If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or follow us on Facebook. Thanks for visiting!

The quarterback filling your football offseason with all the news you love to hear decided he’d share his side of the story and did so with Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren. In the interview, he discusses his motivations and his position with the Packers leadership group.

What I’m confused about is he says he wanted to set the record straight and then proceeded to hammer the organization for things like back up roles and wanting his freedom. What he has yet to say is why he came back in the first place. Was it the itch to play? Did the Packers front office “diss” you by moving ahead with Aaron Rodgers so you felt you had to put your name back in the picture? What is it?

I guess we’ll find out when part two is aired.

Whatever the case, the Packers leadership indicated an outright release wasn’t going to be happening for Favre, so if he is going to play, it will be for a team the Packers choose to trade him to. It’s either that or he waits to see if Rodgers gets hurt.

Updated at 2:52 PM CST

Apparently, I’m wrong about my last statement. Even if the Packers don’t release him, he has more say than one might think:

If the Packers agree to trade Favre to any team, the quarterback can veto the deal simply by declining to report. Then Favre’s rights would revert back to Green Bay, which would be forced to take him back along with his $12 million base salary — or release him.

To carry’s Favre salary, and all the distractions that came along with it, would be an enormous financial and emotional burden for the Packers. Thus Green Bay would have to commit to keeping Favre or to trade him.

But unless it is a team that appeals to Favre then the Packers quarterback can continue vetoing deals until he has a satisfactory new home.

Basically, if Favre unretires he gets to play where he wants.

Maybe there is hope for the Minnesota/Miami fans out there dreaming of a quarterback to lead their teams.