We had a demonstration of the replay technology this morning. We awarded the Super Bowl to San Diego. We extended NFL Europe. Our agreement with Fox is expiring after this season. I’m going to be over there in a couple of weeks for a game in Berlin. We think it’s going real well and it’s a good part of NFL international development. So that was extended by a vote today. Our part of it was. We’ll do it again with Fox as a partner on some basis, I believe.

On Los Angeles, we made our report and we are going to try and get some additional major steps done in the month of June on the site development, really trying to take the vision and turn it into a plan that can become reality. We approved league loans under the stadium financing resolution to the new stadiums to be built in Denver, Philadelphia and New England. I have been involved with New England, as you know, with the initiative of the business community there to try to come up with the business community support that would enable the Patriots to build a privately financed stadium. What we did today makes good on a commitment that we had made to the business community that the league would participate with the loan in that stadium in return for their commitment to us to purchase the suites and eventually the club seats. The major issue there from my perspective is that the legislation was signed recently and today we granted the loan and now the third piece that has to come into place is the business community commitment, which will be the purpose of my trip up there in early June. And the town of Foxboro needs to do certain things in the near future to set that in the right direction. Pittsburgh was not covered by today’s resolution.

Bob Kraft:

I just want to say thank you to my partners for passing this resolution today.

Together with what happened this past Monday in New England with the bill signing for infrastructure, two of the critical steps in getting us to have a new facility in the Boston area are happening. For those of you who are Patriots fans

we’re starting our 40^th playing season and finally our fans who have supported our family wonderfully since we bought the team, they have sold out every game, they can look forward to a state-of-the-art facility that we will play in and compete in. It’s nice to see this public-private partnership. People talk about it a lot but seeing the politicians up in Massachusetts, seeing my partners in the league understand that they had to craft a certain kind of program under the Commissioner’s leadership, we’re starting to get very excited about the opportunity for us in New England.

BK: I’m going to let you ask them that question.

Q: Because of Hartford?

BK: That might have had something to do with it. I think they underestimated the general support the team had in Massachusetts. They are also trying to balance a lot of things that are important to them and in the end life is about compromise for big things and I think it worked out and they stepped up and did the part that they needed to do¼ .The whole stadium area is an issue that’s so complex and sometimes gets positioned so it’s not framed from the point of view of ownership. But I know it is very important to our fans and what it means financially to a community, to philanthropic groups. I think they stepped up in this case as they do in every area. Having a modern facility is good business with the community, the income that come to a community through having a team. The majority of our fans live paycheck to paycheck and the team is very important to them. It’s an extension of their family and their community. They feel passionate about it and it’s nice that in New England we’re going to be able to give them a venue that will be worthy of what exists in other NFL cities.

BK: We’ve been doing business with the town of Foxboro since 1985 when we started to get involved with the land before we bought the stadium in 1988. They have been cooperating with us and we believe they will be cooperative now. The exciting thing for us is the potential of being in a stadium in 2001. If the town of Foxboro and the business community help us and continue to support us the way they have in the past we’ll be playing in a stadium for the 2001 season.

BK: I don’t think that’s true. First of all, we’re going to have to borrow in excess of $150-200 million. We’re going to have market and sell a product that is in our stadium. We’re taking entertainment dollars, instead of doing it general seating, we will be doing it in club seating and trying to make it an attractive environment where people will want to come to our club. I am personally very

excited because this will be something that no stadium has been built like up to this point. It will be state-of-the-art and hopefully a year round facility that will be used and add a lot of value, generate a lot of tax revenue and also pay back the loan the NFL is committing to us.

Q: When do you hope to break ground on the stadium?

BK: We hope sometime by the end of the summer.

Q: What does it mean to you on a personal level to stay in Foxboro?

BK: It’s where my boys grew up. My four sons and I spent every Sunday there for 20 odd years. When I walk into my office and look at that field, I have a great emotional feeling and so many great memories. People who don’t attend games in person don’t understand how it’s cross-generational and the emotional involvement that you feel. It’s nice in the end that we’ll be able to be in the same location that we have been for the last 25-30 years.

PT: No. I have said before we had a policy that’s been evolving in place for a number of years. We can try to do what it makes sense to do, particularly in the big markets where TV revenue is derived, but it’s still going to require public-private partnerships and it’s an extension of what we’ve done before. It’s done with really outstanding support from our Players Association and Gene Upshaw. But I think is an evolutionary thing. I don’t think it’s a new thing.

Q: How is NFL Europe doing?

PT: NFL Europe is a piece of NFL International. NFLI is growing dramatically. We had some projections about two years ago on the growth of NFL Europe and it’s doing about twice as well as we expected. We are taking it on a projected basis to net revenues of probably $20 million and beyond, which goes in under the Collective Bargaining Agreement and gets shared with the players. That’s about twice as fast a projected rate of growth as we had anticipated just about two years ago. A lot of the credit goes to Don Garber and the people who have been running it.

Within that framework NFL Europe is still a big cost item. It’s costing us I’m sure in excess of $10 million out of pocket. It’s been costing Fox out of pocket. But in

a way it’s investment and a promotional expense for the broader business that we’re in. So it makes sense. Player development was emphasized heavily today by the clubs as a positive of NFL Europe. Pat Bowlen and others emphasized it. So it’s a small business that’s growing. For a while we were stumbling. Now I think we’re walking in the right direction.

Q: Was it a four-year extension?

PT: Yes. It was almost an open-ended extension. As far as the committee was concerned, they wanted to extend it open ended because they’re that optimistic about the future. They presented it to the membership as a three or four-year extension because it’s sort of co-extensive with the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Players Association support of it at this point.

Q: Is Fox going forward with it?

PT: We’re not 100 percent certain yet. Fox remains very strongly supportive of it. I think they’ve done a terrific job of being a partner. They have some concern that we get a larger benefit out of it in terms of the promotion of the NFL brand since we changed it to NFL Europe as a branded name. They also feel we get a strong value out of it in terms of player development and neither one of those rebounds, at least directly, to Fox. So in the discussions that Neil Austrian’s been having with them he’s indicated a willingness that we’ll take a bigger share of it with the support of the Players Association. But it’s not been finalized.

Q: What is the current split with Fox?

PT: It’s basically at 50-50 and Neil’s indicated that we would take a bigger percentage, especially since the Players Association support has been good.

PT: In NFL International, yes there’s a profit. What I said today I believe. If you go back 10 years let’s say¼ 12 years¼ American football was exciting because there was a novelty factor. "Refrigerator" Perry in London was a novelty. Players going to play American Bowl games in Europe were written up along with James Dean on motorcycles. It was American culture.

Now we have a growing fan base which understands the game and committed growing numbers of kids playing the game. So I think its’ a much sounder thing, with 30,000 regularly attending games in Frankfurt. So it’s no longer a novelty factor and I think there’s a much sounder base there.

Same in Mexico as one other market. We opened an office down there. The game is really growing at the grassroots level and among the fans who watch it on Azteca and Televisa.

PT: No. It was basically a reemphasis and maybe somewhat more pointed report that Jerry Richardson and I made that we thought both of the plans presented had positive elements. The critical thing is to take the vision that’s represented in the Ovitz plan and make such modifications that need to be made and convert that into a reality, and we have to be sensitive to costs and sensitive to the historical context to the Coliseum’s architecture and we’re going to be sensitive on both those points. That’s what I said yesterday. I hope we can accomplish them within the next 30 days or by June 30. The other thing Jerry reemphasized was the point I also mentioned yesterday -- that a negotiated price given the total complexity and the total cost of the project in the judgment of our committee makes more sense, separating the development of the project from the sale of the team and selection of the owner.

Q: How long will it take to get a price together?

PT: I can get one together in 30 minutes but I don’t know that it would be realistic. That’s the issue, getting the numbers together on the project cost, including the site development and then trying to develop some realistic estimates of annual revenue on an ongoing basis which in turn becomes the basis for price. The project cost alone is one thing. Revenue streams coming out of the project is another thing. We’ll be working on both of those in the next 30 days. But the focus is going to be on project costs, sources and uses of funds for the project as opposed to an annual rate of return, which then can become the basis for a realistic franchise price.

PT: The commitment to parking structures on the site and the attention to detail in terms of the site development and recognition of ease of access and transportation is critical. There were many elements that Jim Semcken emphasized that were critically important. Up until our meeting on April 20^th I think there was, with the benefit of hindsight, an inordinate amount of attention on stadium design and not enough attention on site development and I think that has been rectified.

PT: The way I put is I think we have plan A and plan B and we need to evolve them together into a plan C.

PT: That is a given. It was a given when we adopted our resolution in March and it is a given today. It’s always been made clear that the commitment of the 32^nd team is going to take another vote of the membership. Until we get the commitments for the right type of project we don’t have the votes. If we did I wouldn’t be losing as much sleep as I am over this.

PT: Teams will have 65 players on the rosters for the fourth preseason game rather than 60. Some of the bigger things like squad size and the third quarterback were deferred until next year. People thought it was too late to start tinkering with those kinds of things.

PT: We had a lot of discussion of that in the Combine in February. Some of the coaches feel moving the spot of the kickoff is not the right way to go. Others feel you’re better off eliminating the kicking tee. There were about four or five views at the Combine. One of the concerns was that the more you move back the kickoff the more you get into so-called "pooch kicks." There was no consensus in February and no consensus today.

PT: They gave it back. The Mayor’s judgment was that it would be appropriate to play it in a new stadium. Going back to the prior Mayor, the understanding was Candlestick Park was not the type of facility where we would be playing Super Bowl’s and it was given back in March. We still have a commitment of a Super Bowl to San Francisco but the timing of it is dependent upon the progress of the stadium.

# # # # #