Comments on: Context for Favre “bribe” debate

By: ja

ja — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:16:04 +0000

Re: 2, McGinn has credibility? Barely a week after he fabricated that phony team-issued cell phone story which was publicly refuted by both Favre and Thompson?

By: PackerBelle

PackerBelle — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:54:42 +0000

“But according to his own newspaper, Favre was making noise about wanting to return to football in March.”

I agree. However, Favre made his noise in late March and late June. There was plenty of time between March 3 and the end of March for them to have broached this. Similarly there was plenty of time between April 1st when he said he was staying retired and June 20th when he talked to Mike McCarthy about coming back to talk about it.

By: Ron La Canne

Ron La Canne — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:40:32 +0000

Steve, I guess that sums up Silversteen’s credibility, Half his stuff is made up. Why? To embelish his credentials to a really bad MJS Sports page. Don’t forget they employed that idiot, Dave Begel, for years. ESPN? Sports version of MSNBC.

By: verno329

verno329 — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:44:22 +0000

Can’t argue that the timing makes it look sleazy but Brett hasn’t exactly been a fountain of truth and class since mid-June either. Nothing changes the fact that both sides have behaved very poorly throughout all this. And how weird would it be to have someone being your ambassador of sorts after he has called the GM a liar on multiple occasions, and then said that if he can’t play from GB he wants to go somewhere in the division to stick it to them? Nothing makes sense anymore. Up is down, left is right, black is white, cats and dogs living together, its mass hysteria!

By: BratsNBeerGuy

BratsNBeerGuy — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:00:15 +0000

The timing did make it look suspicious, also Murphy or someone should have been more proactive in getting in front of the story when the original WTMJ story came out instead of letting it spread.

By: Donald's Designated Driver

Donald's Designated Driver — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:49:55 +0000

RLC: I completely agree with this. There is a lot going on here that we don’t know about and that we will never know about because the Packers are not going to air all of the dirty laundry no matter how much mud Camp Favre slings.

By: Donald's Designated Driver

Donald's Designated Driver — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:48:03 +0000

According to ESPN, both sides agree the offer was on the table since March. That’s not in dispute.

The offer was not necessarily intends to induce him to stay retired. It could have been a good will gesture intended to remind Favre that when he does retire, he might still want to be connected to the organization.

Up until Murphy’s visit, Camp Favre was not cooperating at all. In other words, the deal could have been an attempt to say “Hey Brett, let’s play nice here and find a mutually agreeable solution (be it a trade to the Jets or whatever). Let’s not burn our bridges because going forward in the future we hope that you will come home and be a fixture in our organization….”

Again, no body know. But there are other interpretations besides “its a bribe.”

By: Ron La Canne

Ron La Canne — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:36:08 +0000

Silversteen has no clue. He has never been a Packer insider. When I hear it from Mc Ginn , I’ll give it credence, not before. Regardless, the Murphy offer this week is just one of a number of issues on the burnner that make Packer Mgt, look foolish. I really don’t think they are. I still say there is something else going on and as a resuilt Packer Mgt. may be stuck because they don’t want to dump on a guy that played so well for so long. That may be wishful thinking, but I can’t believe an offer like that would occur knowing that it would look so pathetic.

I hope!

By: Aaron

Aaron — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:29:59 +0000

It’s a damn bribe. Please. Murphy heads down there on the eve of Favre reporting and all of the sudden, lo and behold, a ‘source’ is saying the offer was on the table in March? I don’t trust anyone anymore…