We've probably gone over and beat nearly every single reason for this Brett Favre/Ted Thompson war to death.

But could all this Favre fever be simply a question of impending post-salary cap economics that's forcing the Packers' hand in not wanting Brett Favre to return?

Please understand: I'm not accusing the Packers of making a Favre decision purely on dollars and cents, or that it even comes into the equation.

But the numbers do put an interesting spin on the Favre situation.

Read more below this series of links:

Related Coverage:
• Favre Trade Closer?
• Packers Talk Favre at Shareholder Meeting
• Packers Likely to Postpone Favre's Jersey Retirement
• Analysis: Could Future Cash, No Cap Affect Packers/Favre

It's absolutely correct that the Packers are, right now, one of the most frugal teams in the National Football League when it comes to spending.

Perhaps they're paying great attention to the "uncapped year" of 2010, meaning the last year of the current NFL labor deal which means no salary cap for NFL teams. And no limit to how much they can spend.

This brings us to the issue of the style of ownership the Packers have: a non-profit ownership group that simply sends all profits back into the team.

Those profits can be spent on immediate needs or go into the team's cash reserves, which were $150,700,000 as of its June 2008 financial report.

At the time that report went public, team president Mark Murphy stated, "expenses are growing faster than revenues."

And oh, will they ever in 2010.

Free agents will demand monster contracts that year. Current free agents, knowing the uncapped year exists, can demand back-loaded deals that keep teams under the cap for 2009 but rip open teams' purse-strings the next year.

And if this uncapped year comes, there's probably no chance the NFL Players' Association will ever allow the cap to return.

Who's Got Deep Pockets? Not The Packers

The ownership structure immediately comes to a head in this situation.

Team owners like Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys and Bob Kraft of the New England Patriots have tons of cash reserves that are monstrously higher than $150,000,000.  And they'll spend it.

The Packers have no such luxury.

Think about how much the highest paid players in the NFL - now reaching $11,000,000 to $30,000,000 among the league's top 25 players.

Now, add in the uncapped year and the insane salaries that players will demand.

Say Aaron Rodgers, soon-to-be a free agent, meets fans' wishes and has a monster year.

He could easily ask for an average of $20,000,000/year and might want a seven-to-eight year deal.

If the Packers bite and re-sign him under that circumstances, there go the Packers' reserves. On one player.

I'm not saying Ted Thompson has that edict from the Packers' bean-counters to avoid such spending on any player, including a legend with a $13,000,000 salary cap number who retired, then reportedly twice cried wolf to Packers management on wanting to return for 2008.

Frankly, I think that Brett Favre is by far the best option for the Packers at quarterback in a year where a Super Bowl berth is not out of the question.

But if this is the Packers' reasoning, even if I don't agree with it, I think I can understand why.