There are conflicting reports and suggestions about whether quarterback Brett Favre can accept the team’s proposed multi-million-dollar “marketing” deal and still play football for another team in 2008.
Per the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Favre can have his Packers cake and poop on it, too. The Journal-Sentinel reports that Packers president Mark Murphy broached the subject of a long-term post-football deal with Favre at the time he retired, and that one of the purposes of Murphy’s Wednesday trip to Mississippi was to finalize the arrangement.
Writes Tom Silverstein of the Journal-Sentinel: “He told Favre and his agent, James ‘Bus’ Cook, that the deal was on the table regardless of whether Favre decided to come back.”
But Favre, in the longest text message ever written, strongly implied to ESPN’s Ed Werder that taking the money would likewise end Favre’s effort to return to the gridiron.
“There isn’t a perfect solution to this, but Mark Murphy’s at least trying,” Favre thumb-typed to Werder. “We know what they want and where I stand. His solution, although awkward and unsettling for most, may be the best in the end. My intentions have been to play, and with Green Bay. They say no. So I still want to play in this division for obvious reasons, which I made clear to management. If they won’t let me play in Green Bay, let me play against you.”
Translation: “I only want to play for the Packers, Vikings, Bear, or Lions. But if they want to pay me $20 million not to, I just might take them up on it.”
And so it appears to us that the Packers are putting out bogus facts about the marketing deal, in order to avoid the negative P.R. hit that surely would come from the perception that they are buying Favre off. Indeed, the Journal-Sentinel article includes an express acknowledgement that ”[a]n NFL source who wanted the Packers’ side to be explained said Murphy’s financial offer was wrongly being portrayed as a bribe.”
If Favre takes the money and doesn’t play, it’s being accurately portrayed as a bribe. Because it is a bribe.
Do the Packers think we’re all stupid?
If this was a deal that the team first proposed in March, why did it take five months for the team to attempt to finalize the thing? And why were the efforts to do so made on the eve of Favre forcing the team’s hand by returning to the field?
Clearly and obviously, the Packers are caught in a bad situation. And they’re trying to buy their way out of it. And Favre apparently is preparing to let them do it.
_2.gif)






August 1st, 2008 at 6:59 am
ridiculous, no way he’ll be able to play for another team and then come back(especially if its the vikings) in a largely ceremonious role
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 7:04 am
Maybe it took 5 months because they are dealing with Hamlet. Or maybe it took 5 months because the deal was never seriously considered because Hamlet thought he was going back home to live the quiet life. Then when Hamlet saw what the quiet life entailed, he looked for something else. What else does he have? Nothing but football, and gentle encouragement to return from those close to him in Miss.
Hamlet is a relatively young, healthy guy to be retired with no purpose. It can’t take more than 3-4 hours a week to cut his lawn. Looking at this Far(v)ce only through the lens of building a 53 man roster misses some big points.
I still don’t see this offer as a bribe. It’s a good play which should have been made months ago, and was. The apparent lack of serious consideration given the proposal by FARv(C)E’s camp is telling.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.35 / 5 with 6 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 7:07 am
“My intentions have been to play…They say no.”
Boo-hoo.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 6 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 7:12 am
Arent the Packers publicly owned? SInce the money being offered to Farve isnt player related per say, wouldn’t they need approval from share holders for such an expense? If it is found out that there is no such marketing deal couldn’t the share holders sue for misappropriation of funds? I find it hard to believe that any share holder would write off on such a move.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 7:18 am
Any professional organization could forsee how bringing up that offer at that time would be percieved.
Basically their defense is that it wasn’t inappropriate,they’re just completely inept and were incapable of forseeing how it would appear.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.65 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 7:20 am
Of course it’s a bribe.
Bribes are always the last resort when all other options fail.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.65 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 7:21 am
My question, that I can’t remember seeing addressed anywhere, is how does this not violate the salary cap? Isn’t this an enormous loophole?
For instance, what if Jerry Jones came to Randy Moss this offseason and said, “I will give you the same contract that the Patriots are giving you, and I will also give you a $40 million marketing deal once you retire.” How is that any different? To me, it seems like a very easy way to circumvent the salary cap.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3.65 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 7:35 am
As a lifetime Bears fan, I never liked or respected Favre as much as I have through this situation. It seemed to me that he had a true fire burning to continue competing. This is the first time I have thought maybe his return has other motives. If he does not return and accepts the “bribe” he will have undone all that respect he just recently earned from me.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4.65 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 7:53 am
Can this story get any stranger? Favre should have stayed retired,period! The longer this thing goes on, the more selfish Favre looks. He definitely has tarnished his image.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 7:57 am
This is a classic case of rumor mongering, of the worst sort. Call it a bribe if you want, many other players in NFL history had marketing services contracts that paid them money after they retired, Dan Marino among them.
The complicating factor is that Favre has waffled on his playing status. The Packers point in all this is that it is hard to pay Favre a decent marketing services contract after his retirement if his next stop in the NFL are the BIQUEEN’s. Packer fans will never forgive him for wearing a gay colored purple uniform.
All this crap about a bribe is being made without any understanding of the context or details of the discussion. Favre has proven in the last 60 days that he will use the media to his advantage to win a PR war with the Packers, his own accountability for the circumstances be damned. It should be noted that almost every leak in this case has come from the Favre camp with its own unique spin.
So call it a bribe, smear the good name of well run organization if you will, all for what? More hits on your website?
Smarter people will take in all the facts even though it is more sensational to call it a bribe.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 6 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 7:59 am
Holy crap, it’s not like Favre to be indecisive like this. Weird.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 8:16 am
Hell yes it’s a bribe.
Bribes aren’t the last option, gunplay is.
If bf takes $ stay home, he doesn’t need an agent and bus shouldn’t get.a cut.
The hangers-on played a huge role in egging bf on in all this.
“Let’s you and them go fight”
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 8:23 am
Its not a salary cap violation because they can pay front office people whatever they want. I wonder if they can pay a player a very low ‘player’ salary, and give them another ‘job’ in the front office worth huge money where they really just come in and sit at a desk for an hour a day?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 3 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 8:30 am
Whew! Sure am glad Packer Management got this taken care of I mean I’m sure everyone is under contract by now…OH CRAP!…where did that Grant guy run off too?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
August 1st, 2008 at 8:31 am
“I still want to play in this division for obvious reasons, which I made clear to management. If they won’t let me play in Green Bay, let me play against you.”
And you say the Packers are trying to have it both ways? What the hell is wrong with this guy? He doesn’t just wanna play, he has to go out of his way to spite them for not letting a potential starter for the next 10 years walk out the door after his contract year without seeing what he had, which they would have done if he would have managed to make up his mind about whether he FELT LIKE playing before the friggin’ DRAFT.
I’d love to see him get screwed, but at this point, Packers: please just trade him to an NFC North team and make this stop, this is the most brutal story ever.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 8:48 am
Murphy made the offer in March.
Discussions about this offer took place later, but still before Favre got the itch to return.
Cook brought it up during the meeting on Wednesday, not Murphy.
How can that be considered a “bribe” the way everyone is portraying it to be?
And maybe, just maybe, it was Favre that wasn’t ready to sign the deal?
Why is it the Packers’ fault? And why should we believe the other sources that leaked this deal first, instead of the sources for this new information?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 9:03 am
Favre loves football and loves the Packers. He has been the Packers meal ticket for a long, long time and the organization stands to make A LOT OF MONEY off memorabilia, etc for a long, long, time after he’s retired, too - more if he stays retired as a Packer. Of course they are going to do everything possible to protect that income! But he wants to play and they don’t want him. Negotiating his release has been difficult. The Packers, at the end of the day, own his contract and can refuse to trade him or release him to a team he wants to play for (think Jake Plummer.) And it may have come to that. Let’s see how this plays out. One thing is for sure; Brett Favre isn’t giving up the fight for money.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 9:12 am
“They say no. So I still want to play in this division for obvious reasons, which I made clear to management. If they won’t let me play in Green Bay, let me play against you.”
Revenge?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 9:18 am
“well run organization”
Are you talking about the Packers? The Green Bay Packers?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 9:31 am
it’s all about bf. he wants to hold the organization hostage for ever.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 9:36 am
Why would he want to do a “”marketing deal”" when they are treating hi like this ?
I would wash my hands of the Pacjkers if I were Bert
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 9:39 am
Profootballtalk, can you guys be any more biased?
Yes, obviously what this is is a bribe.
Whats more important here is that Brett Favre MIGHT TAKE IT!?!?!
What happened to the love of the game? What happened to that itch to play? Seemingly its an itch to play only as Green Bays starter or to have revenge against them by playing in division. For some reason, the Jets or Bucs aren’t options?!?!
Favre is so full of sh1t, its ridiculous.
This has always been about the money. Don’t get it twisted. Bus Cook wants a final commission for getting Favre to play again, thats why HE’S been pushing this.
I’m sure BF’s wife Deanna is pushing this because she also gets a piece of the money as his wife. Who’s not trying to have their husband get another 9 million plus to play another year of a game?
This comes down to greed on the part of some parties, and Brett Favre allowing himself to be manipulated by forces around him.
And, of course, Brett Favre’s inability to be a man and stick to a decision.
This is just sad. But don’t put the bribe scenario on the Packers. They just know what anyone else can see: this whole thing was driven by Bus Cook and is money based. So a money-based solution might be best. Call it a bribe, but I’d call it giving Bus Cook, Deanna Favre, etc what they wanted all along.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 2.35 / 5 with 3 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 10:40 am
Why not 50 million over 2 years? If they are stupid enough to offer 20M, that means there’s more on the table…
And if this has been on the table since March, why does it come up now?
And to repeat someone else’s good question, how does it affect the salary cap? If you call it a ‘personal services’ contract, then why
can’t other RICH owners/teams (Snyder, Jones, Denver, NE) just
use that to stack their franchises with as many players as
possible?
“…under the terms of my personal services contract, I’m letting everyone know right now that my response to the comment of Aaron Rodgers sux at QB is ‘no comment’. “
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 4 / 5 with 1 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 10:40 am
This “marketing” agreement is really a non-compete clause often found in employment agreements. He shouldn’t be able to play for anyone, let alone an NFC North team. That said, if he does breach the agreement, he might have to repay the Packers any more that was paid via the agreement, but I can’t see them getting an injunction that would prevent Favre from playing for anyone.
Why won’t he just accept a trade to the Jets?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 1 / 5 with 2 rating(s)
August 1st, 2008 at 11:17 am
JimmySmith - you are such an idiot. I’m amazed that you can master turning on a computer, let alone typing on one. Since when is purple a “gay” color? Maybe lavender or pink; but purple? And you continue to call the Vikings “the Biqueens” - in capital letters, no less. If you weren’t such an idiot, I’d expect you to try to copyright the term - which, as I have told you before would indicate “less gay” than calling them the more familiar term - “the Viqueens.” In other words, Jimmy, “queens” is really all you need if you are trying to call them gay. The term “Bi” does not mean gay, it means bisexual - or, maybe in terms you might understand - going “both ways.”
Now, go back to your cranberry bog and drink your Miller High Life from a can and shut up.
Idiot.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: 5 / 5 with 3 rating(s)