcome for both the Colts & Manning. Manning can go to a team that is more of a contender than the Colts are going to be this upcoming season, and let’s face it, he don’t have more than 3 yrs at best. As for the Colts, Irsay made the best decision for the franchise and for the fans . I thought at first Irsay was not being loyal to the franchise qb, but hey, there are no guarantees that Manning will play at his former level, and it shouldn’t cost Irsay ANOTHER 28 million on just the chance, or probability. The way I see it they both came out winners….

  25. carpetpissers says: Mar 7, 2012 2:04 PM

    The only thing we’re missing with all these updates is the last time PM had a BM.

  26. chadmurdigan says: Mar 7, 2012 2:05 PM

    All the alligator tears and “I’ve been so blessed” comments in that press conference made me want to gag. It’s always been about the money and it always will be about the money. This is America and the NFL, both which are always about $$$$$. Seeing these two guys all weepy eyed would have been okay if they both had been honest and upfront about the business aspect of the parting. But saying it wasn’t about money, at least for me, just made the whole thing a pathetic show for the media.

  27. ninefingers9 says: Mar 7, 2012 2:05 PM

    Peyton say divorce wasn’t about the money
    ———-
    Peyton got divorced too? Whew, rough week! ;)

  28. rascalmanny says: Mar 7, 2012 2:06 PM

    What song lyrics will Irsay tweet at 1 am tonight?

  29. jgava19 says: Mar 7, 2012 2:08 PM

    Blame the team for sucking so bad. They win one more game, he’s still a Colt. His teammates let him down. No wonder Manning was so jacked when they were winning late in the season.

  30. clayton43 says: Mar 7, 2012 2:10 PM

    Everyone is saying how selfless Manning is .. I dont see it… I see it as the Colts could have maybe been a dominate team of the NFL if Manning wasnt so greedy.. He had had a losing record in playoffs and isnt nearly as effective when playing outside of a dome or later in season as his record indicates. One of the best yes, but one of the best under the right circumstances and too bad for Colts fans because if they had more money to get some other guys in there they could have possibly been a Superbowl team every year.

  31. dvdman123 says: Mar 7, 2012 2:10 PM

    It was ALL about money.

  32. fissels says: Mar 7, 2012 2:15 PM

    I’m not sure why these guys can’t tell the truth. What would it hurt to admit that money was indeed the issue? I hope Peyton lands in a good spot.

  33. pacificamjr says: Mar 7, 2012 2:16 PM

    Sorry, but the truth is that theyre both liars.

  34. PFTiswhatitis says: Mar 7, 2012 2:21 PM

    It was in Mannings hands to make it possible for the Colts to seriously rebuild by taking less money and allowing the Colts to use their first round pick to restock. Instead he insisted AGAIN just as he has done in the past that he get his $, and chose to let the Colts fall into total disarray. He was one of the greats but has always been as selfish as they come. He deserves to struggle with a crappy team ina crappy city…I hope he lands in Cleveland.

  35. AlohaMrHand says: Mar 7, 2012 2:21 PM

    Manning watch 2012 in full force

  36. mgfred says: Mar 7, 2012 2:24 PM

    The first lie was that “It’s going to be Peyton’s choice.”, now we hear “It’s not about the money.”.

    Twenty eight million dollars of salary cap for a team that is rebuilding, how can it not be about the money…..

  37. tigerlilac says: Mar 7, 2012 2:27 PM

    Sorry Mr. Owner, it was about the money.

  38. rubbernilly says: Mar 7, 2012 2:28 PM

    Glad I didn’t have the only BS meter getting pegged off-the-charts at that line.

    What were the only other reasons they noted?
    1) circumstances
    2) Irsay wanting Manning to have success, which he wouldn’t around there for the next couple of years

    First, “circumstances” MEANS money. It might also include the #1 overall pick and a highly-touted incoming QB, but none of that would have meant diddly if Peyton had been earning even $10 million a year.

    Second, I’m just not buying Irsay wanting Peyton to succeed somewhere else. No way. At least not compared to the impact money had on the decision. Indi fans would have wanted to see Peyton come back, knowing they had Luck in their back pocket for future years. What got in the way of that? Money.

  39. macbull says: Mar 7, 2012 2:29 PM

    ANYONE BELIEVE IRSAY?

    One moment he is talking about the Colts cap problems…next moment, he is telling everyone, it wasn’t about the money…

  40. tigerlilac says: Mar 7, 2012 2:36 PM

    The Colts waited until Manning was due $28MM and then cut him. How can either party say it was not about the money?

  41. jgava19 says: Mar 7, 2012 2:41 PM

    Know the facts people. 28 million had nothing to do with the cap. That was out of pocket money.

  42. jgava19 says: Mar 7, 2012 2:43 PM

    Only 7 million of it would have gone against the cap

  43. 1historian says: Mar 7, 2012 2:44 PM

    I just keep remembering back in 2002 when irsay was threatening to move the colts to Los Angeles in 2006 if the city didn’t pony up the money to build that stadium.

    The Patriots play (outside) in a privately financed stadium.

  44. capone888 says: Mar 7, 2012 2:44 PM

    Of course it’s about the money. Sports is a ‘business’. It is their ‘job’. It doesn’t matter how much or how little you make at your job. You feel you are worth a certain amount and you expect to be paid that. If you aren’t, you look for a job elsewhere. This goes for sports, IT, manufacturing, any spectrum of the profession prism.

    I hate it when people say it was all about the money. Of course it was. Same goes for you.

  45. adlent says: Mar 7, 2012 2:59 PM

    Manning could have renegotiated his contract but refused to do it. Greedy Swamp Boy.

    ___________________

    Right, because that is what YOU would have done in that position, because it is YOUR fault that your GM said you will be signed to the richest contract and that you only expect the team to own up to the contract it signed you to. I know it is about the money, but I don’t fault Peyton at all for not renegotiating the contract.

  46. pappert says: Mar 7, 2012 3:15 PM

    Peytons final desicion will not be about the money. Though im sure he tells his agent get all you can in the same breath basically.

  47. ronniemexico says: Mar 7, 2012 3:21 PM

    jchap00 says:Mar 7, 2012 1:38 PM

    Is it just me or does Irsay look like a drunk?
    _________________________________

    Ahhh, uuum, uummm, ahhh, um, ah

    I think he sounds like a drunk!

  48. ernst90 says: Mar 7, 2012 3:23 PM

    Just think about this for a minute with everyone saying Manning should have given the Colts a break and took less money. Would anyone else cut their employer a break and so oh yea i’ll take less money to put my body on the line. Hell no or atleast i know i wouldn’t.

  49. gimmeabruschi says: Mar 7, 2012 3:34 PM

    The Saints must be SO relieved the Manning release has come.

  50. mjkelly77 says: Mar 7, 2012 4:06 PM

    adlent says:Mar 7, 2012 2:59 PM

    Right, because that is what YOU would have done in that position, because it is YOUR fault that your GM said you will be signed to the richest contract and that you only expect the team to own up to the contract it signed you to. I know it is about the money, but I don’t fault Peyton at all for not renegotiating the contract.
    _____________________________

    Irsay negotiated that last contract in good faith. He should not have trusted Manning. Manning knew he was hurt and stole $24 million even though he knew he couldn’t play. Now he wants sympathy and there are some foolish enough to give it.

  51. jasoncnz says: Mar 7, 2012 4:49 PM

    You are suppose to be the expert!

    How could it be about the money for Peyton when Irsay wanted to GAURANTEE most of the 90 million when the contract was signed last year, and PEYTON said no, lets wait and see!

    If he was just worried about $$$, he would have let Irsay gaurantee the $70 million like he wanted to do.

  52. brianbosworthisstonecold says: Mar 7, 2012 6:51 PM

    And they parted with one last kiss. No tongue this time.

  53. keepyerstickontheice says: Mar 7, 2012 10:39 PM

    Usually when joetoronto spouts off, it’s after he gets his backpack full of BC weed and starts typing. In this case, I agree with him 100%.

    “When they say it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.”

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!