Christl: No expense spared by team in Favre PR war
mark
Posted: Oct. 28, 2009
As saturated as the coverage was of the Brett Favre soap opera over the
summer of 2008, there was one story that begged to be investigated that
never was.
Why did the Green Bay Packers with its large public relations staff find it
necessary to retain the services of Ari Fleischer as a PR consultant?
Why would the Packers pay someone who had been at the center of the
politics-of-personal-destruction scene in Washington - isn't that the modus
operandi on both sides? - to wage a PR battle at the expense of maybe the
greatest player in the franchise's long, storied history, not to mention one
who was also putting $1 million a year into the team's coffers just through
jersey sales in its pro shop?
Was it all done to smear Favre's name?
Draw your own conclusions.
The Packers' association with Fleischer was first reported as a note in some
state newspapers on July 31, 2008.
Three days later, coach Mike McCarthy confirmed that Fleischer, who had
served as White House press secretary under George W. Bush, had been hired
as a consultant for the next month and said the arrangement had been made
well before that.
When exactly remains unclear, or at least it's uncertain as to when the
Packers started relying on Fleischer's advice with regard to the Favre
situation.
In an article about Ari Fleischer Sports Communications that appeared in The
Washington Post three months ago, it stated that Fleischer had reached an
agreement with the Packers in May 2008, to speak to the team three months
later.
On the evening of June 25, 2008, McCarthy, just after arriving in Door
County for a vacation with his family, received what apparently was the
phone call from Favre informing him that he planned to play again.
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 obvious intent was to show how Favre had vacillated
throughout the previous four months.
But what was most interesting was that it was a totally out of character
move by a franchise that had guarded all personnel matters as state secrets
since Ted Thompson had become general manager in 2005.
Four days later, after it became known that Favre was going to seek
reinstatement as a player and force the Packers' hand, the team remained on
the offensive.
A story was leaked that the Packers had filed a tampering charge against the
Minnesota Vikings, a charge that the NFL later decided was unfounded.
On July 31, Fleischer followed through on what McCarthy called his "long
time ago" booking and spoke to the full team.
On Aug. 3, McCarthy admitted that Fleischer was on the payroll. No doubt, he
didn't come cheap. The Post reported in its recent article that someone with
Fleischer's experience would typically receive $30,000 for a month's work as
a consultant and $10,000 for a single appearance.
By the time Favre was traded on Aug. 6, or soon thereafter, he was starting
to lose the PR battle and being trashed by numerous columnists and others in
the media, many of whom had never or almost never set foot in the Packers'
locker room.
The theme offered by Favre's critics was almost always the same: That he had
become a diva (a word that curiously kept popping up), and that he was a
self-absorbed ingrate for being wishy-washy and dragging out his decision.
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.
Don Hutson considered retirement and reported to camp late in 1939, and he
then announced his retirement before the 1943, '44 and '45 seasons, only to
play again. Forrest Gregg retired and unretired four times during his
career.
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.
And Lombardi himself harbored reservations about Starr to the point that he
tried to trade him to Dallas in the midst of his nine-year run as coach.
Lombardi also told former associates in Green Bay after his one year in
Washington that Sonny Jurgensen was a far better quarterback than Starr.
In Green Bay, meanwhile, there was ample evidence that members of the Packer
organization were spreading a similar theme in conversations with friends
and others.
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.
Members of the board of directors were informed of the decision but given
few details. One board member said the group was left with the distinct
impression that it was a subject it shouldn't talk about.
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.
So as Favre prepares to return to Lambeau Field for the first time as a
member of the Minnesota Vikings, if he's seeking revenge, maybe the
executive committee and not Thompson should be his target.
And maybe Packer fans everywhere should be more contemplative and concerned
than overly emotional about what has transpired in the last 15 months.
And here's why: If it wasn't former president Bob Harlan's greatest
strength, it was one of his top three, and that was his uncanny ability to
keep the other executive committee members at bay.
And history tells us that since 1923, when the Packers were first
incorporated, that when the executive committee is strongest, the team
usually is weakest and vice versa.
Make no mistake about it. The decision to hire Fleischer overlapped into
football operations.
All Thompson and his staff would have had to do is state their case - that
dumping an aging Favre and going with a younger quarterback was a sound
decision - and the history of the league would have backed their argument.
Steve Johnson
"mark" <ma...@yedssshooo.com> wrote in message news:hcek4k$u4j$1...@aioe.org...
> http://www.jsonline.com/packerinsider/66600162.html
Christl gives the impression that the Packers hired a political hatchet guy
to get Favre. In fact, Fleischer's group advises MANY sports executives
in baseball, boxing football, etc. Of course, Christl wouldn't have an
article if he pointed out that Fleischer's career now is advising sports
teams. It's much more insidious to imply he was hired right out of
Washington. Bud Selig has also hired Fleischer in the past - where's
Christl's "conspiracy" article on that? Go to Fleischers site and see for
yourself.
Why would the Packers hire a sports media consultant? Because during this
time, Favre was having an interview with Greta Van Susteren and getting his
mug on TV continually. It's not unreasonable that the Packers would hire a
sporting media consultant to help them deal with it.
Joan in GB-W
"Steve Johnson" <sjohn...@REMOVEaccessus.net> wrote in message
news:aYJGm.993$Js....@newsfe10.iad...
If ever a news reporter worshipped a sports figure, that man is Christl!
mark
"Joan in GB-W" <jjk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7l1ci5F...@mid.individual.net...
Cliff Christl is one of the most respected sports journalists in the
country.
Steve Johnson
"mark" <ma...@yedssshooo.com> wrote in message news:hcfvp1$ivj$1...@aioe.org...
Too bad he did zero investigative work on his article.
mark
"Steve Johnson" <sjohn...@REMOVEaccessus.net> wrote in message
Is there no limit to your ignorance?
nerd
the entire fiasco. My only problem was that they did not do it
sooner.
Favre himself had a firm doing PR for him. They still do. It's
called ESPN. Fox has Terry Bradshaw. ESPN wants Favre. And they'll
kiss his ass more than Mike Sherman to get him.
On Oct 30, 5:41 pm, "Steve Johnson" <sjohnson...@REMOVEaccessus.net>
wrote:
> "mark" <ma...@yedssshooo.com> wrote in messagenews:hcek4k$u4j$1...@aioe.org...
Steve Johnson
"nerd" <thehate...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a3130e91-716a-45eb...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>I thought that hiring Fleischer was the best thing they did throughout
>the entire fiasco. My only problem was that they did not do it
>sooner.
>Favre himself had a firm doing PR for him. They still do. It's
>called ESPN. Fox has Terry Bradshaw. ESPN wants Favre. And they'll
>kiss his ass more than Mike Sherman to get him.
Don't forget Greta Van Susteren. Hasn't she had more than just this one
interview with Favre?