Word leaking from Brett Favre-camp indicates that the quarterback will release a statement Tuesday saying he won’t play in 2010.
Fans on comment boards all over media sites are up in arms that he could hold the Vikings’ organization hostage like this.
Really?!?!?
This is the ride the team and the fans signed up for when Favre joined the Vikings a couple weeks before the 2009 season. And when he showed up he took the team and the fans on a helluva ride, finishing just a few yards and a couple minutes shy of the Super Bowl.
Newsflash, everyone. If Favre doesn’t play in 2010 it hampers the Vikings chances of making a similar run this year. But last year also doesn’t happen if Favre stays retired and Tarvaris Jackson starts at quarterback all year.
The developments coming out today should be a surprise to nobody. Favre was a diva three years ago. He was a diva two years ago. He was a diva a year ago. And he’ll be a diva a year from now.
I think there is still a 50-50 shot that he shows up to play in 2010. If he does, great. It will make the season much more interesting again.
If not, what do you expect? The guy is 40. He’s not going to last forever. His soap opera is annoying. But to be upset about it now is a bit ridiculous. You know going in what you are getting.
If he is gone for good, sure, it’s annoying that he waited this long to say so. But let’s keep this in perspective. The Vikings knew it was a year-to-year thing. The team should have done more to prepare for the possibility that he might decide to stay in Mississippi. Blaming Favre for doing something everyone knew he would ultimately end up doing is a little ridiculous at this point.
And at the end of the day, whether he plays or doesn’t at this point, he’s still succeeding in making the humdrum of training camp more entertaining. The craziest news thus far had to do with a Dallas Cowboys rookie wide receiver not carrying one of his teammate’s pads back to the locker room.
Now the media has some real pseudo-news to get excited about.
Loading ...
i’m just glad he’s the vikings problem…but i still think he’ll eventually show up at winter park at some point with lower expectations since a 75% favre is better than a 125% t-jack.
think the vikes are throwing more $$$ at him to reconsider his decision?
Now what is Ziggy going to do to get his new stadium?
Favre didn’t get Wilf his stadium this year. It’s going to be an uphill battle next year with or without Favre, I would think.
Gun, yes, I would guess there are going to be some financial issues discussed. The team is clearly better with him than without him. If his decision can be swayed by a couple million more dollars it will reveal plenty about Favre’s motivations.
Honestly finding it hard to get fired up about it because it doesn’t feel like the final chapter yet.
The legislature wasn’t going to act before the deadline. I believe, however, that Zig and the organization were betting on another phenomenal season to carry their message into the final year. With no quarterback or coach, their plea just got a whole lot tougher to sell.
It’s going to be a tough sell either way with a $6B deficit projected, though I don’t disagree that the sell got tougher.
I do think that the Legislature and the governor-to-be, however, are either going to think keeping the Vikings around is important or they aren’t.
If they were to move, where would it be? Los Angeles has a $200 million deficit. California itself is $19 billion short. Not that some city couldn’t put together a stadium package, but the Vikings aren’t just shopping for a place to hang their shoulder pads. They want a very generous revenue arrangement. Minnesota would probably hand over the Metrodome for free, if they’d take it.
That’s not what the Vikings want, and they have good reasons based on what other teams have been able to get. But it might be gut-check time for the league. Is the Jerry Jones’ football temple just the next step in ever-bigger projects? Or is it the pinnacle?
California’s deal is either supposedly done, or privately financed–can’t remember which. Would be interesting to see if the NFL really does put a team there–kind of costs them their biggest chip to use against cities when they threaten to leave…and there are at least 1-2 other teams that will be looking to move soon.
It’s a privately financed stadium in LA.
I heard something on LA recently that I thought was interesting. The league would rather have an expansion team go there because new teams pay fees and relocating teams don’t. The Texans in 2002 paid $700 million.
http://www.profootballhof.com/history/release.aspx?release_id=1286
That’s a pretty big chunk of change for owners to give up to move a Jacksonville (whose situation is worse than Minnesota’s is) or a Minnesota or a San Diego. Plus, as Tony notes, it would take away the biggest chip the league has to play the game.
So there could be an interesting game of chicken coming soon.
Los Angeles Stadium is privately financed, ignoring the $500 million in public bonds for infrastructure. It also hinges on adding 1.5 million square feet of profitable commercial real estate, during a time when some forecasters think the commercial market is about to go from bad to horrific.
No doubt about it, Roski is ambitious and he would appear to have a package together, just waiting for a team. I think Andy is right, about an interesting game of chicken coming up between the league, teams, and various cities. Maybe it will turn into a mad scramble as the Jaguars, Vikings, and Chargers try to grab the only viable relocation site? What does the NFL do with Jacksonville if someone else gets to LA first? Let them sit out there with 90% of the home games blacked out? Contraction?
Okay, largely privately financed.
I do believe there is the possibility that markets like Mexico City and Toronto come into play before too long. But Jacksonville is a troubling case study for the league. I think that is the market most in danger of losing a team to relocation in the near future.
I doubt it will happen through contraction. But I also don’t see expansion in the immediate picture either. 32 is about the perfect number of teams for scheduling purposes and, seemingly, for creating just about the right amount of supply and demand.
I think Minnesota has to decide something on the stadium situation, no doubt. But I do wonder if the reason the Wilfs haven’t threatened to relocate has something to do with a lack of leverage for those reasons mentioned above. Most owners would have at least hinted strongly that a move was imminent by now.
Not that the Wilfs wouldn’t sell the team to an out-of-state owner. But I don’t get the sense that they are anxious to pull out of the market themselves.
But who knows.
Why should the Wilfs leave? I mean, they painted the posts on the Metrodome purple…what more do they want?
I think the Wilfs understand that it doesn’t help their case to make threats. Everyone knows the situation regarding the Metrodome lease.
Andy’s point about lack of options is good. A stipulation of the LA stadium, as I understand it, is that 40% of team ownership is handed over in exchange for the stadium. Would that actually be a good deal for the Wilfs? Could the LA group afford an out-right purchase, which would nearly double their costs?
It seems to me that that making money off a real estate deal is a huge motivation for the Wilfs. They want to use a stadium as the centerpiece of a redevelopment project. That would appear to make LA unattractive to them.