Favre willing to take packers offer?

[boiga]

Zool, pft disagrees with you.

FAVRE MARKETING DEAL COULD COUNT AGAINST CAP
Posted by Michael David Smith on August 1, 2008, 11:13 a.m.

If Brett Favre does, in fact, take the $20 million deal that some call a marketing agreement and others call a bribe, the money the Packers pay Favre could count against the team’s salary cap.

Adam Schefter of NFL Network reports that while the case is so unusual that there’s no definitive rule governing it, mutliple NFL executives believe that the money paid to Favre would have to be considered in salary cap calculations. The reason is that the Packers would be deriving a football benefit, namely, keeping Favre off both their own team and other teams.

It is so far unknown how, exactly, such a deal would be structured. If the deal is, as reported, a 10-year, $20 million contract, would Favre count $2 million year against the Packers’ cap until 2017 — assuming that there is a salary cap in 2017? Or would part of the deal consist of the Packers paying Favre his base salary this season, and counting that $12 million against the cap this year’s cap?

We don’t know, because there’s never been a case quite like this one. But it’s an issue that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell would have to resolve before any deal could be finalized. http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/...t-against-cap/

So if there is a stipulation against playing for another team as part of the deal, odds are that it would count against the cap. This certainly supports JSO's angle that the deal has no relation to Favre's retirement discussion. I think zool is more likely right than PFT.

[DonHutson]

It sounds like the money would kick in when Favre retires, but it seems to be just speculation that Favre has to retire now to get the money. In fact, it's been pretty clearly stated that the money could kick in later if he decides to still come back.

So basically this is just a pat on the head to say "See, we still love you Brett. $20 million worth. Now if you still want to play for the Vikings to show us up, we still won't let you. So work with us on a trade or take your money and stay home."

It's a good move by Murphy to take some of the edge off the conflict. It's too bad this first hit the media as a bribe. The Packers once again got burned by trying to protect their and Brett's privacy.

[sheepshead]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/2008/07/31/2008-07-31_brett_favre_doesnt_fly_to_green_bay_quas.html

basically says Brett's not going to NYC.

[sheepshead]

against the cap?? that's ridiculous. Do Edger Bennett's and James Campens salaries count against the cap too. That's nutty speculation.

[digitaldean]

against the cap?? that's ridiculous. Do Edger Bennett's and James Campens salaries count against the cap too. That's nutty speculation.

If it's worded in a contract that he can't play for another team, then I could see. But then the NFLPA would scream bloody murder about it if that was the case.

It'll be interesting to see how this shakes later today (HOPEFULLY). I don't think the commish wants this to drag out through HOF weekend. I doubt he wants to get dogged about this reinstatement all weekend.

[Guiness]

Not sure what you think I'm saying, but there doesn't need to be any football related stipulations in the deal. The Packers control Brett Favre's destiny without including any football related stipulations in this deal.

I know what you're trying to say, but it doesn't entirely work. Think of this scenario:

Favre accepts the 'non-football contract', but decides he still wants to play, and shows up in camp! The the Packers are stuck paying him his salary in addition to this money, or have to cut him!

I think the rising possibility of this happening is why Murphy went down.

[Zool]

Not sure what you think I'm saying, but there doesn't need to be any football related stipulations in the deal. The Packers control Brett Favre's destiny without including any football related stipulations in this deal.

I know what you're trying to say, but it doesn't entirely work. Think of this scenario:

Favre accepts the 'non-football contract', but decides he still wants to play, and shows up in camp! The the Packers are stuck paying him his salary in addition to this money, or have to cut him!

I think the rising possibility of this happening is why Murphy went down.

I dont see how anyone who will not be playing football at all this season could count against the cap. He's not in IR or PUP or practice squad. Coaches dont count against the cap but the Packers derive a "football benefit" from their coaching.

[boiga]

I dont see how anyone who will not be playing football at all this season could count against the cap. He's not in IR or PUP or practice squad. Coaches dont count against the cap but the Packers derive a "football benefit" from their coaching.

It all hinges on whether Brett's staying retired for 2008 is written into the contract. The Packers are getting a "football benefit" by keeping Favre's rights and keeping him retired, which would normally never be allowed by the NFLPA.

However, if Favre still has complete liberty to play this year but the deal comes into play whenever he DOES retire, then there is no "football benefit" from the deal. So whether or not this deal was arranged to act as a bribe to keep Brett retired, the final wording is going to give him complete liberty to screw over the Packers this year while still getting paid by them next year.

[cpk1994]

I dont see how anyone who will not be playing football at all this season could count against the cap. He's not in IR or PUP or practice squad. Coaches dont count against the cap but the Packers derive a "football benefit" from their coaching.

It all hinges on whether Brett's staying retired for 2008 is written into the contract. The Packers are getting a "football benefit" by keeping Favre's rights and keeping him retired, which would normally never be allowed by the NFLPA.

However, if Favre still has complete liberty to play this year but the deal comes into play whenever he DOES retire, then there is no "football benefit" from the deal. So whether or not this deal was arranged to act as a bribe to keep Brett retired, the final wording is going to give him complete liberty to screw over the Packers this year while still getting paid by them next year.

How could Brett "screw the Packers". This deal would not start until he retires. If he continues to play he gets no money from the Packers for it until he stops again.

[Sparkey]

Here's a thought. Let him compete for the starting QB position and see what happens. So you piss off Rodgers - why not trade him for some value and have Favre groom Brohm/Flynn for another year or two.

Nah - too easy....

Because Rodgers is too good a QB to trade away. Because at this point Rodgers is more valuable to Green Bay than Favre, since Rodgers is 25 years old and Favre is 39. Because there's a greater chance that Rodgers will win a SB for us before his career is over than that Favre will.

Besides, Favre didn't "groom" Rodgers, MM did. Favre didn't want anything to do with that one, remember? What makes you think he'll change his tune for Brohm or Flynn?

Point is, Rodgers IS groomed. He's not completely raw like Brohm or Flynn, and there's no guarantee Favre stays beyond this season to bring them along even if he wanted to. What happens if Favre gets hurt - yes I know it hasn't happened but that doesn't mean it can't, especially after taking an unusual amount of time off - but what if he gets hurt and we don't have Rodgers to back him up anymore. Brohm fails, Flynn is overwhelmed, and we're screwed.

This isn't about doing whatever makes Favre happy. It's about making the transition from Favre to Rodgers as smooth as possible, because that is what is best for the Packers.

Also keep in mind, last year rosters were much larger than they are this year. Now the beginning of camp has a strict 80 man roster. I believe last year it was significantly higher. Meaning, if Favre comes to camp, they would need to cut a player to make room.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Also keep in mind, last year rosters were much larger than they are this year. Now the beginning of camp has a strict 80 man roster. I believe last year it was significantly higher. Meaning, if Favre comes to camp, they would need to cut a player to make room.

I don't believe it was significantly higher last year, but teams did receive roster exemptions for guys that played in NFLE. I think the Packers had 5 or 6 guys in NFLE last year.

It's the 80th guy on the roster. You only carry a 53 man roster. There will probably be cuts at the bottom end of the roster even before they have to get down to a 53 man roster. Hardly a big deal.

[vince]

Not sure what you think I'm saying, but there doesn't need to be any football related stipulations in the deal. The Packers control Brett Favre's destiny without including any football related stipulations in this deal.

I know what you're trying to say, but it doesn't entirely work. Think of this scenario:

Favre accepts the 'non-football contract', but decides he still wants to play, and shows up in camp! The the Packers are stuck paying him his salary in addition to this money, or have to cut him!

I think the rising possibility of this happening is why Murphy went down.

Brett can show up to camp, and this deal could still be in place - or not if Brett doesn't agree to it. They may wait until he officially retires to execute this agreement, but they certainly wouldn't have to. They are separate issues. As Ras said, there is no way that the Packers could (in writing) get away with making this deal contingent on his retirement or accepting a trade that they approve.

Brett could come in, work out individually or with the team - or he could wait until Rodgers either got hurt or was ineffective to return to the team - or he could wait until a team of his choosing makes an offer to his liking. All of this is independent of the spokesman/marketing/merchandising agreement being discussed.

In the end, the Packers still control Favre's destiny, unless they release him, which they've repeatedly said they will not do.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Brett could come in, work out individually or with the team - or he could wait until Rodgers either got hurt or was ineffective to return to the team .

I sure wish he could just join the team and be the goddamn backup. I understand why The Legend doesn't want to, but it wouldn't be so bad, people would admire him for it.

[texaspackerbacker]

The contract doesn't need to say he can't play for anybody else because the packers still have the rights to him through 2010. I suppose he could go elsewhere then, but 2011 for the Vikings, that's pretty far-fetched.

This contract would be the ultimate insurance policy--assuming they can pull it off and not have Brett end up pissed off, as the only team he could play for is the Packers--if needed because of an injury.

Get it done! It's the best solution all the way around.

[SnakeLH2006]

Wow..So it's true we can throw around 20 million to Favre for not even playing but we can't pay Ryan Grant more than a couple million to be our starting RB? Unreal..

big difference....

paying favre 20 million isn't to keep him from playing - its to keep him involved with the franchise and making money for the team long term, to help it remain profitable...its a BUSINESS decision

overpaying a RB with 1/2 a decent year who isn't a UFA for another 3 years, thats a football decision

Maybe so, but I can't see Favre taking the money to do that. He wants to play football and claims it's never been about the money. God knows he shouldn't need any.

It's true...I've been a big Favre supporter, but if he takes the money, it's leaves a salty taste....Why, unless he's bullied, would he take the $2 million a year, when he could make $12 million this year and play? Makes no sense unless they got dirt on that Chumura pool party.