I know there are a number of subjects that are of interest relative to the Browns and to a number of different situations around the league. Obviously, the Los Angeles and Houston presentations were the biggest part of our agenda today. We spent more than three hours on those this afternoon and we adjourned the meeting without having any owner discussion. We’re going to come back tomorrow morning and get some owner discussion, some feedback, and some reaction to those three proposals. I asked the owners to reflect overnight on what they had seen and heard in the presentations. I will have more to say tomorrow in terms of how we are going to proceed with respect to a decision on expansion to a 32^nd team and ultimately some type of decision as among the choices in Los Angeles and Houston.

Q: Will you have a vote to see if the league is prepared to go to 32 teams?

A: No, not at this meeting. I don’t expect to do that.

Q: Did Los Angeles close the gap with Houston with their presentations?

A: It’s hard to say because, as I indicated, we did not have any discussion with ownership at the end of any of the presentations or at the end of the day. I would say that both presentations from Los Angeles were quite specific in terms of financing and in terms of how the financing would be nailed down. The thing you need to understand is this is a very complex set of projects and it’s hard for me to distill all three and instantly sort out where is Los Angeles Coliseum on this piece, where is Houston on this piece, and where is Carson on this piece. So I would rather do that tomorrow after we have had a chance to reflect.

Q: How did you think the presentations worked out?

A: I thought they were extremely well done. We expected that because we have been working with these cities since 1995. In the case of Los Angeles when the Raiders and Rams moved and in the case of Houston, we have had some discussions even while Bud Adams and the Oilers were still there. I went down to Texas with Sen. Phil Graham and met with Judge Eckels and met with Bob McNair probably two years ago. So this is a culmination of at least two years effort and in some cases, three years effort. So they were very high quality presentations.

Q: What is your timetable?

A: We are very well aware of the time pressures that those two proposals bring with them and we are going to try and be responsive to that. Which means we are going to be working with all of these three groups in the remaining months of this year and perhaps even scheduling a special league meeting in the first quarter of next year to resume our deliberation on these proposals.

Q: Is it realistic to narrow the field between certain groups by then?

A: Yes. It’s realistic if we have a consensus. In terms of what has to be evaluated and the homework that has to be done, it would be realistic. The difficult thing would be to get a consensus.

Q: Do you have to vote to expand before you decide on the city?

A: I don’t know if we have to view it that way. We are in a situation where the focus is exclusively on these two cities and two regions, Houston and the surrounding environments and Los Angeles and the surrounding environments and Southern California. So we don’t have to say we’re going to 32 in the abstract and then as a second step make a choice between Houston and Los Angeles. The decision to go to 32 is going to be heavily influenced by the attractiveness of one or more of these proposals. So maybe it will be one and the same decision.

Q: Is there any question you will go to 32 teams given the inbalance that you have now with 31.

A: I think the question really implies when and not whether. The interest here is obviously doing it sooner rather than later and not in 2010.

Q: Will you have a decision regarding the Browns and their tampering policies?

A: I think we will have a decision. The Browns will know by the time they leave here tomorrow night what opportunities they will have within our tampering rules to talk to assistant coaches and coordinators on other teams about being the head coach of the Cleveland Browns and what opportunities they will have to talk to other front office personnel. A few things are already clear; first none of our rules with respect to head coaches will change. In other words, we have a very well set forth set of policies on the sanctity of a head coach’s contract and basically a head coach’s contract has to expire otherwise there is sanctity of contract.

At the coaching level, what we will be putting in front of the

membership tomorrow are some alternatives in terms of Cleveland’s opportunities to talk to assistant coaches and coordinators about being the head coach in Cleveland. The second subject would be non-football executives, experienced people in the front office. Whether they are financial people, marketing people, public relations and so on. The other category is the football operations people and under our policies those employees and club officials basically remain intact through the draft and I don’t see that we would change that. The value of a scout and the value of a personnel director lie in that individual participating in the draft. What they do throughout the college football season and what they do in the offseason, reviewing film, the payback for that for an employer is in the draft. So under our rules, those people stay put through the draft and I don’t see that changing.

Q: Would this require an owners vote?

A: Some of the ideas we have been talking about would require a vote, some would not require a vote.

Q: You have stated that if you relaxed some of the guidelines they would not apply to the 49ers considering their relationship with Carmen Policy. Do you see that changing at all?

A: We’ll discuss that again tomorrow and I still think that is a special issue and will be discussed as a special issue because Carmen was employed there but also because it is a strong football team which, if they keep playing the way they are playing, will be headed to the postseason and we certainly don’t want to do anything that disrupts a team that is heading towards the postseason. It’s also unique because of Edward DeBartolo’s situation right now. So there are a number of factors that make the 49ers situation unique.

Q: Are you saying that Dwight Clark will not be able to leave the 49ers until the season is over?

A: I didn’t say that. That’s the current status of the letter that I sent to Carmern Policy and the 49ers as well as to Dwight stating that he is staying right where he is and not going to Cleveland. Whether that evolves over time depends in part on what I do and depends on what the 49ers and Browns may do.

Q: So Dwight Clark would not be able to leave the 49ers until after the draft?

A: What I said was that we’re not going to change any policies that affect those people. In other words, with respect to assistant coaches and coordinators, we may change or adjust some of our policies. Right now as you know, our policy says if an assistant coach or coordinator is employed by a team in the playoffs, you can't ask for permission to talk to him and his existing club can’t even voluntarily give you permission. That was the issue we had with Don Capers and the Steelers. That is something we might modify in respect to assistant coaches and coordinators. What I am saying is that we’re not going to modify our policies with respect to our football operations people because their ‘Super Bowl’ is draft day and everything they do on a year-round basis culminates on draft day. So we are not going to change those policies. If some individual team says, ‘Here is a person who has done a great job for us and we’re willing to relinquish him or her because we believe in upward mobility,’ that’s a different matter, that’s an individual club decision. We’re not going to change our policies to increase the access of the Browns to those people.

Q: What if the Houston or Los Angeles groups were to relocate an existing franchise?

A: I really couldn’t speak to that until we had some more time to reflect on the whole subject overnight.

Q: Is it possible you would mediate compensation with the 49ers and Dwight Clark?

A: It’s not something we have considered.

Q: With talk about Los Angeles being the 2^nd largest TV market, how important is that in respect to the $17.6 million TV contract?

A: The reason we are focused on both LA and Houston has to do in part with the population and the fans. Obviously that’s what we’re in business for. We’re in business to serve football fans. We’re talking about the 2^nd largest metro area in the country, LA. In Houston we’re talking about the 10^th largest media market as media markets get measured. It’s the 4^th largest city in the United States and the second largest state. In both cases we’re talking about areas where we feel there is very strong interest in football and a lot of potential fans and that is why these two cities are on this short list. One of the things we are going to be discussing tomorrow is the relationship of TV to this type of decision so I will

have more to say about that tomorrow. We did make a presentation today on TV and TV ratings and noted that one out of six TV households is either in New York, Chicago or LA. At a certain point that has to affect your thinking if you’re in the TV business.

Q: Do you have a timetable for deciding on the DaBartolo matter?

A: We have discussed some timetables internally for making some decisions. Basically they focus on the month of February and the first part of March leading up to our league meeting in terms of addressing some of those subjects in a definitive way.

Q: Can you be more specific about relaxing the rules for speaking to coaches?

A: I would rather not be more specific right now because I think the membership should hear the proposals before you do. I think the Browns should have some more input in terms of what may be important in their planning and we have not had that opportunity for discussion yet.

Q: Will this process regarding expansion be done by the end of the year?

A: I said we would be addressing it in the first quarter of next year, which I think will be timely for everybody.

Q: If you need consensus on expanding to 32 teams, when do you feel that might happen?

A: I don’t have a ‘seat of the pants’ estimate on that. We went into our March meeting with a need to get a consensus in March on putting an expansion team in Cleveland. Probably half the clubs felt we didn’t have to do it in March and we can discuss it in May and we came out of the March meeting with a consensus. As soon as people focused on it, they realized it was time to make a decision. A lot had to do with the quality of the presentations today, the quality of the opportunities that were presented, and some of the discussion we will have tomorrow.

Q: What were your impressions on the quality of the presentations?

A: I thought they were very, very good and a culmination of two-three years work. 

Q: How far along is the San Francisco stadium project?

A: You should to talk to Larry Thrailkill since he has been handling it more closely than I have been since we had that meeting with Mayor Brown. I don’t think the Super Bowl is threatened but in terms of progress being made, Larry would be the one to speak to.

Q: How close are the three projects to the finish line? Have they satisfied the NFL?

A: It’s like peeling an onion. Every time you come to the subject, you have another layer. Before people sign agreements to go forward with projects that range from $300-800 million you have more questions to ask. I think right now we know all the major variables on these projects and we should be in a position by the first quarter of next year to be able to make some decisions.

Q: Will the owners have to make a decision on the evidence regarding the DeBartolo matter?

A: I don’t think the owners will have to make a decision on Eddie. I have to make a decision on Eddie. That will be one of the factors that we would be possibly interested in, but that’s only one of the things we’re looking at.

Q: What is the league stance on Al Davis and his territorial argument on Los Angeles?

A: We know that he alleges it and we don’t think he has one.

###