MARCH 15, 1999—PHOENIX, ARIZONA

PT: This morning I reviewed the 1998 season and tried to look ahead to our challenges down the road as we go into the next century. We also made a presentation on our Collective Bargaining Agreement. We had financial presentations on our operations in 1998 and what lies ahead in 1999. We talked about some of our stadium projects – Denver, which was voted on in the fall, as well as future projects like Pittsburgh and Philadelphia among others. I talked about the future of the Internet, which will include TV programming. This afternoon we’ll talk about LA and Houston and have other discussions on NFL Properties and NFL Enterprises.

Q: What about rotating the Thanksgiving Day games?

PT: This resolution has been presented by two clubs, Kansas City and New Orleans. I think it depends on what the owners think. A lot of teams respect the tradition of Detroit, which dates back to the 1930s, and Dallas, which dates back to the mid-1970s. It has been played in other cities, like St. Louis. We’ll probably get into that issue on Wednesday.

Q: Could you have teams in both cities, Houston and LA?

PT: I do not think so. We’ll expand to 32 teams, not 33. LA involves two possible stadiums, a large TV market, but there are still questions.

Q: Will the league try to help big cities get stadiums built?

PT: We already do a lot in the sense that as these new stadiums get built, visiting teams forego a normal percentage of their gate share, and that money goes back into the home team’s building costs. We’re doing that in about a dozen projects. Right now as the club seats are sold, we have a loan arrangement to the teams, and the money that was loaned is repaid by the sale of club seats once the stadium is up and running.

Q: Can you speak of the Chicago market?

PT: The Bears announced the extension of their lease at Soldier Field. That provides stability, and I hope that is the basis for working on a future stadium project. With Ted Phillips involved, we’ll be working with them going forward. We’re prepared to do what we’ve done in other cities. If the financing involves a good strong public-private partnership, with public funding, and a financial commitment by the club in the long term, then we can play some sort of role. But we are not considering doing anything special.

Q: What are the issues involving the sale of the Redskins?

PT: I think you have read in the newspapers that some owners have different opinions. To some it’s a question of how much judgement owners make in selecting their partners, while some others have said that all that matters to them is the highest bid in that type of auction situation. I think there is going to be a good bit of discussion on what our policies should be on the sale of teams and how it should apply to the Redskins.

Q: Do you expect to have a recommendation on expansion?

PT: Absolutely. We’ll make a recommendation today and then hopefully get it resolved before we leave. The committee, not me, is the one who makes a recommendation on expansion.

Q: What about replay? Where do the votes stand?

PT: I haven’t done a head count. But I talked with Rich McKay and George Young, and both think the votes will be there in favor of replay.

Q: Howard Milstein said he feels the league doesn’t understand high finance. Why should he put money down?

PT: We’ve had a policy since I was first involved in the NFL, in 1969, that focuses on one thing. If there is a financial failure by the operator of an NFL team, the league has to be party to an agreement with the banks. Under this agreement, the league can go in and seize the assets and take control of the team for a fixed sum of money (and run the team). That’s completely different from the financing of real estate. That’s why we have been having this discussion. We do not finance this like people finance real estate.

Q: Some people say this is personal in regards to his business practices with the Islanders?

PT: The way he ran the Islanders is professional, not personal. I think it’s a question of the financing, and what kind of a partner would Howard Milstein or others make.

Q: Will you be hearing from him?

PT: I think he will speak with the Finance Committee in the next day or so.

Q: Hadn’t Milstein been approved in the Browns process?

PT: No. He had been through some preliminary phases, but we hadn’t received complete information on a number of subjects. He wasn’t even one of the two finalists.

Q: Does Milstein’s dealing with the Islanders lead to some possible legal issues?

PT: I think you should ask Gary Bettman.

Q: Is there an update on Ed Debartolo?

PT: I have had some extensive discussions with both sides of the DeBartolos since the Super Bowl, and I will be reporting to the owners tomorrow on where we are with the 49ers.

Q: Can you leave this meeting without deciding between LA or Houston? In terms of having a recommendation but not a full vote taken?

PT: It’s conceivable but unlikely.

Q: Inaudible (Re: public financing issues in LA)

PT: No, I don’t think so. In Carson, there is a significant amount of public money. It’s a public-private partnership. That’s the way it’s been presented to us by Michael Ovitz. At the Coliseum, one of the issues we have is how to continue to improve parking in the area? How do you insure that progress is being made with the Staples Arena? How do further improvements to the Coliseum get paid for? There are really two different kinds of issues there.

Q: If LA is the city, would the ideal situation be for the Roski-Ovitz group to unify?

PT: The ideal situation would be that LA will unify itself, and that we have all parties reach out to all sectors of the fan base. It is very diverse. We want to be unified in support of the team, and reaching out to a fan base that would include a lot of people who were not fans back in the 1970s or 80s with the Rams and Raiders.

Q: Will San Francisco host the Super Bowl in 2003?

PT: I have spoke to both Mayor Browns. San Francisco’s Super Bowl will be discussed in some form later in the week. Jerry Brown was interested in bidding for a Super Bowl and I have made arrangements for members of our staff to meet to discuss the bidding process with his staff.

Q: Is it a factor in the Super Bowl process that Oakland has sued you in the past?

PT: I don’t think it would be. We just haven’t had two cities split a Super Bowl before. It presents a unique situation. From San Francisco’s standpoint, the focus has been on them hosting, not co-hosting, in a new stadium in San Francisco.

Q: What’s your opinion of Bob McNair sending letters to teams about relocating?

PT: I think it was a bit premature because he is still in the running here. I’d take Wayne Weaver’s lead of believing that it’s not over until the fat lady sings, like he had with Jacksonville when they were involved in expansion.

Q: What about the Patriots and the relocation guidelines?

PT: Those have applied since 1987, and were the subject of litigation, which we won, in St. Louis. Whether the Pats would have to pay a relocation fee, that’s something we’d have to determine.

Q: Did Jerry Brown represent himself as Oakland or as a joint effort?

PT: As Oakland.

Q: What is your timetable for deciding on that Super Bowl?

PT: It is flexible.

Q: Was the Ovitz project adequate?

PT: Yes. It has Bank of America backing up the private piece. There’s a public sector piece that is committed to.

Q: How much larger would the franchise fee be in LA vs. Houston?

PT: I haven’t thought about it. I don’t know.