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

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Formo  
#101 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  
#102 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 But it makes no sense for a team to market a player who is on another roster, so naturally the offer was withdrawn when he went to the Jets.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  
#103 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 But it makes no sense for a team to market a player who is on another roster, so naturally the offer was withdrawn when he went to the Jets.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  
#104 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  
#105 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  
#106 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  
#107 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  
#108 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  
#109 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  
#110 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  
#111 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  
#112 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  
#113 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  
#114 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  
#115 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  
#116 Posted : Sunday, May 30, 2010 10:29:03 PM(UTC)
That's pretty cool that Payton Manning posts on these boards...
Zero2Cool  
#117 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  
#118 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  
#119 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«<4
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 (now) : You don't follow the Pacers, do you?
gbguy20 (30m) : i must be missing something with the bye week comment
Smokey (1h) : Order your Pizza, Now !
Smokey (1h) : Packers
Smokey (1h) : Yes there is a bye week in the Pacers 2018 Schedule.
Zero2Cool (1h) : no charges? so the bomb was a dud??
Zero2Cool (1h) : No charges for WR Davis over LAX bomb joke
Cheesey (1h) : THE WRATH OF KHAN!!
Zero2Cool (2h) : damn caps
Zero2Cool (2h) : yEEHAW!!
Smokey (2h) : "DRAFT CHAT" Baby !
packerfanoutwest (5h) : Packers first pick will be lining up on with the defense
beast (5h) : If Packers trade up, they're grabbing James (or an ILB or CB) ;-P
beast (5h) : Sounds like Khan is moving the team to London in time.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : Here's an idea. Start a thread on who can pick the Packers #1 pick. Just make the pick only. No other comments.
Zero2Cool (6h) : This is NOT good
Zero2Cool (6h) : Shad Khan: I’m buying Wembley to keep the Jaguars stable in both London and Jacksonville
Zero2Cool (6h) : @AndrewBrandt Yes. The best GMs will leverage desperate teams tonight.
Zero2Cool (6h) : Today's Birthdays: StoicFire (30)
Zero2Cool (7h) : The Parlor is better than The Room.
beast (18h) : I believe the Packers seriously want to trade up (if they can find a price they like), I'm guessing for Fitzpatrick or James (though one guy said Ward). But could also be one of the ILBers (Smith or E
Smokey (20h) : Rumors are not money in the bank deals.
gbguy20 (22h) : pft reporting packers trying to trade up
Porforis (22h) : You're just a little chicken. Cheep Cheep Cheep Cheep Cheep Cheep Cheep Cheep Cheep
Nonstopdrivel (22h) : I don't want to talk about it.
Porforis (23h) : You're tearing me apart, Rourke!
Nonstopdrivel (23h) : (See "Moar Randomness" thread.)
Nonstopdrivel (23h) : It's a reference to The Room. I'm sorry, I forgot that not everyone knows about that movie. That's just my favorite line from that movie.
Porforis (25-Apr) : I... Can't tell if serious or The Room reference.
Barfarn (25-Apr) : Perhaps no or inadequte coverage in general
Barfarn (25-Apr) : I’d guess “no help” refers to men not being covered for breast cancer
wpr (25-Apr) : O no. Sorry to hear this NSD.
Zero2Cool (25-Apr) : Rourke, sorry to hear that, but who doesn't want to help you?
Cheesey (25-Apr) : Oh geez, nonstop. Like was said, we have your back.
TheKanataThrilla (25-Apr) : NSD sorry your post is a bit of a mind fuck, but obviously brother those here have your back.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2018 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 9 @ 7:20 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Sep 16 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Sep 23 @ 12:00 PM
Redskins
Sunday, Sep 30 @ 12:00 PM
BILLS
Sunday, Oct 7 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Monday, Oct 15 @ 7:15 PM
49ERS
Sunday, Oct 28 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Nov 4 @ 7:20 PM
Patriots
Sunday, Nov 11 @ 12:00 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Nov 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Sunday, Nov 25 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Dec 2 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Dec 9 @ 12:00 PM
FALCONS
Sunday, Dec 16 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Dec 23 @ 12:00 PM
Jets
Sunday, Dec 30 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
now / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

13m / Random Babble / Cheesey

14m / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

21m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Bigbyfan

30m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Bigbyfan

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

25-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

24-Apr / Around The NFL / dhazer

24-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

24-Apr / Random Babble / Cheesey

24-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines