How is this different than Walker and McKenzie situations?

[outflow]

Sorry again, I can't keep up with all the threads.

This is the question I keep asking myself. I know this isn't about the actual dollar amount in the contract, but it still is a contractual issue nonetheless. So the main argument Favre gave against them doesn't hold anymore?

[Lurker64]

The main difference is that "people like Brett Favre more", other than that... there's not really any difference. Brett is being a prima donna.

[Pacopete4]

It's different because Favre WANTS to play, not hold a clipboard! Walker and McKenzie did not have playing time issues and they are no where near the talent that Favre does

Walker and McKenzie wanted MORE money after they had already received their big money from a front loaded contract...

Its two totally different situations..

[Bossman641]

Re: How is this different than Walker and McKenzie situation

Sorry again, I can't keep up with all the threads.

This is the question I keep asking myself. I know this isn't about the actual dollar amount in the contract, but it still is a contractual issue nonetheless. So the main argument Favre gave against them doesn't hold anymore?

Short answer: Because it's Favre

[The Shadow]

It's different because McKenzie & Walker don't seem to feel the need to inapropriately stick their 2 cents worth in.

[cheesner]

Re: How is this different than Walker and McKenzie situation

Sorry again, I can't keep up with all the threads.

This is the question I keep asking myself. I know this isn't about the actual dollar amount in the contract, but it still is a contractual issue nonetheless. So the main argument Favre gave against them doesn't hold anymore?

Better question, 'How is it similar?'

They were all Packers at one time who left the team. That is where the similarities end.

JWalk and McKen both were under contract and held out for more money. They demanded to be traded when they didn't get the money they wanted.

Favre retired, then yanked the Packers chain a few time, then said he wanted to come back but he wasn't 100% committed. What would you have done as a GM? TT is dead on in his treatment of this situation. Now that BF is spurned (in his mind anyway) he is now saying he is 100% committed.

[outflow]

Re: How is this different than Walker and McKenzie situation

Sorry again, I can't keep up with all the threads.

This is the question I keep asking myself. I know this isn't about the actual dollar amount in the contract, but it still is a contractual issue nonetheless. So the main argument Favre gave against them doesn't hold anymore?

Better question, 'How is it similar?'

They were all Packers at one time who left the team. That is where the similarities end.

JWalk and McKen both were under contract and held out for more money. They demanded to be traded when they didn't get the money they wanted.

Favre retired, then yanked the Packers chain a few time, then said he wanted to come back but he wasn't 100% committed. What would you have done as a GM? TT is dead on in his treatment of this situation. Now that BF is spurned (in his mind anyway) he is now saying he is 100% committed.

To me it should be similar in the fact that if he wants back in then he needs to oblige to the two years remaining on his contract, i.e. the Packers own his rights.

[Deputy Nutz]

Re: How is this different than Walker and McKenzie situation

Sorry again, I can't keep up with all the threads.

This is the question I keep asking myself. I know this isn't about the actual dollar amount in the contract, but it still is a contractual issue nonetheless. So the main argument Favre gave against them doesn't hold anymore?

Better question, 'How is it similar?'

They were all Packers at one time who left the team. That is where the similarities end.

JWalk and McKen both were under contract and held out for more money. They demanded to be traded when they didn't get the money they wanted.

Favre retired, then yanked the Packers chain a few time, then said he wanted to come back but he wasn't 100% committed. What would you have done as a GM? TT is dead on in his treatment of this situation. Now that BF is spurned (in his mind anyway) he is now saying he is 100% committed.

To me it should be similar in the fact that if he wants back in then he needs to oblige to the two years remaining on his contract, i.e. the Packers own his rights.

So if he breaks his leg he still has to play out his contract? He can retire or unretire whenever he wants. He isn't asking for more money, period. He doesn't feel wanted in Green Bay, that is too bad really it is. I am not going to speculate why he doesn't feel wanted, I hope he sheds some light on it tonight, I doubt it though.

[outflow]

It has nothing to do with him being retired or unretired. Simply, if he wants to play (unretire) he needs to live to his contract, not ask for a contractual release. Now was that difficult

[DonHutson]

It's different because McKenzie & Walker don't seem to feel the need to inapropriately stick their 2 cents worth in.

Ouch!

[Pacopete4]

It has nothing to do with him being retired or unretired. Simply, if he wants to play (unretire) he needs to live to his contract, not ask for a contractual release. Now was that difficult

No, I dont agree with this if they make an All Pro QB a backup.. then I side with Favre... now if he comes back and they will start em then yes, he should play here under his contract that he signed...

[sharpe1027]

Re: How is this different than Walker and McKenzie situation

Better question, 'How is it similar?'

They were all Packers at one time who left the team. That is where the similarities end.

JWalk and McKen both were under contract and held out for more money. They demanded to be traded when they didn't get the money they wanted.

Favre retired, then yanked the Packers chain a few time, then said he wanted to come back but he wasn't 100% committed. What would you have done as a GM? TT is dead on in his treatment of this situation. Now that BF is spurned (in his mind anyway) he is now saying he is 100% committed.

Favre is under contract too, assuming he ever puts in his request to unretire. Favre is not asking for more money, he's asking for complete release. At least with the Mckenzie and Walker situations the Packers were able to get fair compensation for them in a trade. Favre wants to completely tear up his contract. "Honor your contract" Brett.

[sheepshead]

You must not be a Packer fan if you have to ask this question.