Read here from nfl.com re the possibility that any sort of marketing deal/bribe may end up costing the Pack cap room. Sounds like it needs further processing by the league to determine if this would indeed be the case. I can pretty safely say that if we end up paying Favre $20-25 million to not play and some or all of that money counts against the cap, I will not be happy. If it comes to that we should get on the phone asap with the Vikings so we can get rid of this contract – and maybe pick up Antione Winfield or a 3rd round pick or something to make this all hurt less.
August 2, 2008 at 11:13 am |
Steve…Don’t know if you saw this quote from Silverstein this morning
If Favre signs the deal, there is a “stockpiling” rule that would prevent him from making a comeback this season. Former long snapper Rob Davis spoke of such a rule upon his retirement and acceptance of a full-time job as the Packers’ director of player development in March.
There is only a small window through which a player who has a non-playing contract with a club can still apply for reinstatement, but it closes well before the start of the regular season. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello confirmed that the rule existed and said any player on the reserve/retired list who was employed by a club off the field would not be eligible for the roster after the cut-down to 75 players.
This year, the deadline for teams to cut their rosters to 75 is 3 p.m. Aug. 26″
They are not sure how much if any would count against cap.
August 2, 2008 at 11:32 am |
“Executives believe the league would have to rule this way(add $20 million to the Cap) because Green Bay would be deriving a football benefit: Keeping Favre away from its team, which it wants, and keeping him away from opponents, which it also wants.”
_____________________________________________________________
This quote from the NFL.com article just adds fuel to increase the strain on my already over taxed circulatory system. Just how high can my blood pressure go before I explode?
Deriving “football value” by having someone not show up? My poor Packers are now facing the wrath of a bunch of pencil-neck Silicon Valley owners. Of course, they do give away their real motive in the same sentence. “And keeping him away from opponents.” Make the Packers release him and then they negotiate his contract down to their already tight Salary Caps (taking advantage of a manic/depressive and his greedy agent). We know what you jerks are up to. The PR valuse of having Favre on a team would be enormus. The Packers have no ownership voice so lets’ just blow them out of the way, “Just like we do to the competition, in our little digital world.”
MM’s quote at the end of the article give me concern. I’ve heard spinning in the corporate world trying to m akes things look like they are something they are not. This one fits that category:
“As popular or unpopular as it is, for as tough or as difficult as it is, I think the organization has stood strong,” McCarthy said. “They’re decisive, and they’re continuing to work through this. Everyone wants this resolved, don’t get me wrong. No one thought it would get to this point, but this is where we are.”
_____________________________________________________________
I still feel there is something no one knows that is keeping this fropm resolution. Why the PR offer? Why doesn’t the Comish sign the reinstatement letter? How could Minnesota attract Favre’s attention with $6 mil. in Cap money available? Favre has made millions every year since the early 90’s. Why does the money seem so important here?
August 2, 2008 at 10:47 pm |
Favre needs to retire and cement his legacy.
Minnesota does seem viable but they have holes at WR and couldn’t make the playoffs last year when they were rolling.