Cliff Christl's No expense spared by team in Favre PR war over at JSONLINE Insider is an outstanding article which I highly recommend.

I would LOVE to read it, but don't have Insider.

Bruce,
Can you hit the high points?

Wow, I can't believe you liked it that much, Bruce. I thought it was absolute tripe. The only interesting thing was the concern about the executive committee. And that was a bit overblown. I would have serious concern about the committee if they didn't try to soften the blow of the whole Favre fiasco.

Huh, I am surprised that you dismiss it as tripe.

While it changes little about how I preceived things and feel about the situation --

1. from a PR standpoint it was handled poorly by both sides and there was unnecessary pain and suffering for all involved including fans;
2. once it hit the point of no return there literally was no going back, but it did not need to continue down the road of mutual destruction;
3. everyone was human, no one person intend malice and all involved would do things much different if given another chance;
4. it was a sad ending to a great relationship that has and continues to divide the Packer nation;
5. I moved on the day Brett became an eX-Packer, and I wish others could/would...

... I do think it is a well written piece that shines light on the series of events that led to this mess - which in my opinion beats the Hell out of the irrational hysteria and adament "truths" that were fed by the PR campaigns.

I can understand someone saying I don't care I've moved on, but I am surprised by your lack of curiousity when you call it tripe - it makes me think you certainly were won over in the PR wars by a certain side.

Favre's a liar, and that comes straight from his own mouth and inner circle, not from any PR spin. That discredits him.

In hindsight, I wonder if there was/is any way for a stituation like that to not end up in extreme turmoil.

I don't really see how the Packers handled it so poorly. They didn't take the whole thing into the public spotlight - that was Favre when he went on with Greta S. He played dirty in order to try to put the pressure on the Packers. And then frequently lied about things.

That has nothing to do with Packers PR. That's Favre's own, public actions.

I have read the entire article................Interesting, although it seemed clear at the time that Fleischer was hired to deal with the Favre situation. The Packers' Executive Committee is a whole other issue. They were the guys who routinely submarined the team in the 70's and 80's and had a lot to do with the team's incompetence during those years. It's surprising to hear Bergstrom's name included, given that Favre was his car dealership's #1 spokesperson for many years. I'm not a big fan of the Board of Directors or the Executive Committee of the team. Harlan did keep them under control, partially because he was an insider. I wonder if Murphy has the stones to do the same thing.

My take on the article is that they did this to help smear his name....the following from the article says it best

[b]One of those who was most critical was Allen Barra of The Wall Street Journal, a publication that editorially was pro-Bush and one with which Fleischer might have had some influence.

While it was apparent from the article that Barra had little insight or knowledge about the Packers or their history, he certainly didn't mince words.

He compared Favre to a "prima donna," although veteran defensive tackle Ryan Pickett had said during the 2007 season that he had never played with a better teammate than Favre, and other players held Favre in similar respect.

Barra wrote that Favre had put the Packers "through hell" by not making up his mind about retirement, apparently ignorant of the fact that even if Favre was an over-the-top waffler, he didn't compare to two other Packers greats.
Barra also labeled Favre "probably the most overrated quarterback" in the modern NFL and argued that Bart Starr had a much better career.

Again, Barra probably had no clue that the only two assistant coaches from the Lombardi era who were still employed as scouts by the Packers when Favre was playing said there was no comparison between Favre and Starr, that Favre was that much better. [/b]

I thought that this organizaton was above that.

Well, I still am not an "insider" so don't know what the article says but I do find the above humorous.
Starting a thread regarding the undisputed most polarizing subject in Packer history over the past 20yrs or maybe ever and then stating "I moved on.....wish others could.

Not picking on you Bruce cuz I luv 95% of your posts, extremely informed and obviously written by a true fan of the Packers. My allegience lies with the Pack as well and not specific players. I just thought it a bit funny.

But I still would like the crib notes to the article.

If we had $1 for every person who said they've "moved on" from the situation who really hasn't we could almost pay off the national debt. I'd have to chip in myself.

I really have moved on. I still enjoy Brett Favre the football player, but hope we beat the HELL out of him Sunday at Lambeau -- because he is playing for a team I hope we beat the HELL out of.

I am interested in all things Packers - including operations and management. I thought Christl shined an interesting historical perspective on these processes. Which makes it interesting to me and I thought perhaps others.

The article is printed by packinatl up in the TT, MM Rodgers Forum. I held back because of potential Copy Rights problems.

Later if I have time I will print excerpts - the packinatl does some of that in this thread a few posts up.

Here is what Greg Bedard wrote in his chat yesterday about the articles reference to Alan Barra.


I agree with Bedard about this, the Barra connection seems to be completely speculation on Crystols part.


I agree that I do not like diminishing what he accomplished in Green Bay and any involvement by the Packers in this case, I find very sad. However, the argument about former Packer greats and retirement is a complete red herring. Back then there was no off-season programs, no mini-camps and players came into camp to get in shape. It's a year around game now and the two eras are completely different - not comparable.

I think there is a HUGE difference between a Smear Campaign and Covering Your Arse... When Brett said he was coming back the Packers knew it was gonna be ugly because as they say "the train has left the station" and it had. Articles like this are simply revisionist history. It is pretty easy to go back two years after the fact and spin situations and paint a picture. Doesn't necessarily make it any more accurate.

And if the Pack spent huge sums of money to get a defamatory article written in the Wall Street Journal (cuz that is were PackerNation goes to get there football news) that I and likely many others never even read until this thread then I would say that it was hardly money well spent. So everyone that wants to pile on "The Organization" for this cloak and dagger conspiracy to smear poor #4 you should be happy with the outcome, right?

Man, this game cannot come soon enough for me.

In their minds ( the Executive Committee / BOD) it very well may have been. As we all know if things are written on a national level they tend to get some legs. This IS NOT A RIP ON THOMPSON but how the EC and BOD meddled into the football side of things. As I mentioned they (EC / BOD) were the guys who routinely submarined the team in the 70's and 80's and had a lot to do with the team's incompetence during those years. I just hope that is not the case anymore.

Its one thing to do damage control with PR as you say cover your a@@ its another to leak and plant stories and run a smear job. I hope its the former and not the latter

Discussing process is not spinning anything. The Wall Street Journal was just an example of how widespread the PR campaign reached.

I am with you on the game cannot come soon enough for me either.

My first reply was a bit terse because I was on a mobile device, so I'll try to flesh out my tripe argument a bit more here.

Many of my problems with the article were summed up beautifully by Greg Bedard in his Insider Chat yesterday. Feel free to look at that as well (I don't want to start a Bedard vs. Christl war here either--but he did summarize what I felt. In general, I like different things about each guy, and dislike different things about them, as well).

-The first problem I have with the article is the title (which isn't Christl's fault, I recognize). $30,000 is "No expense spared"? I was waiting the whole article to see which expense wasn't spared. $30K is a lot to you and me, but a pittance to NFL franchises (I think that is Jerry Jones' monthly hair care expenses, for example).

-Christl claims this part of the story was under-reported. I don't know anyone who didn't know about Fleischer's involvement. And since Cliff brought to light close to zero additional facts in this column, I would say if it was underreported before, then it is still underreported.

-Christl is actually insinuating that the Packers somehow introduced the word 'diva' into the American lexicon just so all the sheep columnists could use it to describe Brett Favre. Um, yeah, right.

-A major portion of the article (as someone has posted here) focuses on some article from some dude from the WSJ who has at best a tenuous connection to Ari Fleischer. The article is complete hyperbole and nonsensical. How this is evidence that it was generated from the Packers PR department is beyond me. Everybody and their brother wrote about this thing last summer, and who, in their right mind, would pay attention to the Wall Street Journal for their sports commentary? Who cares? Never heard of this guy (and from what Bedard writes, despite being from the WSJ, this guy had done anti-Bush stuff as well). From what I could tell (from opinions here and elsewhere) the tide turned against Favre the most last summer after he opened his own yap in the Greta interview. Not in some grand conspiracy the Packers front office concocted.

-Christl describes the allegations of tampering as being 'unfounded' according to the league. That an exaggeration of the leagues findings. This is what Goodell said at the time, "he [Goodell] said in part that while those involved acknowledged conversations between Favre and Vikings coaches, 'none of those conversations suggest that Favre was soliciting a job or that other teams were soliciting his services.'". Doesn't sound 'unfounded' to me, more like 'not enough evidence to convict'.

-Something Bedard brings up is very important here too-if this was just "Billy Bob's PR firm" that the Packers paid $30,000 to, none of this would have been reported AT ALL. The fact that it was a guy who was a lightning rod for an extremely stormy president makes this sexy to talk about, when normally PR is boring and lame.

-And, finally, as I alluded to in my first post, of course the executive committee should have some say in this matter, because the handling (or mis-handling, as it were) of Favre's legacy goes far beyond just football operations.


So, while I think grand conspiracy advocates would find this column fascinating, I found it lacking in many ways.

I love discussing the process and I wasn't saying that any of the posters here (yourself included) was spinning anything. My reference is toward Christl's article as spin. If you write an article and publish it to the masses for consumption with IMO very flimsy connections between Ari and the WSJ author it is a SPIN.

The article simply takes guesses at to what "might" have happened, who might have said something, the role the Exec Committee might have played in this....etc. Has anyone gone on record as saying that the Packers hired Fleischer to control the Favre issue?

We all have an opinion about it and debate that opinion feverishly here but just because Christl tries to link A to B to C two years after the fact I am not taking the bait.

Actually, wether it's true or not it ALL happened after the Favre drama.
Now if someone produces an article that says the Packers spared no expense to get Favre to retire, then I think you have a story to tell.....but that's not the case here.

The way I see it a Large Company hired a PR guy to protect it's brand. Good business????? If it's Pepsi or Disney or anyone not associated with Brett it is. I guess were back where we started, The Packers made another good business decision. LOL.

I've seen this column on other forums and I still don't know what Christl is trying to say here. What was said by anyone at 1265 that could be construed as a smear campaign against Favre?? Why would Christl cite a guy from the WSJ who probably has never set foot in the Packers HQ as evidence the Packers hired Ari Fleischer to smear Favre? The Packers were indeed losing the PR battle cuz they weren't saying much and Favre's camp was talking to the media every week it seemed. So the Packers let everyone know that BF vacillated during this entire saga. I think they released that info so folks would know why the Packers said enough was enough and decided to move forward with Rodgers. Is telling the world that BF has a hard time making a decision something new and somehow damaging to BF? That offer by Murphy to coax BF to stay retired was a h3ll of lot more embarassing to the GBP than to #4. The Packers filed tampering charges to the NFL against MN. How is that a smear against BF? I suspect the charges were dropped because there was no hard evidence. Funny, isn't it, that the only team BF negociated with after getting his release from the Jets was the Vikings...

Some of this is old news but some of this is may have some legs, in other words where there is smoke there is fire. Ari Fleischer has many contacts from a media perspective. A friend of mine told me that on Belling's show yesterday he said Ari Fleisher gave him a call and asked if there was any information he had on Favre. Was he looking for dirt? Good question but lets face it that is the "Beltway Way". Yes they filed tampering charges but that story was "leaked" by someone much earlier. Just one more thought..the word "diva" So funny to me that reporters start calling Favre a diva when it was not at issue (at least publically) to Thompson and Company how long #4 took. Again just asking the question was that "diva" name planted also?? Wjhen you look at how Washington works, planting things and leaks are part of the game, yes and spilling dirt. My opinion on Thomspon with the whole Favre mess has changed after reading, he was just the messenger. What is does bring into light is how the Packer BOD and EC handled this. Its my opinion that Harlan would have kept that group in line.

People have been calling Favre a "diva" since at least 2005. I know. I've defended him against that label for years.

The Packers did everything they could to salvage a relationship with Favre. As Pugger points out, that $20 million offer was spun very negatively by the media as some sort of bribe to retire. The organization was the one who looked bad there.

It was the Greta interview that was the last straw for a lot of us. He did that himself.

Thompson was going to take a lot of heat regardless of how it happened. I think the Packers handled it about as well as they could have.

If you mean the Packers did everything related to Thompson and Mc Carthy I would agree 100% and this is again where I am changing my tune in regards to Thomspon on this matter, he was the messanger. If they wanted to "protect" the Packer brand by brinigng Fleischer that is fine and good. They saw a possible PR problem and asked for outside help, again no issues there, smart on many fronts. Where I find issue is the timeline with Fleischer. June 25, 2008 McCarthy is told by Favre that he wants to play again. Per the article less than three weeks later, the Packers went on the offensive and provided a detailed timeline about their discussions with Favre during the off-season. The intent (stated in the piece) was to show how Favre had vacillated throughout the previous four months. Again Belling said Fleisher gave him a call and asked if there was any information he had on Favre. For wjhat? Only Ari knows for sure. My point is the Washington Way is to plant stories, dig up dirt. Its a dirty game and they play it well. I posted sometime back that there is more to the Favre story that we will never know, the behind the scenes stuff. This is the stuff I was referencing.

Another note I found troubling from the article

This much about the Packers' decision to retain Fleischer as the Favre saga unfolded has been verified by several sources connected to the team. It was a decision made by an executive committee that has become increasingly more involved and not by Thompson or others in the football operation. And the decision was made as panic spread through the top of the organization over concern that the Favre matter could be devastating to the franchise's brand name.

One of the things that makes this organization special is how the operations end of the team (EC and BOD) do not get involved in football matter and leave that to the GM and HC. In this case that did not happen. One of the great thiings about Harlen was how he could "rope in" the BOD and EC. I am not sure Murphy has that skill

A far more even-handed and insightful review of last summer (and this coming from a guy who's been slighted by TT):

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/The-di...he-Packers.html

I just re-read your note above and I must admit I did not read the news article the same as you. Am I correct to believe that you feel it was the B.O.D. that did not want Favre back and that Thompson was the mouthpiece?

See I didnt get that out of it. I came to the conclusion that it was the B.O.D. that were behind hiring Ari to head off a PR nightmare in light of the Favre retirment / unretirement.

If your view is accurate we are in trouble if we allow car dealers to run a football team. While I believe they would be consulted/informed and possibly have to vote on TT making the move, if it came from the top down that is not a good sign.

On the other hand, if how I read it is true the fact that they (BOD) recognized the potential Sh*t Storm headed their direction and proactively hired Ari to defend the Packers good name against a PR nightmare that was a good move.

Another good take that illuminates the situation. Like I said, I don't know that any one has the market on capital T-ruth.

But it does make for interesting discussion as it relates to the Packers.

I am not sure how this is not Packers news - given it is dominating the sporting news currently, but I'll defer to the mods

Yes, I agree we probably won't know the whole truth ever. But, I think Andrew has a bit more insight into the behind-the-scenes stuff as a retired columnist would. Anyway this article jibes much better with my view of how things went down and the CC article (I guess I should say column) seemed more like mere speculation.

I think after #4 retired McCarthy and Thompson were ready to move on, but did they really believe it? Not sure.... After Favre told McCarthy he wanted to come back in June of 2008, they went on the defensive and Ari Fleisher was at the center of it. Why?? One can say there was no easy way around it and maybe that that is why they turned to Ari Fleisher..... Did the BOD/ EC what nothing to do with the circus that would have happened if #4 came back?? Was the "Packer Brand" more importiant to them??...They came out with a detailed timeline about discussions with Favre about 3 weeks later. Remember that Fleicher agreed to join the Packers in May of 2008 to "Speak to the team" , but was not reported until July 31 in some papers. After it became public Favre was going to seek reinstatement as a player and force the Packers' hand, a story was leaked that the Packers whad filed a tampering charge against the Vikings. Wonder who leaked that...Coincidence? IMO they owed Brett Favre the person much better. Was it time? Maybe yes and in retrospect it was, it was the right call. Favre the player earned ALOT of money playing football for the Green Bay Packers but he also made the Packers an obscene amount of money in return. This from the article

While some people on the board said they were becoming ever more wary of the growing influence of certain executive committee members - notably John Bergstrom and Carl Kuehne - at the expense of the administration, no board member offered any evidence that the reason for hiring Fleischer was to discredit Favre. At the same time, some team and league sources said it was evident that that turned out to be an end result

If that is true why try and discredit the guy. You knew what you were getting with Ari Fleisher. We was a Washington Beltway guy, he knew how to play dirty. I agree that if you see a s&^t storm coming as you say you prepare, but why a guy like Ari Fleisher. Any Madison Avenue PR firm worth its weight could deal with that situation.

What frustrated me from a management perspective is that they seemed to be completely unprepared for what many people felt was inevitable. I had actually thought he was done. I bought the tears and all that. But I could afford to take Favre at his word. They couldn't. There should have been a plan in place for this possibility. It appears that when he decided to unretire, they didn't have a clue what to do.

The most likely explanation for Brett's 2008 retirement (imo) is that this was his first serious attempt to avoid OTAs, camp and preseason. I believe he thought he could unretire, and come riding back into Green Bay as starter, just as the regular season was about to begin, having missed all the preseason stuff he hated. Turned out he was wrong as far as Green Bay were concerned, though he did avoid it anyway when he went to the Jets.

One of the reasons I think this, is his actions after the 2008 season. He could have had bicep surgery months earlier in 2009 than he did, but that would have meant he had no valid excuse to avoid the Vikings preseason. So he waited months to have surgery, and after a 6 week rehab, he had missed most of the Vikes TC. A little more leaving them hanging, and he joins at the end of Preseason.

I wonder what he'll do to avoid the 2010 preseason ? My guess is he either truly retires, or he 'retires' only to be 'persuaded back' at the end of preseason.

This is a cynical viewpoint, I don't deny it, and I'm sure there are still many posters out there who still love Brett and will take issue with it.

In this day and age, I would think just the opposite. I would think no corporate organization is above anything and it would surprise me only when one of them showed themselves above such things (which does happen with some frequency, but percentage-wise it's more than rare).


Oh man, another gem. At first I didn't even realize it was from the same poster. You've got to be kidding!

This explains why any anonymous government source can blow smoke up our collective arses and we're all jumping up and down like Mexican jumping beans.

I'm sure some people think the gods still live on Mount Olympus.