Read the Journal/Sentinel article about John Jones' "leave of absence," and you'll be left wondering what the hell is going on:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=611059
Then read Mike Vandermause's column on PackersNews.com to get the full story:
http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070527/PKR07/705270670/1989
It's a bizarre story, that's for sure. To be several days away from giving over control of the organization, and then let a guy go? There must be some crazy shit behind this. Dog fighting? Cross-dressing?
And how did the J/S let this one slip by them?
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=611059
Then read Mike Vandermause's column on PackersNews.com to get the full story:
http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070527/PKR07/705270670/1989
It's a bizarre story, that's for sure. To be several days away from giving over control of the organization, and then let a guy go? There must be some crazy shit behind this. Dog fighting? Cross-dressing?
And how did the J/S let this one slip by them?
4 comments:
What am I missing? The JS article appears to have more info than the Gazette article. Was it updated?
-David
The Journal article speculates that Jones "could return." The Gazette article appears to know that there's no chance of this. What additional info does the JS article have?
If you commenting on the Gazzette saying he's out and the JS saying he's on a "paid leave" then sure that might be a scoop, maybe. I wathced the show of TV. The way the JS article states the situation is just how the Packers stated it. Now, everyone knows that "paid leave" is code for fired, so I read the same thing in both articles.
The JS article has more back story and more details that there was "something afoot" before Saturday and that rumors had lingered for weeks.
Generally, the JS article has a bit more meat, but they take the Packers approach to gracefully saying the guy is out the door. It also states its not for ethics reasons or personal conduct. The Gazzette article is more in depth on speculation as to Harlan's motives and this being his "finest hour"
I see both articles pretty much saying the same things in slightly differnt words.
My final verdict, "no scoop" (No bingo. NO BINGO!)
-David
You seem to be reading it differently than I am. JS (and my original post was regarding the Lori Nickel story, not the update, which does flesh it out more) left it in a very mysterious state. The tone of Vandermause's story is that he knows that Jones isn't coming back, and that's the key difference - JS doesn't say this.
Even in the Monday JS update by Don Walker they continue to be nebulous about it: "Harlan said Sunday that it was possible Jones could return to the franchise and assume control. 'Yes, we could bring 'JJ' back at some point,' Harlan said."
Vandermause stated it bluntly on Sunday: "In reality, he never will work for the Packers again, and the two sides will attempt to work out a severance package."
Very different.
Post a Comment