Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
4 Pages«<234

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Formo  
#61 Posted : Sunday, May 23, 2010 7:42:19 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
and in the end ... not correct. :)


Comprehension my friend. I didn't predict how the Jets would do during the '09 season. I stated how they did in the '07 and '08 seasons.

" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
The packers offered him money to retire


No. They didn't. He was already retired. They offered him money for the rights to use his image in marketing campaigns for the next ten years. His return to the league, in any uniform, rendered such a deal moot.


Thus.. The money was for him to stay retired. =)
Nonstopdrivel  
#62 Posted : Sunday, May 23, 2010 7:52:02 PM(UTC)
No, it wasn't. The deal had been originally offered to him before he retired. But it makes no sense for a team to market a player who is on another roster, so naturally the offer was withdrawn when he went to the Jets.
dhazer  
#63 Posted : Sunday, May 23, 2010 9:41:30 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
No, it wasn't. The deal had been originally offered to him before he retired. But it makes no sense for a team to market a player who is on another roster, so naturally the offer was withdrawn when he went to the Jets.


Child please you know damn well the offer was made to keep him retired, everyone knows that. It's just like when your wife puts on something that is butt ugly and she asks how she looks and what do most men say? It looks good on you.
Nonstopdrivel  
#64 Posted : Monday, May 24, 2010 1:31:10 AM(UTC)
What part of "the offer was on the table before ever retired" do you not understand?

Your slandering of the front office doesn't make your allegations true. Everyone knew that the Duke boys had raped that girl too.

Fuck what everyone knows. The majority is usually wrong.
Formo  
#65 Posted : Monday, May 24, 2010 2:51:49 AM(UTC)
The offer could have been drawn up 2 years prior to his leaving the team in the first place.. The fact still remains that it required him to not return to the NFL in order for the contract to be valid.
Zero2Cool  
#66 Posted : Monday, May 24, 2010 3:06:19 AM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
The offer could have been drawn up 2 years prior to his leaving the team in the first place.. The fact still remains that it required him to not return to the NFL in order for the contract to be valid.


Brett told Al Jones he didn't understand why the media is referring to the Marketing Deal as a bribe because thats not what it is.
Nonstopdrivel  
#67 Posted : Monday, May 24, 2010 7:28:59 AM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
The fact still remains that it required him to not return to the NFL in order for the contract to be valid.


Are you insinuating that there is a clause in this contract stipulating that he must remain retired in order to receive the money? I highly doubt that this is so. I think it's simply a practical effect of the fact that it makes no logical (or economic) sense for a team to market a player who is playing for another organization.

But I don't know the official NFL policies on this matter. I don't know if there are procedures in place to prevent an organization from having such an agreement with another team's player (somewhat analogous to the league's tampering rules). I wonder if someone like Andrew Brandt or Tom Florio could clarify this for us.
Zero2Cool  
#68 Posted : Monday, May 24, 2010 8:23:49 AM(UTC)
If Favre is active as a NFL player, the Packers don't need his permission to use his name.

If Favre is retired from the NFL, the Packers need his permission (aka Marketing Agreement) to profit from his name.
dhazer  
#69 Posted : Monday, May 24, 2010 2:07:02 PM(UTC)
I think Favre should tell the Packers they can't use his name on anything, Ted Thompson wanted him gone so why should they make money off him?

edit: And just to shut up people saying they aren't check out Packer Pro shop.


http://www.packersprosho...?k=favre&x=0&y=0
Zero2Cool  
#70 Posted : Monday, May 24, 2010 6:00:40 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
I think Favre should tell the Packers they can't use his name on anything, Ted Thompson wanted him gone so why should they make money off him?

edit: And just to shut up people saying they aren't check out Packer Pro shop.


http://www.packersprosho...?k=favre&x=0&y=0


Didn't I just explain this in my previous post?
Nonstopdrivel  
#71 Posted : Monday, May 24, 2010 6:48:27 PM(UTC)
That would explain why the Packers Pro Shop isn't selling Reggie White jerseys, then. I was surprised when I found that out.
Pack93z  
#72 Posted : Monday, May 24, 2010 7:02:42 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
That would explain why the Packers Pro Shop isn't selling Reggie White jerseys, then. I was surprised when I found that out.


Shouldn't be when the Packers and Reggie's family had a falling out a couple years ago. I don't remember the reason.. but I remember it having marketing impacts. Googled for the article for reference.. can't seem to find it in a quick search..
Formo  
#73 Posted : Monday, May 24, 2010 8:34:46 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
The fact still remains that it required him to not return to the NFL in order for the contract to be valid.


Are you insinuating that there is a clause in this contract stipulating that he must remain retired in order to receive the money?


I'd imagine so. I don't know.. but I'm also one of the belief that the Packers drew up that agreement to ensure Favre's retirement.

" said: Go to Quoted Post
I highly doubt that this is so. I think it's simply a practical effect of the fact that it makes no logical (or economic) sense for a team to market a player who is playing for another organization.


I agree. But to cover all the bases I wouldn't be surprised to see a clause in said marketing agreement that touched on Favre's active status in the NFL
Zero2Cool  
#74 Posted : Monday, May 24, 2010 8:37:32 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
The fact still remains that it required him to not return to the NFL in order for the contract to be valid.


Are you insinuating that there is a clause in this contract stipulating that he must remain retired in order to receive the money?


I'd imagine so. I don't know.. but I'm also one of the belief that the Packers drew up that agreement to ensure Favre's retirement.


It was written up I believe two years prior to him announcing his retirement as a Packer. It was then brought up again, because ... ahh ... well he was RETIRED therefore it became a necessary topic of discussion. It's pretty simple. Oh, and another thing some seem to have forgotten, if he signed the agreement, Brett said he could have still unretired and played as the agreement would have been put on hold until he retired. Which kind of makes the whole 'bribe to stay retired' thing MOOTie POOTie.
Formo  
#75 Posted : Monday, May 24, 2010 8:42:04 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
The fact still remains that it required him to not return to the NFL in order for the contract to be valid.


Are you insinuating that there is a clause in this contract stipulating that he must remain retired in order to receive the money?


I'd imagine so. I don't know.. but I'm also one of the belief that the Packers drew up that agreement to ensure Favre's retirement.


It was written up I believe two years prior to him announcing his retirement as a Packer. It was then brought up again, because ... ahh ... well he was RETIRED therefore it became a necessary topic of discussion. It's pretty simple. Oh, and another thing some seem to have forgotten, if he signed the agreement, Brett said he could have still unretired and played as the agreement would have been put on hold until he retired. Which kind of makes the whole 'bribe to stay retired' thing MOOTie POOTie.


No one knew about the agreement until Favre started calling for a trade. You said it.. In order for the agreement to hold water he's have to stay retired.. Yes, it would still be in affect just on hold until he did officially retire.. But in order for him to bring in that money.. He'd have to stay retired. It's still a bribe in my mind, but you can continue to look at it like the way you do. I don't blame you.
Silentio  
#76 Posted : Sunday, May 30, 2010 10:29:03 PM(UTC)
That's pretty cool that Payton Manning posts on these boards...
Zero2Cool  
#77 Posted : Monday, May 31, 2010 3:42:35 AM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
No one knew about the agreement until Favre started calling for a trade. You said it.. In order for the agreement to hold water he's have to stay retired.. Yes, it would still be in affect just on hold until he did officially retire.. But in order for him to bring in that money.. He'd have to stay retired. It's still a bribe in my mind, but you can continue to look at it like the way you do. I don't blame you.



How do you view it as a bribe? Brett as well as the Packers acknowledged publicly it was something in the works for a couple years or more. The fact that it was brought up after he was retired, well, when the hell else should have they brought it up? Waited until the first game of the season and he wasn't in uniform? That'd be stupid. They wanted to continue using his name and profit from it. Strike while the iron is hot. They would have lost three months of potential financial profit off his name and likeness.

How is that constituted as a bribe?

Even if Brett had signed the Marketing Deal, he could have still unretired and the agreement would have been postponed until he was retired.

Again, how is it a bribe? Sounds more like you're pigeonholed in your own theory and molding facts to support it.
Formo  
#78 Posted : Monday, May 31, 2010 6:05:45 AM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
No one knew about the agreement until Favre started calling for a trade. You said it.. In order for the agreement to hold water he's have to stay retired.. Yes, it would still be in affect just on hold until he did officially retire.. But in order for him to bring in that money.. He'd have to stay retired. It's still a bribe in my mind, but you can continue to look at it like the way you do. I don't blame you.



How do you view it as a bribe? Brett as well as the Packers acknowledged publicly it was something in the works for a couple years or more. The fact that it was brought up after he was retired, well, when the hell else should have they brought it up? Waited until the first game of the season and he wasn't in uniform? That'd be stupid. They wanted to continue using his name and profit from it. Strike while the iron is hot. They would have lost three months of potential financial profit off his name and likeness.

How is that constituted as a bribe?

Even if Brett had signed the Marketing Deal, he could have still unretired and the agreement would have been postponed until he was retired.

Again, how is it a bribe? Sounds more like you're pigeonholed in your own theory and molding facts to support it.


I forgot how you can read the Packers brass' mind and their intentions. My bad.

Move along, nothing to see here.
Zero2Cool  
#79 Posted : Monday, May 31, 2010 1:05:26 PM(UTC)
lol

When it's something all parties are stating, it's usually good reason to believe its true. Why would they all say it, if it was not true?

It's fine that you want to believe your misguided nonsensical theory. I mean, you're a Vikings fan and you have to find any and every way to knock the Packers ... and this is obviously just another one of those methods. So, think how you wish. I won't embarrass you again by asking you to enlighten me with .... why. :P
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages«<234
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (24-May) : Sad about Cortez Kennedy. I remember playing him in Tecmo (beast!)
Cheesey (23-May) : RIP Cortez Kennedy
Smokey (23-May) : R.I.P.Sir Rodger (007) Moore .
Smokey (23-May) : Try Fish
Porforis (22-May) : Chicken 4 dayz!
gbguy20 (22-May) : Agreed
Smokey (21-May) : Yes, I like Chick-fil-a .
Smokey (21-May) : Rabid Chicken ? LOL
rabidgopher04 (21-May) : Chick fil a
Zero2Cool (20-May) : Penguins & Bad Guys Tied 2 apiece! LETS GO PENS!
Smokey (20-May) : Who sells the best Chicken Sandwich ? Wendy, the King, McD, etc. ?
Smokey (20-May) : Just Visiting ? Join and post today !
Zero2Cool (18-May) : Screw you. (signed Pens fan)
TheKanataThrilla (18-May) : Go Sens!!! Will be in the crowd for the Friday game.
Smokey (18-May) : E.Lacy makes weight in Seattle by 2 lbs. (253 lbs.)
buckeyepackfan (17-May) : Blount signs 1 year deal with Eagles.
DarkaneRules (14-May) : and still! Miocic & Jedrzejczyk
Zero2Cool (13-May) : RP ... you mean Go Pens ... I fix for you.
RaiderPride (13-May) : Gotta Love P.K. T.K.T. I agree.. Go Preds.
Smokey (12-May) : CB Kevin King signs 4 yr deal, no 5th year option .
TheKanataThrilla (12-May) : Go Nashville in the West
TheKanataThrilla (12-May) : My son is wearing his Mario Lemieux Pens shirt and my daughter is wearing he Sens shirt. We win no matter what.
Zero2Cool (11-May) : Aaron Nagler:Packers announce first training camp practice to be held Thursday, July 27
Zero2Cool (11-May) : Capitals are dirty weak trash.
Zero2Cool (11-May) : NHL is great! PENGUINS!!!!
yooperfan (10-May) : Screw the NBA and the NHL, neither are worth watching!
wpr (10-May) : hahaha. Poor Bettman. Worth the price to see it.
TheKanataThrilla (10-May) : Bettman would blow a gasket if it was an all-Canadian finals. I want Nashville as I am a huge Mike Fisher fan.
Smokey (10-May) : Cheap Shot ? I think not .
wpr (10-May) : Thrilla how about an all Canada Finals?
TheKanataThrilla (10-May) : Pens tomorrow. Screw you Caps for the cheap shot on Crosby.
TheKanataThrilla (10-May) : Go Sens. Want to see the Sens pull it out tomorrow.
DarkaneRules (9-May) : that's a good thing. means the players are staying out of trouble
DoddPower (9-May) : awfully quiet in here
DoddPower (3-May) : darn
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2017 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 7:30 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 8 @ 3:25 PM
at Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 15 @ 12:00 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 AM
- BYE -
Monday, Nov 6 @ 7:30 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
RAVENS
Sunday, Nov 26 @ 7:30 PM
at Steelers
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 10 @ 12:00 PM
at Browns
Saturday, Dec 23 @ 7:30 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 12:00 PM
at Lions
Saturday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
at Panthers
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Porforis

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

7h / Around The NFL / PackFanWithTwins

23-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

22-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

22-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

21-May / Packers Draft Threads / Smokey

20-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

19-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

19-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

18-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

18-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / hardrocker950

18-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

18-May / Around The NFL / Smokey

18-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

Headlines