RSS

Favre and the Jets: Same Money, Different Contract

Andrew Brandt

Bookmark and Share Print This Send This August 22, 2008, 12:04 PM EST
7 Comments
 In the monumental trade of Brett Favre from the Packers to the Jets, there appears to be a twist in the contract that has not been previously reported.

 The Jets admirably did not renegotiate Favre’s 12M salary this year to fit the contract under their Cap, resisting temptation to gain some short-term Cap relief in exchange for added Cap charges from this contract next year and the year after.

We have learned that the contract was renegotiated, however.  The terms on the “back side” of the deal have been altered to the benefit of Favre.

When I negotiated this 10-year, 101M contract in 2001, it required, as all Packer contracts do, a number of appearances on behalf of the club, some worker’s compensation guidelines, and bonus recovery provisions in case of immoral behavior or retirement.  Those clauses are standard boilerplate in the industry.  Now in year eight of ten, that contract was assigned to the Jets in the recent trade.

The contract, however, no longer contains those terms.  According to multiple sources, there is no backside to the existing contract between Favre and the Jets.  Favre’s agent, Bus Cook, and the Jets have renegotiated the contract to consist of the identical financial terms from the Packers’ contract – 12M this year, 13M next and 14M in 2010 – and nothing more.  The language concerning appearances for the club and recovery of bonus due to retirement is no longer part of the deal.

Favre, if willing, is free to make appearances on behalf of the Jets to promote the team as it starts to play in a new stadium in 2010, but he has no contractual obligation to do so.  Favre can also retire from the Jets at any time and have no obligation to forfeit any of the bonus monies he has received (Tampa Bay recovered 3.5M from Jake Plummer after trading for a contract that required recovery upon retirement).

A renegotiation such as this could present a dangerous precedent for players who are traded and make certain non-economic demands, as well as for star players who want concessions outside of salary and bonus provisions.

However, it is understandable that Mike Tannenbaum and the Jets made some concessions to bring this iconic brand to their franchise.  With Favre’s tepid interest in playing for the Jets an issue prior to the trade, the renegotiation of his marketing and bonus recovery rights made the trade more palatable to the Favre camp at the time.

Another nugget from the Favre-Packers-Jets biopic; more to come in weeks ahead.

               

Comments

Add a Comment
Tom McLaughlin
Aug 22, 2008
03:05 PM

I wondered how he ended up there. I figured it would be Tampa Bay. Then we heard later that the Jets were given a 24 hour window to get an agreement with Favre. Still, I couldn't see how, if the Bucs really were the team he preferrred (behind the Packers and Vikings of course), why he didn't just wait a day or so.

Media reports were that Deanna and Bus were nudging him toward the Jets. I wondered how, if he had to do the work, he wouldn't want to do it for a playoff contender, for a coach he knows, and much closer to home.

I guess you just answered the question.

Thanks

Zack in Santa Barbara
Aug 22, 2008
03:35 PM

Is there anything that would prevent the Jets from cutting Favre, either mid-season or after the year, and Favre immediately signing with Minny?

matthew weiner
Aug 22, 2008
04:01 PM

As a lifelong Packer fan living in NJ (there are 2 of us on my block) who goes back to 1960 as a 4 yr old watching the beginning of that era AND living 5 miles from Giant Stadium the Jet fans and Giant fans alike ask the question: why did you let him go? I offer that when Jack Welch left GE and Jeff Immelt took the reins would GE be so willing to reverse that if Jack got "bored"? Of course not. No one is bigger than the organization, even Brett. Part of what we teach our kids is to make a good decision and stick with it, learn from it and keep growing. We're big Brett fans and are saddened by the loss of dignity but that's sadly part of the times within which we live, we see that alot in all professional fields. I wish Brett good luck and we'll see what we see (we're not glued to set fans) but it needs to be stated that when the retirement happens and organizations move on they need to do so with velocity and dedicated focus as the Packers have. There is no "nice" way to work out of this and the trade was as good as it would get. There is no book on stuff like this. The Packer mgmt did as well as could be expected and as another famous NJ guy has stated: "some day we'll look back on this and it will all seem funny...

Thanks, Andrew, good luck this season.

Steve Simons
Aug 22, 2008
07:48 PM

Andrew -
With that "boilerplate" gone in a contract, would it still be possible to collect a bonus payback under NFL rules?

It was my thought that the stipulation in the contract was more of an acknowledgement (and tehreby setting it in stone) by the player rather than the only legal binding to it. Under NFL rules, can't a team go after the player's bonus under the "conduct detrimental to the team policy?"

Ben
Aug 24, 2008
08:59 AM

I am thinking it was more "about the money" than people want to realize. "He makes $10 million a year, he doesn't need the money."
Oh really? a man who makes $50,000 a year spends most of that or more in a year. So why is it so hard to believe a man who makes $10 million can spend $10 million in a year. Half is gone to taxes right off the bat, Bus Cooke takes what? 10% of the gross salary. So know Brett is down to 4 million. Homes, farms, one bad business or two, and keeping ALL your families happy can eat up most of 4 million in a hurry. BTW, he wasn't making $10 million a year for 16 seasons.
When Brett retired, Bus Cookes best client retired. Do you think he really wanted him to stay retired? all the way around it WAS about the money AND the fact that he did want to play.

Phil Norton
Aug 29, 2008
02:53 PM

I have never heard Brett referred to as "an iconic brand" before. Thanks for opening my eyes.

PackerJetsCowboyFan
Sep 28, 2008
06:03 PM

U no what stinks is that i love the packers and brett farve and i was hoping he wouldnt change jets are awesome to but not as cool. well egleast he still has his number!!!


GO NUMBER #4!!!

Next 1 - 7 of 7 Prev COMMENTS

Add a Comment

* Required - Keep track of your comments Login or Register with NFP
(will not be published)