PT: I think the meeting was very productive. There was a very strong sense of business community support for a stadium to be built here in Massachusetts for the Patriots. Under our league policies, my responsibility is to explore alternatives when a team proposes to move from its existing stadium to another stadium and therefore I am exploring alternatives here in Massachusetts. Any alternative stadium that could be built here in Massachusetts has to be a partnership among the team, business community, with the public and with the league. The sense I had from our meeting this morning was that the business community understands and is committed to support a stadium and to make that commitment real and on a guaranteed basis so that financing could be secured so long as its part of a public-private partnership.

PT: I think Connecticut is the first option. I think the deal is a viable deal. There is no reason to believe otherwise. The challenge here is to develop an alternative that is a realistic and sound alternative. As Rev. Monan said, it doesn’t have to be competitive dollar for dollar. We are not here just talking about economics. We are talking about fan loyalty, and the commitment the NFL and that Patriots have had with their fans since the team was founded in 1960. We are talking about a population center, Boston, which is the center of New England.

PT: At this point it is not for me to express a preference. We have one alternative, which is Connecticut. If we have a second alternative then I’ll be in a position to assess the two of them and our owners will be in a position to vote on them in our meetings in late May. Right now we are trying to get our second alternative. If that’s done then it is my obligation to express that.

PT: Yes. I think we are because we have found, whether it’s in Detroit, Tampa Bay, Cleveland, Buffalo or wherever we are working on these public-private partnerships, the commitment of the business community, the leadership of the business community, is critical. The Boston business community has always been extremely supportive of the Patriots and the NFL. You only have to think back to the two Super Bowl seasons to know what that meant to this entire region. What I explained to the business leaders this morning was that to build a state-of-the-art stadium in Foxboro the business community not only has to be supportive but it has to be supportive on a guaranteed basis. For example, businesses would make five or seven-year commitments, or whatever the details happen to be, to support the Patriots and, through that, support the construction of the stadium. There was a very positive response to that concept.

PT: I was not walking around collecting draft picks like I was a week ago. We were talking conceptually and we were talking about whether people had the will and the means and the conviction that this was important to the community and there were very strong expressions on all three of those elements.

PT: Not just advanced sales but a guaranteed commitment to premium seats. It’s not a handout. It’s recognition that there is a benefit to a business in supporting an NFL team. We have seen that throughout the country and here in Boston with the Patriots. But it has to be guaranteed so that it can become, to use my word, ‘bankable’ as part of your commitment to pay your debt service on the construction of the stadium.

PT: I don’t think we are between a rock and a hard place. I think it’s a question of what’s optimal and what’s workable. Something in Massachusetts is optimal because that is where the franchise has been, that’s where the franchise currently is AND that’s where its core fan base is. For me in terms of fan loyalty, stability and the commitment to our extraordinary fan base, that’s optimal. Based on everything I have seen, Hartford would work. There is an advantage that it is New England as opposed in other situations, where we have been between a rock and a hard place, such as the choice between Houston and Nashville. There is a team leaving the Southwest and going to the Southeast with the fans being abandoned. Here, it is not that type of situation.

PT: We discussed that we have had a policy for a number of years to support the construction of stadiums through the other 30 teams other than the Patriots. We revised that policy at our annual meeting last month in a way that would expand the support that could be given here and I think that expansion could be significant.

PT: I think some of the business community should be firmed up within the next week to two weeks so that we see a broader number of business leaders involved and people would start the process of making commitments. I think that would be very important. Then we are going to have discussions and I think the business community will be involved in discussions with the political leadership. And of course individuals such as Rev. Monan are involved along with other important parts of the community. So I would rather defer to them on the timetable. Our timetable is that we will have to address this at our league meeting on May 25-26. The one element of a timetable that was clear this morning is that the business community has a sense of urgency.

PT: We are committed to addressing it. I don’t know that we have made a decision yet as to whether we will vote on it or not.

PT: Some of the media think that we always postpone decisions so it is certainly possible.

PT: As I said, until we have a second alternative it is my job to remain in the middle and not to become an advocate for either side.

PT: Some owners think the Hartford opportunity is an extraordinary opportunity for a couple of reasons. It’s a state-of-the-art stadium, it’s in New England and it’s in the center of Hartford and can be a catalyst to economic development within the community. That’s significant to a lot of our teams. On the other side of the coin, there are other owners who feel for the reason I stated, Massachusetts is the place the team should be, that’s where it has been, that’s the population center of New England. It’s the TV core of New England, the sixth-largest TV market. Even a move to Hartford is a sign of instability in the league and would come in the wake of other teams moving into smaller markets and that represents a trend in the wrong direction in the view of those owners.

PT: That’s not true at all. I have no reason to believe the Hartford deal is shaky. I have every reason to believe it’s a firm viable deal.

PT: Because it’s my responsibility to develop alternatives for the ownership to consider. That’s explicit in our league procedures which have been in place since 1984.

PT: I couldn’t go that far. I told them if we have a good strong alternative here, it will get very serious consideration and I have identified for them as I have identified for you the pluses of having that type of facility.

PT: The legal obligation is subject to and conditioned on review by the league and approval of the league so this is entirely consistent with the terms of the Connecticut agreement.

####