peyton manning coming to washington

[The Hogster]

Peyton should not restructure with the Colts. He has a contract with the Colts. If they choose not to honor it, it is more than likely because they intend to move on and draft Luck. It would be the team breaking the contract, not the player--as if often is. Accordingly, the player should not give the team a break when the team is the party in breach.

I thought you were a sports agent lawyer. No team is ever in breach when they cut a player. And the only way a player can be in breach is by holding out or retiring early. In fact, I can't think of a single case of a team ever being in breach of contract. Maybe in the early days when a team folded, but not in the modern era.

If you have never trusted your parents before, start now. Read.

[1niksder]

1niksder wrote:

If I worked out a deal that's worth $100M and pays me more than half of it in the first two years, with the other party knowing in advance that I was injuried. I might give them another crack at it. He didn't play a down last years and made $26M, why not let them try to get their money's worth?

Why? For the sake of being nice? Or fair? Teams don't play nice or fair, so why should the players? A player who loses his job to a nagging injury like a hamstring, and his younger, cheaper backup comes in and plays like Victor Cruz, that player doesn't get to say "give me a shot next year to win my job back now that my hamstring is good." They usually get released.

In the instances where the player has the upper hand, I don't understand why people expect them to make concessions for the billionaire owners.

If we really want to be honest about it, Peyton Manning has made Jim Irsay wayyyyy more money than he's been paid under contract. Most fans have no idea how (i) merchandising like Jersey sales etc (ii) TV deals, and other revenue makes the owners tons of money. All they know is the contract numbers for players which is high. Maybe folks should stop to think that yes, getting a check for $28M makes you rich. But, WRITING a check for $28M makes you wealthy. I shed no tears for Irsay especially when he's going to get Luck at a bargain contract.

I really don't care what he does, had you read the whole post instead of trying to make your own point you would have noticed that i simply want him to be off the Redskins radar, and not the FLN's main story everyday.

Manning has more money than his kids will know what to do with, it's not about the money. If he wants to be there and Irsay wants to save face why not re-work the deal. Again if you had read the complete post you'd see that Peyton would actually gain as much as $4M in addition to the $28M in the example I used.

Manning might not be able to play until who knows when. Why not work out something that would allow him to (i) stay in a city/region that loves him, (ii) avoid him having to uproot his family and move them to who knows where, (iii) why not put himself in a position to continue his career in the stadium (a Dome) that was built for him.

He's going to have to sign a performances laden contract where ever he goes, why not see what he can get from a team he has over a $28M sinkhole... even though he still can't throw.

You're a Lawyer right? Why not advise your client to call Irsay' bluff. It's negotiations, it doesn't prevent him from still going elsewhere if it doesn't work out. He just needs a agent that gets him a deal that looks like he is giving back. Most restructures do nothing more than put money in the player's pocket at the time the deal is signed. Not lookig into it would be a dis-service to your client. A free agent can talk to all 32 teams, they'll be 420 free agents hitting the market on March 13, teams will try to get the players they want to keep under contract before then. Why shouldn't Manning talk to the only team he can until March 8th (when he'll only have a 5 day window before every free agent can talk to every team).

If he can't get something worked out with them, he won't know for sure until he talks to them.

[The Hogster]

1niksder wrote:

You're a Lawyer right?

Yes. And, you're not right? Obviously

Why not advise your client to call Irsay' bluff. It's negotiations, it doesn't prevent him from still going elsewhere if it doesn't work out. He just needs a agent that gets him a deal that looks like he is giving back.

Call his bluff?? By what--engaging in a Twitter war where Peyton says he's open to restructuring with the Colts but really isn't? Makes no sense whatsoever. Peyton doesn't need an agent to make him look like he's giving back anything.

Tom Condon is one of the best agents in NFL History. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Condon

He knows what he's doing. The best way to call his bluff is to let the date approach and force Irsay's hand. Either he'll pay or cut him. Pretty simple. Even if he cuts him, there's no rule he can't re-sign with the Colts. Unlikely, but possible. So what do you gain by restructuring ahead of the date. Nothing.

Most restructures do nothing more than put money in the player's pocket at the time the deal is signed. Not lookig into it would be a dis-service to your client

.

That's the point. It's a BARGAIN. The team gets to restructure a contract in a way that benefits the team such as (i) freeing up cap space (ii) allowing the team to keep a player under contract who would otherwise leave via free agency the following year. The TEAM gets something in return for paying the player. That's the point. It's not a penalty in America to receive money in exchange from doing or not doing something. That's why it's called professional sports. You get paid for it.

A free agent can talk to all 32 teams, they'll be 420 free agents hitting the market on March 13, teams will try to get the players they want to keep under contract before then. Why shouldn't Manning talk to the only team he can until March 8th (when he'll only have a 5 day window before every free agent can talk to every team).

Because there may be 420 free agents, but only one of them is Peyton Manning. Again, he has leverage. It would be assinine to give that up. And, I have no clue where you get this idea that Tom Condon isn't talking to the Colts. Ever occur to you that the Colts have made the decision to move on and it's nothing to talk about? Lay people kill me with this rhetoric. What do you want Condon to do? Beg Irsay publicly to allow Peyton to retire a Colt on a non-guaranteed, performance based deal? Why even have an agent if your motive is to give all the concessions and take the least amount of money possible.

[1niksder]

1niksder wrote:

You're a Lawyer right?

Yes. And, you're not right? Obviously

Why not advise your client to call Irsay' bluff. It's negotiations, it doesn't prevent him from still going elsewhere if it doesn't work out. He just needs a agent that gets him a deal that looks like he is giving back.

Call his bluff?? By what--engaging in a Twitter war where Peyton says he's open to restructuring with the Colts but really isn't? Makes no sense whatsoever. Peyton doesn't need an agent to make him look like he's giving back anything.

Tom Condon is one of the best agents in NFL History. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Condon

He knows what he's doing. The best way to call his bluff is to let the date approach and force Irsay's hand. Either he'll pay or cut him. Pretty simple. Even if he cuts him, there's no rule he can't re-sign with the Colts. Unlikely, but possible. So what do you gain by restructuring ahead of the date. Nothing.

Most restructures do nothing more than put money in the player's pocket at the time the deal is signed. Not lookig into it would be a dis-service to your client

.

That's the point. It's a BARGAIN. The team gets to restructure a contract in a way that benefits the team such as (i) freeing up cap space (ii) allowing the team to keep a player under contract who would otherwise leave via free agency the following year. The TEAM gets something in return for paying the player. That's the point. It's not a penalty in America to receive money in exchange from doing or not doing something. That's why it's called professional sports. You get paid for it.

A free agent can talk to all 32 teams, they'll be 420 free agents hitting the market on March 13, teams will try to get the players they want to keep under contract before then. Why shouldn't Manning talk to the only team he can until March 8th (when he'll only have a 5 day window before every free agent can talk to every team).

Because there may be 420 free agents, but only one of them is Peyton Manning. Again, he has leverage. It would be assinine to give that up. And, I have no clue where you get this idea that Tom Condon isn't talking to the Colts. Ever occur to you that the Colts have made the decision to move on and it's nothing to talk about? Lay people kill me with this rhetoric. What do you want Condon to do? Beg Irsay publicly to allow Peyton to retire a Colt on a non-guaranteed, performance based deal? Why even have an agent if your motive is to give all the concessions and take the least amount of money possible.

Where did I say he had to give anything up? I said talk to them and see what they can work out. He might be Peyton Manning but he's not the same Peyton Manning, or we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?
Again I'm asking the attorney (since I'm obviously I'm not one nor do I play one on the internet...) What does Peyton have to lose?

I asked you because unlike others I take you at your word when you say you're one. What harm will it do for him to talk about restructuring. Can you name one player that restructured and lost money with other option if they didn't re-work their deal? When a player restructures they simply agree to move money around in order to free up cap space for the team, it also puts future money due to the player into the player's pocket right then and there. Just like the example I gave it normally results in the value of the restructured deal being MORE than what the un-restructured deal would have paid.

What does he have to lose by putting Irsay back at the table?

[The Hogster]

1niksder wrote:

I said talk to them and see what they can work out. He might be Peyton Manning but he's not the same Peyton Manning, or we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?

How do you know that Tom Condon has not talked to the Colts about the contract? You don't.

What does Peyton have to lose?

$28M and a LOT of leverage duh. As of right now, if the contract remains as-is, he gets $28M from the Colts, or the ability to negotiate with all 32 teams. If he restructures into an incentive based deal now, he (i) only gets whatever he can and (ii) he has to deal with Andrew Luck, a new offense, and a rebuilding team next year. So, the question you should be asking is what does he GAIN by restructuring now that he won't have on March 9th??

Again I'm asking the attorney (since I'm obviously I'm not one nor do I play one on the internet...)

This is so sad and pathetic. I am flattered that some people think so highly of lawyers to believe that it is a distinction that people would lie about in order to have. But, in reality, lawyers prolly lead the Globe as the most hated profession. I don't know why anyone would lie about being one. BTW - Kazoo is the poster boy for this anti-lawyer movement. He's borderline obsessed with it, and it's not just me. Check his history, he's got threads on here foaming at the mouth with other posters. He's the first person to look up my profile to discover what my occupation was. Sounds like an awesome approach to life.

What harm will it do for him to talk about restructuring.

Uh, just talking about it would do no harm. But, unless you've tapped Condon's phone, how do you know he hasn't discussed that with anyone from the Colts?? Oh, yeah. You don't.

Can you name one player that restructured and lost money with other option if they didn't re-work their deal? When a player restructures they simply agree to move money around in order to free up cap space for the team, it also puts future money due to the player into the player's pocket right then and there. Just like the example I gave it normally results in the value of the restructured deal being MORE than what the un-restructured deal would have paid.

Overly simplistic as usual. Peyton has LEVERAGE right now because that March 8th bonus is so high, it will force the Colts to pay him or release him. Why on God's green earth would Peyton take less money now, and sign a contract that would obligate him to stick around on a team that's rebuilding around Andrew Luck. Especially, when he can dictate where he goes if released, and actually impose his will on a team that really needs him. Don't insult my profession if this is the best you could do in it. FAIL

What does he have to lose by putting Irsay back at the table?

See above if this isn't obvious yet.

[riggofan]

1niksder wrote:

You're a Lawyer right?

Yes. And, you're not right? Obviously

Who are you billing for all of this expert opinion???

[1niksder]

1niksder wrote:

I said talk to them and see what they can work out. He might be Peyton Manning but he's not the same Peyton Manning, or we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?

How do you know that Tom Condon has not talked to the Colts about the contract? You don't.

For one Irsay just put the offer out there yesterday, more than likely trying to back PM into a corner and two Condon had already said there wouldn't be any discussions about moving the date.

How do know that he has? You don't

1niksder wrote:

What does Peyton have to lose?

$28M and a LOT of leverage duh. As of right now, if the contract remains as-is, he gets $28M from the Colts, or the ability to negotiate with all 32 teams. If he restructures into an incentive based deal now, he (i) only gets whatever he can and (ii) he has to deal with Andrew Luck, a new offense, and a rebuilding team next year. So, the question you should be asking is what does he GAIN by restructuring now that he won't have on March 9th??

It appears you're the only person in the world that thinks Peyton will get that $28M.... sorry it's gone. So all he has right now is the ability to talk to 32 teams after March 8th or when the Colts say he can talk to those 32 teams or which ever come first. That the Colts with all the leverage if you ask me. Restructuring by definition is to rearrange, in this case restructuring his remaining contract or base salaries in 2012: $7.4 million, 2013: $8.4 million, 2014: $9.4 million, and 2015: $10.4 million, + the $28 million option bonus. With the Colts you're talking about $35M+ over the next four years and the bonus, with the base salaries as the starting point.
On the open market he's starting with nothing, zero, zelch. He only has leverage if he talks, because if not they're going to tell him to walk.

Unless he knows he can get at least $35M over the next 4 years from a team that will have to change their offense and personnel to fit him, then I see no reason to just sit back and wait to be cut and say good bye to the whole $63M left on his current deal.

In fact anywhere else he signs will more than likely be 3 years or less and incentive laden. With the Colts he'd only have to load incentives into the first year of a 4 year deal that's already in place. Those incentives would come from the remaining portion of the $28M option bonus after portions of it is converted to a signing bonus and 2013 roster bonus.

So tell me again what he has to lose by talking to Irsay if Irsay wants to talk. I personally don't believe a word Irsay is putting out and Peyton should call him on it. It might not be a win-win situation for Peyton but it a no lose option that he should explore

1niksder wrote:

Again I'm asking the attorney (since I'm obviously I'm not one nor do I play one on the internet...)

This is so sad and pathetic. I am flattered that some people think so highly of lawyers to believe that it is a distinction that people would lie about in order to have. But, in reality, lawyers prolly lead the Globe as the most hated profession. I don't know why anyone would lie about being one. BTW - Kazoo is the poster boy for this anti-lawyer movement. He's borderline obsessed with it, and it's not just me. Check his history, he's got threads on here foaming at the mouth with other posters. He's the first person to look up my profile to discover what my occupation was. Sounds like an awesome approach to life.

Like I said I took your word for it. You must have missed that part or are you saying it's pathetic that I believed

1niksder wrote:

What harm will it do for him to talk about restructuring.

Uh, just talking about it would do no harm. But, unless you've tapped Condon's phone, how do you know he hasn't discussed that with anyone from the Colts?? Oh, yeah. You don't.

And neither do you.

1niksder wrote:

Can you name one player that restructured and lost money with other option if they didn't re-work their deal? When a player restructures they simply agree to move money around in order to free up cap space for the team, it also puts future money due to the player into the player's pocket right then and there. Just like the example I gave it normally results in the value of the restructured deal being MORE than what the un-restructured deal would have paid.

Overly simplistic as usual. Peyton has LEVERAGE right now because that March 8th bonus is so high, it will force the Colts to pay him or release him. Why on God's green earth would Peyton take less money now, and sign a contract that would obligate him to stick around on a team that's rebuilding around Andrew Luck.

I guess that means you can't name any.

1niksder wrote:

What does he have to lose by putting Irsay back at the table?

See above if this isn't obvious yet.

It obvious, that you've let everyone know just how much you know.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Nik, I think your quotes and /quotes are off

[KazooSkinsFan]

He's the first person to look up my profile to discover what my occupation was

Actually you talked about being at UVA law school. I took the leap you were planning to be a lawyer...

[The Hogster]

1niksder wrote:

You're a Lawyer right?

Yes. And, you're not right? Obviously

Who are you billing for all of this expert opinion???

Pro Bono.

[Deadskins]

1niksder wrote:

You're a Lawyer right?

Yes. And, you're not right? Obviously

Who are you billing for all of this expert opinion???

Pro Bono.

Liar. You're billing someone for this time.

[The Hogster]

1niksder wrote:

For one Irsay just put the offer out there yesterday

I wouldn't call a Tweet an offer, but whatever.

How do that he has? You don't

Translate please.

It appears you're the only person in the world that thinks Peyton will get that $28M.... sorry it's gone.

I actually don't think he's going to get that $28M from the Colts. So, you're wrong again. However, leaving the contract as-is forces the Colts to release him, making him a Free Agent.

So all he has right now is the ability to talk to 32 teams after March 8th or when the Colts say he can talk to those 32 teams or which ever come first. That the Colts with all the leverage if you ask me.

The team always has leverage because--as mentioned prior--the team can terminate the contract at will, while the bargained for rules prohibit the player from simply saying I quit--as a route to free agency. But, Peyton knows this, he will either (i) become a free agent on March 9th, or (ii) be cashing a $28M check on March 8th. That is leverage for an NFL player.

Restructuring by definition is to rearrange, in this case restructuring his remaining contract or base salaries in 2012: $7.4 million, 2013: $8.4 million, 2014: $9.4 million, and 2015: $10.4 million, + the $28 million option bonus. With the Colts you're talking about $35M+ over the next four years and the bonus, with the base salaries as the starting point.
On the open market he's starting with nothing, zero, zelch. He only has leverage if he talks, because if not they're going to tell him to walk.

Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you--like everyone else--don't believe the Colts intend to pay Peyton what he's owed under the contract. But, here you're arguing that he's "giving up" the money owed on his deal by not restructuring?? Yet more nonsense.

Tom Condon and Peyton (like everyone else) likely has the indication that the Colts will release Peyton. They are comfortable with that option. As a result, he has no power over whether or not he gets the money due under this deal, because all signs point to the obvious--the Colts will tear it up because they don't want to pay the $28M bonus. Read that a few times, then refer to the definition of leverage. If you try, you'll get it sooner or later.

Peyton Manning will get paid by another team. He will also have more control over the direction that team takes--which is critical.

Unless he knows he can get at least $35M over the next 4 years from a team that will have to change their offense and personnel to fit him, then I see no reason to just sit back and wait to be cut and say good bye to the whole $63M left on his current deal.

Because only the Colts can decide to honor that contract and pay that Salary. And, Peyton and Condon realize that is not likely to happen. Duh. That money is written on the paper the Colts will likely tear up. Accordingly, it's not Peyton whose giving it up, it's the Colts who are deciding not to pay it.

So tell me again what he has to lose by talking to Irsay if Irsay wants to talk. I personally don't believe a word Irsay is putting out and Peyton should call him on it. It might not be a win-win situation for Peyton but it a no lose option that he should explore

Okay, we are obviously on two different pages. You believe that Peyton and Condon should make overtures via the media to give the impression that they are calling Irsay's bluff. I'm talking about what they will with his contract in the real world. PR beefs accomplish nothing. Let Irsay Tweet himself to death. Come March 8th the real world rules.

Restructuring is a losing situation for Peyton. Why? Because it puts him in an environment where the team has gone 2-14, totally cleaned house in both the Front Office and Coaching staff, has not expressed the desire to re-sign guys like Reggie Wayne and Jeff Satruday, and will likely draft Andrew Luck. So, you think it's a win for Peyton to (i) take less money and (ii) stay on a team starting from scratch around the heir apparent???


Wake me when that makes sense.

P.S. I also said that it wouldn't be good business for the Manning's if Peyton came to Washington--FYI Tom Condon represents both Peyton and Eli. People can say what they want on these here Internets, but real life business considerations are made in each and every professional decision in sports.

[Deadskins]

Restructuring by definition is to rearrange, in this case restructuring his remaining contract or base salaries in 2012: $7.4 million, 2013: $8.4 million, 2014: $9.4 million, and 2015: $10.4 million, + the $28 million option bonus. With the Colts you're talking about $35M+ over the next four years and the bonus, with the base salaries as the starting point.
On the open market he's starting with nothing, zero, zelch. He only has leverage if he talks, because if not they're going to tell him to walk.

Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you--like everyone else--don't believe the Colts intend to pay Peyton what he's owed under the contract. But, here you're arguing that he's "giving up" the money owed on his deal by not restructuring?? Yet more nonsense.

Man, if you would be less condescending and come down off your high-horse for long enough to actually read what 1niksder wrote, you might understand what he's saying. If Peyton restructures he would actually get that $28 million plus the $35 million he has left on his contract (plus more in the way of new signing bonuses), which is way more than he will ever get on the FA market. Now, we all know that Irsay is talking out of his behind, because he has no intention of retaining Manning. He's just making a public relations speech so the fanbase won't get all up in arms about him kicking Manning to the curb.

[1niksder]

Restructuring by definition is to rearrange, in this case restructuring his remaining contract or base salaries in 2012: $7.4 million, 2013: $8.4 million, 2014: $9.4 million, and 2015: $10.4 million, + the $28 million option bonus. With the Colts you're talking about $35M+ over the next four years and the bonus, with the base salaries as the starting point.
On the open market he's starting with nothing, zero, zelch. He only has leverage if he talks, because if not they're going to tell him to walk.

Now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you--like everyone else--don't believe the Colts intend to pay Peyton what he's owed under the contract. But, here you're arguing that he's "giving up" the money owed on his deal by not restructuring?? Yet more nonsense.

Man, if you would be less condescending and come down off your high-horse for long enough to actually read what 1niksder wrote, you might understand what he's saying. If Peyton restructures he would actually get that $28 million plus the $35 million he has left on his contract (plus more in the way of new signing bonuses), which is way more than he will ever get on the FA market. Now, we all know that Irsay is talking out of his behind, because he has no intention of retaining Manning. He's just making a public relations speech so the fanbase won't get all up in arms about him kicking Manning to the curb.

Don't keep the car running wait on that to happen.

[The Hogster]

Good day gentlemen

[Chris Luva Luva]

Man, if you would be less condescending and come down off your high-horse

It's just comical at this point.

[The Hogster]

Yeah, real comical.

“We’ve talked more in recent weeks than we have in most Februarys,” he said. “Peyton and I have talked and said that we’d like to just come to something that makes sense for both of us. It’s a difficult thing because sometimes circumstances are thrown at you. You take your hands out of the deck that you’re dealt, and you deal with them.”

From Manning’s perspective, however, what is there to negotiate? Irsay owes Manning $28 million by March 8. The only negotiation would be for Manning to agree to delay or reduce that bonus payment, and the Manning camp has indicated that’s not going to happen. The reality is that Manning wants to be the undisputed starter for a team with playoff aspirations, while the Colts want to rebuild around the No. 1 pick in the draft, probably Andrew Luck. There’s not going to be a solution that makes sense for both parties, other than going their separate ways.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... otiations/

It's not arrogance when you're right.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Who are you billing for all of this expert opinion???

Pro Bono.

That makes it worth every penny...

Someone on his "high horse" missed the obvious. He meant which of your clients were you billing for the time you were posting on the Hogs. He did not mean what are you charging "us." I mean duh, re-read it. And "we" are all stupid and unable to read and comprehend?

[Chris Luva Luva]

Yeah, real comical.

What makes it comical, is that your attitude stops people from really reading whatever it is your posting. Your "efforts" to enlighten others and rid yourself of dealing with their incompetence are failing..., because of you. Don't mind me though, I'm just a huge fan of irony.

[PulpExposure]

Yeah, real comical.

What makes it comical, is that your attitude stops people from really reading whatever it is your posting. Your "efforts" to enlighten others and rid yourself of dealing with their incompetence are failing..., because of you. Don't mind me though, I'm just a huge fan of irony.

I learned early on in my legal career when I moved in-house to a company that it's not just the message, often times it's more how you deliver it.

Your message gets lost if you act like a jerk.

[emoses14]

Yeah, real comical.

What makes it comical, is that your attitude stops people from really reading whatever it is your posting. Your "efforts" to enlighten others and rid yourself of dealing with their incompetence are failing..., because of you. Don't mind me though, I'm just a huge fan of irony.

I learned early on in my legal career when I moved in-house to a company that it's not just the message, often times it's more how you deliver it.

Your message gets lost if you act like a jerk.

The trick, as with many things in life, is to never ACT like the smartest guy in the room, even if you are, and especially when you are not.

Civility, pass it on.

[DarthMonk]

Yeah, real comical.

What makes it comical, is that your attitude stops people from really reading whatever it is your posting. Your "efforts" to enlighten others and rid yourself of dealing with their incompetence are failing..., because of you. Don't mind me though, I'm just a huge fan of irony.

I learned early on in my legal career when I moved in-house to a company that it's not just the message, often times it's more how you deliver it.

Your message gets lost if you act like a jerk.

The trick, as with many things in life, is to never ACT like the smartest guy in the room, even if you are, and especially when you are not.

Civility, pass it on.

My favorite is telling a poster he has no "analytic ability" while either displaying a complete lack of it or clearly indicating not having read the post of the poster being vilified (or both).

[The Hogster]

It would really matter if we had to like each other as people. Message boards are merely places to put words together for each other to read.

[KazooSkinsFan]

It would really matter if we had to like each other as people. Message boards are merely places to put words together for each other to read.

Which is what you are getting...dude...think about it...

I always like the thing how somehow an opinion is a right but an opinion on someone's opinion is somehow not a right. Typically the people who say that offer lots of opinions on other people's opinions.

[1niksder]

Yeah, real comical.

“We’ve talked more in recent weeks than we have in most Februarys,” he said. “Peyton and I have talked and said that we’d like to just come to something that makes sense for both of us. It’s a difficult thing because sometimes circumstances are thrown at you. You take your hands out of the deck that you’re dealt, and you deal with them.”

During Super Bowl week Peyton said they hadn't talked about his situation yet because Isay was busy as the host of the Super Bowl. He said they would probably talk sometime after that.

Does Irsay's say they talked about his contract? How do we know what they talked about from that chopped up statement?

From Manning’s perspective, however, what is there to negotiate? Irsay owes Manning $28 million by March 8. The only negotiation would be for Manning to agree to delay or reduce that bonus payment, and the Manning camp has indicated that’s not going to happen. The reality is that Manning wants to be the undisputed starter for a team with playoff aspirations, while the Colts want to rebuild around the No. 1 pick in the draft, probably Andrew Luck. There’s not going to be a solution that makes sense for both parties, other than going their separate ways.

That a statement from the writer and it's his assumption, it's not some that Manning told him. He says the Manning camp has indicated they won't be any negotiations. He does not say who in Manning's camp indicated that they won't.

It's not arrogance when you're right.

It's stupidity when you everyone knows you're wrong accept you.

Where have you posted anything that says they've talked about Manning excepting a new deal . You post a part of a story that says Manning and Irsay have talked in recent weeks.... That don't make you right. because you didn't take the time to see what was behind his statement. You read apart of something (no surprising) and thought "I knew I was right", then posted it here to show how smart you are.

Nice try but again you've proved nothing....You did teach me something though. Here's the full statement Irsay make before the writer chopped it up to fit his (and your) agenda.

"We've talked a lot this month, probably more than most Februarys, and it's probably not what most people think we talk about" he said. "Very recently, we got into a debate about will Tiger Woods win more majors than Jack Nicklaus or not."

I learned they talked about golf. Thanks for enlightening me.

But you're no where near proving you're right, if anything I proved he has more to lose by not talking about a new deal than he does standing his ground on a $28M option bonus. But nice try.