Is it because management wanted an "ace up their sleeve" to take advantage when they knew Favre would change his mind and want to come back?
That emotional outbreak for a speech occurred last March, which is now four months ago. Leading back to Favre’s announcing that he would like to return, he gave the explanation to Fox News’, Greta Van Susteren, that McCarthy had been “rushing him” about his commitment level for weeks in an apparent attempt to force, or rush the issue.
The Bleacher Report first broke that Favre had never filed official retirement documents weeks before he verified it “on the record,” and also questioned the motive for him to have to file for reinstatement when he was never technically retired to begin with.
Favre said that Mike McCarthy and Ted Thompson were pressing him for a 100 percent commitment for weeks, leading up to the “March ESPN Retirement Special,” and indicated that Packers' management had not been honest with the fans regarding several points surrounding his retirement, especially about using a Packers' issued cell phone to talk it out with other members of the NFL.
How would management know whom he called and when? Did they subpoena his phone records even though there is no legal case, or was it just an invasion of privacy? It seems more likely that they were speculating in hopes of making Favre look bad to fans. Instead, it backfired.
Management had a plan to handle Favre this past off-season, and the issue of Favre playing must have been fully covered by Green Bay management. They had plans to "bribe" Favre as early as March per Mike McCarthy admitting that is when he found out about it, and they may have forced Brett's retirement to benefit themselves.
It certainly does not benefit the team by letting the better quarter back go, and it does no good to berate No. 4 in front of the fans, who, in the end, pay the bill.
Favre and his agent "Bus" Cook had not mentioned any offers "being on the table" before this past week and were obviously being widely covered in the media.
Something that is “on the table” means that it was placed on the table, or as better put, “It was tabled by committee.”
Any one that has attended a board meeting would attest to the chairman of the board (Mark Murphy-President) “tabling” an issue as outlined by Robert's Rule of Order, which simply is another way of saying that a vote occurred and the issue was agreed upon to be re-visited at a more appropriate time.
Relative a "bribe to force Favre's retirement," there is never an appropriate time for that type discussion by committee, but McCarthy made clear that it was discussed and planned well in advance of ESPN "news broadcasters" announcing it.
It does not mean that Favre was offered this “bribe” four-and-a-half months ago; it means that the CMurphy brought to attention the reality of it being an option. McCarthy gave us management's insight of its intention to force Favre to retire and turn his back on the records, the fans, and the Hall of Fame.
To support the thesis, Nancy Pelosi recently “tabled” the discussion on the U.S. Drilling for Oil on American Soil, and Congress held a revolt. The Speaker left with her loyalist, turned off the lights and the cameras, but the opposition, who wanted to at least discuss a way out of high gas prices, remained on the floor in protest, but to no avail.
That “should” give the reader a firm grasp of the term “table” as used by any board whom votes on issues.
75 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete