PT Statements 10/15/97

COMMISSIONER PAUL TAGLIABUE PRESS CONFERENCE, 10-15-97

NFL MEETING, WASHINGTON, DC

We had a good final session. The most important subject this morning, as I indicated yesterday, was going to be the Stadium Committee report and we had a good report, not just on Cleveland, Los Angeles and Houston but also on Pittsburgh, Denver and Arizona, where there are clear needs for improved stadium facilities.

We also discussed the Packers’ situation again, focusing on their long-term needs to continue. To have an outstanding stadium at some point in the future, the fact that they have to do that from the standpoint of a unique not-for-profit company and the bottom line on where the Packers are as they are trying to figure out how do they come up with the equivalent of some type of an owner contribution to a stadium project if they eventually get around to building a new stadium. I will be working with them in the coming weeks.

We finalized the arrangements for the Super Bowl in San Francisco. Super Bowl XXXVII will be held in January 2003. Super Bowl XXXVI in January 2002 will be awarded at next October’s League Meeting. The final candidates for that game in 2002 have yet to be determined.

We had reports on some other miscellaneous subjects. At the request of the Mayor of San Diego, I brought up our TV blackout policy as it’s applying in San Diego this year to the renovated and expanded stadium. We have an issue there and reported to the membership that after discussing it with the Broadcast Committee we concluded that we should adhere to the existing policy. That’s the sensible thing to do both in San Diego and in terms of league-wide applications of uniform standards. We had some discussion of new a technology as it relates to game films and things like that. Those are the major areas leading into the final session this afternoon. George Young and John Beake, Bill Polian, Charley Casserly, Carl Peterson and others have been working very hard on this, first-of-a-kind football operations meeting. I’ll be going in there hopefully in the next 10-15 minutes to start that meeting.

Can you be specific on the Cleveland time line that was discussed there?

We discussed the time-line and the fact that we would be recommending putting together a football operations group so that if a there is an expansion team in Cleveland we would have the player personnel functioning in place at some point between February and April next year. Then we talked about decision making at the March meeting and/or at the May meeting next year to meet the commitment we have to Cleveland to make our decision by November 1998.

What was discussed about Houston?

Houston was discussed. The pieces seem to be in place or could shortly be in place from Houston’s perspective to go forward with a stadium for the NFL. There appears to be owners such as Bob McNair or business people in the community, potential owners who are stepping forward and want to play a leadership position and offer financial stability, offer the types of business experience and management skills that have proved so successful in Jacksonville and Carolina. And we recognize that is an opportunity for the league and we need to work with the Houston community to determine how and when they might expect to get a franchise. Obviously, we have never encouraged anyone to build a stadium on the theory "build and we will come." So we realize we have to intensify our discussions with people in Houston.

Why didn’t you vote on the Green Bay Packers’ stock plan?

It’s not clear that a vote is needed. The Packers’ stock structure and their status as a not-for-profit was grandfathered in 1950 and was reconfirmed as a unique not-for-profit NFL team at the time of the AFL-NFL merger in 1970. What we need to do is work through our office with the Packers’ people to restructure the concept, to work with them as they present it in their community, and to focus it so that it can enable a not-for-profit to have some owner contribution to financing of a stadium such as Dan Rooney is committed to doing in Pittsburgh and other owners are doing in other contexts.

What is objectionable about the Green Bay proposal right now?

I don’t know that there is anything objectionable. We just haven’t focused it both within what they were traditionally grandfathered to do and on the not-for-profit status and the concept of a stadium. There is nothing objectionable about it. It just needs to be focused more sharply.

Is there any worry about how the $80 million will be used?

Eighty million, that to me is a highly speculative, kind of funny-money number. Whether it’s $8 million or $80 million, the thing that’s critical is to understand that the Packers are not for profit that this so-called stock is a very unique thing. It’s like a capital contribution of a community ownership to a team. You don’t get dividends. You don’t get distributions of profits. It’s like an owner contribution to a stadium. And that needs to be made clear both to their stockholders and to the entire community. But that has not yet been done in my judgment. That’s what we’re working with them on. It’s a not-for-profit ownership capital contribution to a stadium project. It’s not like the Boston Celtics being publicly traded. It has nothing to do with Wayne Huizenga’s publicly traded hockey team. It has nothing to do with the Boston Celtics. It has to do with something that is totally unique to Green Bay, totally unique to the NFL, good for the NFL, and good for Green Bay. But we haven’t focused it in that way and that’s what we’re working on.

Is the Green Bay proposal fuzzy?

The Green Bay proposal is fuzzy, yes. Those are your words and I’ll except the characterization. It is not where I want it to be.

Could you tell us what you talked about specifically with Houston? Is there a financing plan for the stadium?

What we talked about this morning with Jerry Richardson is that we, meaning my office and the Stadium Committee, which Jerry chair’s, will be giving priority between now and our March meeting to the LA presentation that was made yesterday and to the situation in Houston so that we can really put together a definitive financial plan relative to something that can be doable in LA and a stadium in Houston. So, hopefully, we can get to the point where we got in Cleveland where it becomes a contractual obligation or it becomes a commitment that people can act upon rather than just a continuing subject of exploration and discussion.

What was the discussion on LA?

The discussion on LA was that what he heard and saw yesterday involved a key new element, which was a financing plan that in terms of the sources of the funds was more realistic in terms of what’s needed. There was a focus on some prudent use of public money on infrastructure and other aspects of the project and also the fact that the LA people are willing to work at the state level, not just for something that will work in LA but something that over time could work throughout California, whether it be San Diego, whether it be San Francisco Oakland, whether it be Sacramento. But there is a need to do something at the state level and that was a very significant step forward from the standpoint of our committee.

So you continued to focus on the Coliseum in Los Angeles?

We are going to work real hard with the Coliseum people and the Houston people between now and the March meeting. I don’t think we’ve ever had an exclusive focus on the Coliseum. We were asked by the Mayor to work with the Coliseum people. We have done that. We will continue to do that, but there is not any exclusivity there. If other concepts emerge that are sensible within the LA community, we will look at those too. The other thing is that in terms of priorities the reality is the last 24-36 months we’ve been very heavily involved in Tampa, Seattle, Cincinnati, a number of places where we had major projects, including San Francisco, which have now been accomplished. So we can now turn to some additional priorities, which include Pittsburgh, Denver and Arizona as major priorities for the league and major needs for these teams but also Los Angeles and Houston as part of our growth and planning as we place the team in Cleveland in 1999. That was sort of the framework of the discussion.

Was there any discussion of settlement in the St. Louis case?

The St. Louis case was not discussed at all, no. Not at all this week, neither today nor previously.

Where do things stand with the other three cities, you mentioned Pittsburgh, Denver and Arizona? Where are they?

In Pittsburgh, there is a referendum in early November and Dan Rooney and his family committed recently to a major multi-million dollar contribution to the project. They have sort of an open-ended lease situation there. Three Rivers Stadium will soon be 30 years old and I am going to be working with Dan Rooney and Art on the referendum just as I have been working with Pat Bowlen on the Denver situation. I met in Arizona last May with the five Mayors who are involved with the Bidwills. So we have been involved and will continue to be involved with those projects. And again, as each one gets closer our involvement will intensify.

How likely will it be that the owners will do a two-phase resolution with Cleveland? Deciding on relocation versus expansion?

I would think that it would probably be two-phased. We haven’t made that decision but what you’ve just outlined is certainly possible and might be logical.

What about the Minnesota Vikings’ situation?

I have been involved in that since September of 1996 when I testified before the task force up in Minnesota. It’s not been a subject of heavy discussion this week because we have already been on top of it. I was up at the Vikings’ training camp in July and spent a lot of time with Roger Hendrick then and we have been working on that since 1996. It’s very important. It’s in the legislature. It was not discussed heavily this week because we are already on top of it.

Why would Houston have a prayer competing with LA if there was an expansion team available?

I guess you can ask why would Jacksonville have a prayer competing with two other cities. Houston is the fourth or fifth-largest city in the country. Texas has been a great source of football talent in America, great interest in football. It’s the second-largest state in the union, I think, at this point to California. All the fundamentals have been there. That’s been the unfortunate thing . I’ve said before, all the fundamentals are there in Houston but the situation deteriorated leading to the Oilers leaving. If you look back at the fundamentals and take account of what has been done in terms of authorizing legislation for the stadium, Houston should be able to compete with anyone in the country. I had those conversations with Senator Graham a year ago and I think it’s obvious. It’s been one of the leadership cities in America and should continue to be.

Could you see a much larger expansion fee for Cleveland because they are retaining the name?

I don’t think that the retaining of the name would be a big factor in the expansion fee. The fee would primarily be driven by fundamentals that would have to do with where our TV rights are, whether we have a good long-term labor deal in place and those are the main denominators of value. Plus the market and the stadium would be much more significant than the name. I think the name is critical. The stability represented by that and the continuity is critical, but I don’t see that it becomes a factor in valuing the opportunity.

When a franchise gets to the point where it’s $250 million, is it so expensive that it would be hard to find one guy to buy that team?

I don’t think so. We have not had that problem to this date. And the way we have our ownership rules now, where a controlling owner can have 30 percent and can have limited partners up to 25 in number, those ownership structures are sensible. I don’t think that’s a problem.

Can you explain the new proposed plan you spoke about yesterday and how the bye’s would work?

One team gets a bye every week because it doesn’t have an opponent, so that’s 17 byes over a 17-week season. There are 14 more teams which have to be byed. They get byed two at a time, seven games get byed within the confines of the current bye system. Basically, in some ways it is an improvement on our current schedule because we don’t have to set down four in a division at once. We would only set down seven games, plus one a week. It leaves us with a deeper schedule on a week-to-week basis. Now the issue that it raises is, the advantage of our current system is that the top four in a division sit down at the same time and some people think that there is a competitive aspect to that but I don’t think that’s turned out to be a big element in our current system. This system in some ways gives us a better schedule.

If the owners do not have to vote on the Packers situation, who has to sign off on it, and when is it going to happen?

Me. That is what we’re working on.

Concerning the Packers, would you consider limiting the use of those funds just to capital expenditures?

Yes, that is one of the things we are discussing. I don’t know that it’s in their interest to use the money to sign players. If you’re trying to stabilize you’re franchise for the long term, and your going into your community to get capital, whether its through PSL’s or through an owner contribution in a team that’s owned by an owner, or though a contribution by not-for-profit owners in Green Bay, you want to use that one-of a kind money for stability and for structure and for the stadium. You want to pay your players out of revenue. No business has an interest in having to go to the capital markets to pay its operating costs. That business is not headed in the right direction. And we’re hoping that the Packers can stay headed in the right direction.

How much of a role did a change in the mayor in Houston play with you considering Houston for a team?

I think that probably the passage of time more than the change in the mayor is the big factor, plus the authorizing legislation and the emergence of people like Bob McNair. I would say those are more important than any change in terms of who the mayor is, at least from my perspective.