Last week, we heard an unconfirmed rumor that the Packers were confident of their tampering case against the Vikings because they had eyeballed the records of a cell phone the team had issued to Brett Favre and had seen that Favre had had conversations with Vikings offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell and head coach Brad Childress.  (We didn’t mention this at the time, but the Packers apparently discerned Childress’s number via league-wide directories that are available to every team.)

Bob McGinn of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported earlier this week that, indeed, Favre had been using a team-issued cell phone, and that the records showed contact with Childress and Bevell.  We promptly pointed out that a team-issued cell phone would create a salary cap violation, unless the value of the phone were included in the player’s reported salary.

And it’s not a violation of the cap rules only if the unreported value of the cell phone would have pushed the Packers over the spending limit.  If any money or thing of value is given to a player and not disclosed, the cap rules have been broken.

So it’s no surprise that the Green Bay Press-Gazette is reporting now that Favre wasn’t using a team-issued cell phone, that he was never issued a cell phone by the team, and that no Packers player has a team-issued cell phone.  Frankly, we believe that the Packers are scrambling to avoid a finding that they violated the cap rules.

Our guess is that the Packers had seen the cell records but were smart enough not to disclose to the league the precise basis for their firm belief that the Vikings had tampered with Favre, since the Packers likely concluded that the league would learn via its own investigation of the cell records of Childress and Bevell that the calls had occurred.  Thus, the Packers avoided blowing the whistle on themselves regarding a potential cap violation.

If our suspicisions are correct, we don’t fault the Press-Gazette for being duped.  But, then again, the Press-Gazette doesn’t give proper credence to McGinn’s report.  Though we don’t mind being accused of exaggerating and/or making stuff up, McGinn is a respected journalist who surely wouldn’t have made the assertion if he wasn’t appropriately sure it was accurate.