What he did say was that the Colts saw what happened in Green Bay and they didn't want that to happen to them so they handled it differently/correctly.
Originally Posted by: sschind
Everything else is semantics, but scchind you hit the nail on the head with the above statement.
What is Favre saying was done differently/correctly by Colts that GB didn’t? There is only one possibility: Colts let Manning be a FA; GB refused to release Favre!
Manning was under contract; but if Colts didn’t pay $28M bonus at start of league year; he was a UFA. Colts didn’t “release” Manning; they simply chose not to pay the Bonus. And as was demonstrated in the other thread; the Colts did what was most fiscally responsible for the Colts. If Manning was signed to play, say for $1M, the Colts would not have released him either. This transaction was business and had NOTHING to do with GB...NOTHING.
For Favre to believe this and then actually publically announce this demonstrates a deep-seeded sociopathy; he truly believes everyone's thinking and the world revolve around him. I’d think him insane if I gave him credit for having an IQ above a turnip and a normal sense of worth. Maybe next Favre will say the rules committee considered his career when moving back the extra point or installing the play challenge system.
The Favre retirement drama-queen stuff is a red hearing. Only important fact is Favre eventually announced he was playing and the contract dictated the rest. Favre had 2 choices [retire or report] and the Packers were fine either way. If Favre reported the Packers had 3 choices:
1. Cut him;
2. Trade him; or
3. Let him “compete” and most likely back-up Aaron Rodgers [Pack was fine with this too].
The least fiscally responsible move for Ted Thompson was #1; Ted Thompson would have been a capologist moron to cut Favre. The most cap and long term team efficient thing to do #2. Wow, looky there: Ted Thompson did what was the best fiscally and practically for Teams’ viability-is anyone shocked by this? It’s business, what could Favre’s objection possibly be?
The Packers did NOTHING WRONG! The irrational “Favre lovers” desperately search for some way to justify his childish behavior. They call people with scholarly judgments like the foregoing as “Favre Haters” LOL [And yea, I despise Favre; but for Favre2’s [1999-present] BS on the field as a Packer and his off field crap]; and they red herring in the “divorce-card” to irrationally and confusingly cover Favre’s tantrum bullsh!t by proposing some feckless and factless idea that there’s fault on both sides. Folks, GB and Favre were not married...They had a CONTRACT! Here let me spell it...C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T. 1265, Indy-brass and Manning conducted their CONTRACTUAL business like gentlemen and businessmen and allowed the CONTRACT and their valid interests [IE as defined by the CONTRACT] to dictate their every move. Child Hick Boy got mad because he was not given his release in derogation of his CONTRACT; he expected 1265-brass to breach their fiduciary duty to the stockholders, so he could have his contract defying wish.
This is very simple!
PS: This is not a rehash of old stuff because Favre said what he said a few days ago. “The past” is only interjected to provide context for his comments.
PSS: Buckeye you're spot on about timing....LOL I noticed Aaron Rodgers had a previous engagement for the July thing...I'm waiting for Aaron Rodgers to announce he haa a previous engagement for T'giving Bears game, LOL.