As things now to come to light.  I see both sides very well.  We weren't far off three years ago when we though that Thompson was running Favre out.  He didn't sign his offensive line and we all saw what losing TWO interior lineman did for the club.  As Favre pointed out, if you believe he's telling the truth, which I don't know why he would lie, that Thompson said he would sign at least one of them.  And then, coincidentally after Favre returns, they sign elsewhere.  The whole issue with Mariuchi not even getting the interview that he Thompson said he would explore.  And the Randy Moss fiasco that we knew that the risk was minimal and Thompson chose to go the other way.  It all worked out, but it worked out because  Favre had a career year last year. 

    I think if Thompson didn't want Favre's input he should have just told him to play football and let him worry about the architecture of the team.  But, he placated Favre with empty promises.  Still, that part of the business shouldn't be any concern of a player.  Like I said, I see both sides.

However, being strung along by someone over a course of a few years came to a head.  Favre doesn't respect the man he's is/was playing for, and I can't say I blame him if all Favre says is true. 

Let's see what Thompson's legacy is.  Now he has it the way he wants it. He has Favre out of the picture and all HIS pieces in place.  Let's see where it takes us.  I think he has a knack of evaluating talent and has made some good choices.  Not all of them, but a fair majority.  He does appear to be somewhat of liar though, which he didnt' need to be.  Hard to have respect for a leader that lies to you. 

Everyone wants to make the WORK analogy, how does that fit now. How motivated our you as an employee to work for a boss or supervisor that you know has lied to you and misled you.   Though it doesn't apply completely here, but almost thinking that you're in line for a promotion, and your'e the last one to hear that YOU didn't get the job.

Not to far off, is it?

TT learned from the master, Ron Wolf.  Did anyone ever believe anything that Ron Wolf spoke in public? I sure didn't.  I think it was his background in Army intelligence coming through--he wasn't going to tip his hand to anyone.  TT doesn't owe Brett, or you, azpackfan, any explanations of why.  All he owes us is winning football. 

azpackfan04:

As things now to come to light.  I see both sides very well.  We weren't far off three years ago when we though that Thompson was running Favre out.  He didn't sign his offensive line and we all saw what losing TWO interior lineman did for the club.  As Favre pointed out, if you believe he's telling the truth, which I don't know why he would lie, that Thompson said he would sign at least one of them.  And then, coincidentally after Favre returns, they sign elsewhere.  The whole issue with Mariuchi not even getting the interview that he Thompson said he would explore.  And the Randy Moss fiasco that we knew that the risk was minimal and Thompson chose to go the other way.  It all worked out, but it worked out because  Favre had a career year last year. 

    I think if Thompson didn't want Favre's input he should have just told him to play football and let him worry about the architecture of the team.  But, he placated Favre with empty promises.  Still, that part of the business shouldn't be any concern of a player.  Like I said, I see both sides.

However, being strung along by someone over a course of a few years came to a head.  Favre doesn't respect the man he's is/was playing for, and I can't say I blame him if all Favre says is true. 

Let's see what Thompson's legacy is.  Now he has it the way he wants it. He has Favre out of the picture and all HIS pieces in place.  Let's see where it takes us.  I think he has a knack of evaluating talent and has made some good choices.  Not all of them, but a fair majority.  He does appear to be somewhat of liar though, which he didnt' need to be.  Hard to have respect for a leader that lies to you. 

Everyone wants to make the WORK analogy, how does that fit now. How motivated our you as an employee to work for a boss or supervisor that you know has lied to you and misled you.   Though it doesn't apply completely here, but almost thinking that you're in line for a promotion, and your'e the last one to hear that YOU didn't get the job.

Not to far off, is it?

Work analogy, huh? Okay, here's a work analogy. The company had a legendary employee, Ben, in the shipping department. Most productive guy ever in shipping. A throwback to the roll-up-your-sleeves-and-get-it-done employees of old. He received every shipping industry award there is in his day. The company has prospered in part due to the shipping department's success.

The company also has a marketing department. Put a new guy, Tom, in charge three years ago. Before that Tom ran a successful marketing department for another big company and before that he worked under a former marketing head of this company for many years as he learned his business. Tom re-organized the department when he came in, which ruffled a few feathers at the time, but it went from a problem-filled department to one of the best marketing departments in the business world--Tom even won an industry award for it last year. .

One day Ben walked into Tom's office with several suggestions about how the marketing department should be run. Tom chatted politely with him and probably even considered Ben's suggestions, but decided for a number of reasons not to follow Ben's suggestions. 

Fast forward another year or two where Ben,  now the oldest shipping department head in the business world and still a legendary one, announced his retirement. The company was saddened, but as all company's must they had made plans and hired people, in this case several, to replace the legendary shipping department head. Then, after months of indecision (Where he approached the company about coming back and then changed his mind to stay retired.) Ben asked yet again about coming back and the company, impatient with all this, had to tell him they needed to move on and had made other plans.

This didn't sit well with Ben. So he and his friends decided it must be that Tom in marketing wanted him out. That must be it. After all, Tom refused to follow Ben's advice about marketing. So they approached the company and demanded that Tom be fired. The company says "No, Tom's doing a fine job in marketing." 

His family and friends couldn't believe it. How could the company be so ungrateful.

That's my analogy. Warp it as you will to fit your needs, but it's pretty close to the truth.

CalValleyFan:

It's not good business to squeeze a 16-year employee, the most glorified employee in the history of your organization, one who has garnered handsome revenues for your organization, never missed a work day, including during the most difficult of times, because you think you can get something in return.

--------------------------------------------

OK - you're in a VERY competitive business - a valued employee of yours retires unexpectedly while still under contract, goes public about how you're a duplicitous bag o' $hit, and DEMANDS his immediate release from contractual obligations and it's YOUR considered opinion that his request should be granted because he was a model employee?

THIS is good business?

Was he not compensated for his dedication and work ethic with an exorbitant salary AND exclusive rights and perks? (Missed meetings, flex-time, corner office, private jet, etc. etc.)

Just how much does your organization owe this ingrate?

And please tell me how it behooves YOU to simply cave in to his demands? AND potentially hurt YOUR livelihood by allowing this talented employee go to work for a competitor?

How is THAT good business?

And how will YOUR shareholders react when their earnings per share take the inevitable hit?

It's too easy...

And ENOUGH about Brett's personnel wishes...

NO GM is gonna make roster decisions based on a players wishes or whims. NO successful one anyway.

Brett wants his O-line intact...

well WHOOP DE FREAKIN' DOO!!!

Perhaps, just perhaps the GM has a different idea about where we're weakest and what positions we need to address first to make us competitive NOW. Perhaps he's looking at the ENTIRE team and has a little different perspective than a grizzled, immobile QB who's only interested in maintaining his playing streak. Perhaps there a salary concerns, perhaps the players just aren't worth what they're asking. I could go on and on.

TT's responsible for EVERY player and position on the team. Not just certain key ones.

This all goes back to Brett trying to be the alpha male from day one. And getting rebuffed.

Well all I can say is...

ITTY FVCKIN' BOO!!!

Grow up Brett - if you'd done YOUR job as well as TT's done his we just might have had a shot at the Bowl last season.

You said "no mas", "OOPS my bad", "nevermind"... and now we're supposed to take you at your word RE TT and cave to all of YOUR demands cause you're all verklempt?

Not in the real world... a place that Brett apparently escaped from a LONG time ago.

3 seasons buddy - or get on board and work out an amicable trade.

Otherwise you can comeback when you're 42.

I can't wait to see that season opener.

lamboo:

CalValleyFan:

It's not good business to squeeze a 16-year employee, the most glorified employee in the history of your organization, one who has garnered handsome revenues for your organization, never missed a work day, including during the most difficult of times, because you think you can get something in return.

--------------------------------------------

OK - you're in a VERY competitive business - a valued employee of yours retires unexpectedly while still under contract, goes public about how you're a duplicitous bag o' $hit, and DEMANDS his immediate release from contractual obligations and it's YOUR considered opinion that his request should be granted because he was a model employee?

THIS is good business?

Was he not compensated for his dedication and work ethic with an exorbitant salary AND exclusive rights and perks? (Missed meetings, flex-time, corner office, private jet, etc. etc.)

Just how much does your organization owe this ingrate?

And please tell me how it behooves YOU to simply cave in to his demands? AND potentially hurt YOUR livelihood by allowing this talented employee go to work for a competitor?

How is THAT good business?

And how will YOUR shareholders react when their earnings per share take the inevitable hit?

It's too easy...

Another decleater for lamboo. 

lamboo:

CalValleyFan:

It's not good business to squeeze a 16-year employee, the most glorified employee in the history of your organization, one who has garnered handsome revenues for your organization, never missed a work day, including during the most difficult of times, because you think you can get something in return.

--------------------------------------------

OK - you're in a VERY competitive business - a valued employee of yours retires unexpectedly while still under contract, goes public about how you're a duplicitous bag o' $hit, and DEMANDS his immediate release from contractual obligations and it's YOUR considered opinion that his request should be granted because he was a model employee?

THIS is good business?

Was he not compensated for his dedication and work ethic with an exorbitant salary AND exclusive rights and perks? (Missed meetings, flex-time, corner office, private jet, etc. etc.)

Just how much does your organization owe this ingrate?

And please tell me how it behooves YOU to simply cave in to his demands? AND potentially hurt YOUR livelihood by allowing this talented employee go to work for a competitor?

How is THAT good business?

And how will YOUR shareholders react when their earnings per share take the inevitable hit?

It's too easy...

Your version is what you want to see...you're starting to act like a liberal, and I know you're not. 

OK - you're in a VERY competitive business - a valued employee of yours retires unexpectedly while still under contract, goes public about how you're a duplicitous bag o' $hit, and DEMANDS his immediate release from contractual obligations and it's YOUR considered opinion that his request should be granted because he was a model employee?

You fail to mention that valued employee has a change of heart, requests to come back to your company and you tell him no, not here, not anywhere:-) Then when he asks for a release, you call a press conference and announce he can come back as your mail sorter. Again, you look at this without objectivity.

"Was he not compensated for his dedication and work ethic with an exorbitant salary AND exclusive rights and perks? (Missed meetings, flex-time, corner office, private jet, etc. etc.)"

So what you're saying is you have enabled him and he was treated differently? Hmmm...and now he is an ingrate becauase he might have that expectation. Inconsistency is not a good quality in a leader.

"And please tell me how it behooves YOU to simply cave in to his demands? AND potentially hurt YOUR livelihood by allowing this talented employee go to work for a competitor?"

If this employee is that valuable to my industry that allowing him to work for a competitor will truly have that great of an effect on my bottom line - in this case that is very debatable - then we must go back to step 1 and ask one question; Why did I tell this employee I cannot take them back?  I miscalculated and mishandled this from day one?

You're right...it's too simple, but you refuse to see it.

CalValleyFan:

If this employee is that valuable to my industry that allowing him to work for a competitor will truly have that great of an effect on my bottom line - in this case that is very debatable - then we must go back to step 1 and ask one question; Why did I tell this employee I cannot take them back?  I miscalculated and mishandled this from day one?

---------------------------------------------------------- 

So caving to this ONE disgruntled employee who has scuttled ANY chance of a viable working relationship with you OR your firm via his VERY public hissy fit denunciations of YOUR business acumen displays the "consistent leadership" that you say is essential for continued success?

Interesting - hopelessly nuanced and delusional, but interesting.

Your insistance on elevating one employees "feelings" and "welfare" over the good of the organization makes YOU the liberal in this conversation.

And you continue to minimize and conveniently forget that we don't HAVE to let him work for a competitor.

He's still under contract. 

Spin away...

lamboo:

 

CalValleyFan:

If this employee is that valuable to my industry that allowing him to work for a competitor will truly have that great of an effect on my bottom line - in this case that is very debatable - then we must go back to step 1 and ask one question; Why did I tell this employee I cannot take them back?  I miscalculated and mishandled this from day one?

---------------------------------------------------------- 

So caving to this ONE disgruntled employee who has scuttled ANY chance of a viable working relationship with you OR your firm via his VERY public hissy fit denunciations of YOUR business acumen displays the "consistent leadership" that you say is essential for continued success?

Interesting - hopelessly nuanced and delusional, but interesting.

Your insistance on elevating one employees "feelings" and "welfare" over the good of the organization makes YOU the liberal in this conversation.

And you continue to minimize and conveniently forget that we don't HAVE to let him work for a competitor.

He's still under contract. 

Spin away...

You just don't get it.

Viable options were 'scuttled' when Favre was told no, not here or anywhere...long before any public discourse. And if you think that touchy-feely interview was a 'VERY public hussy fit' then you are a little...naive.

It's not elevating one employees welfare over the org, rather just the opposite.

It's obviously too complex an interpersonal relationship for you to understand...I'll leave it at that.

CalValleyFan:

lamboo:

 

CalValleyFan:

If this employee is that valuable to my industry that allowing him to work for a competitor will truly have that great of an effect on my bottom line - in this case that is very debatable - then we must go back to step 1 and ask one question; Why did I tell this employee I cannot take them back?  I miscalculated and mishandled this from day one?

---------------------------------------------------------- 

So caving to this ONE disgruntled employee who has scuttled ANY chance of a viable working relationship with you OR your firm via his VERY public hissy fit denunciations of YOUR business acumen displays the "consistent leadership" that you say is essential for continued success?

Interesting - hopelessly nuanced and delusional, but interesting.

Your insistance on elevating one employees "feelings" and "welfare" over the good of the organization makes YOU the liberal in this conversation.

And you continue to minimize and conveniently forget that we don't HAVE to let him work for a competitor.

He's still under contract. 

Spin away...

You just don't get it.

Viable options were 'scuttled' when Favre was told no, not here or anywhere...long before any public discourse. And if you think that touchy-feely interview was a 'VERY public hussy fit' then you are a little...naive.

It's not elevating one employees welfare over the org, rather just the opposite.

It's obviously too complex an interpersonal relationship for you to understand...I'll leave it at that.

Forgot to add a quote from your beloved GM...I guess he's the liberal:-)

"I know I'm the focal point, but the Packer organization gets (dragged) into this, too, and what's important to me is the legacy of the Green Bay Packers and the legacy of Brett Favre"

To all who that may think the Packers have a better shot with Brett this coming season lets let the numbers speak

Last 5 games of 07

6 td passes 7 int's

59.8 completion percentage averaging totals for the five games

77.8 passer rating

reverted to 2006 Brett

wanted to come back in march, changed his mind when the Packers offered to go meet with him

Told ESPN in April that he was done had no desire to come back. lying?

Told Greta he doesn't know if he wants to play.

Doesn't seem very commited to me

I will gladly take my chances with Rodgers. He is commited to the team

CalValleyFan:

CalValleyFan:

lamboo:

 

CalValleyFan:

If this employee is that valuable to my industry that allowing him to work for a competitor will truly have that great of an effect on my bottom line - in this case that is very debatable - then we must go back to step 1 and ask one question; Why did I tell this employee I cannot take them back?  I miscalculated and mishandled this from day one?

---------------------------------------------------------- 

So caving to this ONE disgruntled employee who has scuttled ANY chance of a viable working relationship with you OR your firm via his VERY public hissy fit denunciations of YOUR business acumen displays the "consistent leadership" that you say is essential for continued success?

Interesting - hopelessly nuanced and delusional, but interesting.

Your insistance on elevating one employees "feelings" and "welfare" over the good of the organization makes YOU the liberal in this conversation.

And you continue to minimize and conveniently forget that we don't HAVE to let him work for a competitor.

He's still under contract. 

Spin away...

You just don't get it.

Viable options were 'scuttled' when Favre was told no, not here or anywhere...long before any public discourse. And if you think that touchy-feely interview was a 'VERY public hussy fit' then you are a little...naive.

It's not elevating one employees welfare over the org, rather just the opposite.

It's obviously too complex an interpersonal relationship for you to understand...I'll leave it at that.

Forgot to add a quote from your beloved GM...I guess he's the liberal:-)

"I know I'm the focal point, but the Packer organization gets (dragged) into this, too, and what's important to me is the legacy of the Green Bay Packers and the legacy of Brett Favre"

-------------------------------------------

You're right - I'M the confused one.

(insert eye roll here) 

Just curious, how would YOU characterize Brett's trashing of TT with GVS? I'd say he was intentionally burning bridges. Knowing full well that if he rejoined the Packers TT would be instantly neutered professionally. He made it a "him or me" proposition, which essentially sealed his fate.

And Brett's the ONLY one who's gone public in a very emotional and catty way - TT and the Packer brass have been VERY professional and magnanimous in their public statements RE this incident.

How many times have you heard of disgruntled former employees being brought back to their former position? PARTICULARLY when the business in question has already given the job to a younger exec who was trained, groomed and ready to plug in. Not to mention the promising young recruits that were brought on board as insurance for the future.

IF your retiree has specialized skills, he can be brought back on a part time basis as a consultant, or as a contractor. But this would certainly be compromised by the employees very public hostility to management. And to restore this cancer to his former key position goes against every management principle.

I know I'm wasting my time - as analogies obviously aren't your strong suit. 

Your overwhelming concern for the link versus the chain puts YOU squarely in the socialist / union camp. Which couldn't be MORE liberal.

RE TT's quote... if you can't tell corporate PR BS from corporate policy then you're not as smart as YOU think you are.

lamboo:

I know I'm wasting my time - as analogies obviously aren't your strong suit. 

Your overwhelming concern for the link versus the chain puts YOU squarely in the socialist / union camp. Which couldn't be MORE liberal.

I couldn't resist...the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective is the fundamental difference between democracy and marxism. You got it backwards pal:-0

As I stated  in prior thread, it appears this (and political philisophy) is much too sophisticated for you to grasp. Do yourself a favor and give the drum a rest.

Nice try...

YOUR preoccupation with the individual vs. the organization is STRAIGHT out of the socialist handbook.

The parasite (Favre) kills the host (Packers).

GM anyone?

Favre is one of "the many" (players) as opposed to the "the few" (management)

It's all about perspective...

and your perspective is skewed towards emotions and feelings, as opposed to capitalism which is geared towards producitivity and opportunity.

This is about whats best for the Packers - not whats OWED to Brett.

He's been royally compensated for his efforts.

And he's under contract...

right?

This IS a yes or no question.