TF: Thanks for being so patient. We are delighted with the presence and interest of the Commissioner and his staff and we have had a number of talks and we’re going to continue to explore a number of ideas that have been put forward. Some of the novelty of this prevents us from making any formal or definitive announcement today simply because of the league’s interest in participating and expression of serious interest on behalf of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce to participate and support the sale of tickets and suites on a long-term basis if in fact something positive can be developed.

PT: We have had a series of very constructive meetings beginning this morning with the representatives of the Chamber and the business community and with the meetings with the Governor and with the Senate and now with Speaker Finneran. As the speaker said we are dealing with some novel subjects here. We have indicated certainly a strong willingness to try to be responsive and make every effort to be responsive to the Speaker’s concerns and our staffs will be getting together next week to continue discussions both of concepts and underlying the financial analysis relating to those concepts to see if we can come up with a set of terms and conditions for this project to satisfy the Speaker’s principles.

PT: I’ll let the Speaker speak for himself. There is a real strong interest here on the part of both the private sector leadership and the public sector leadership to try to get a stadium done so long as the terms are right. That’s been our attitude as well, so I would say it has been constructive and positive and provides a basis for further intensive discussions next week.

PT: As I said earlier today, I am here to see two things. Is there the basis for an alternative stadium project here in Massachusetts and also to determine how the NFL can assist in that process? I think we can assist under our league policies both financially and hopefully by playing the role of intermediary or participant in discussions. I think we bring to the discussion some experience from across the country, both private finance and public finance concepts, that hopefully can be tailored and be made satisfactory.

PT: The Patriots were born here in Massachusetts, they have been here for four decades. The fans here have supported them to the point where they are one of the premier national teams. Mr. Kraft has contributed to that. Drew Bledsoe, Terry Glenn have also contributed to that. Our key point for many, many decades has been to try to reward fan support, reward fan loyalty in the community where that loyalty is primary. So that’s basically the reason for being here.

PT: It’s primarily in the form of loan arrangements and the exact amount depends on the overall terms of the project but it would be significant and I think we made that clear in our discussions today with the Speaker, Governor and representatives of the business community.

PT: We’re looking for infrastructure on terms that are satisfactory to the Legislative leadership and to the Government.

PT: I don’t want to get into specifics because the discussions are ongoing. We are looking at some new ideas and we will continue those discussions next week.

PT: I was a political science major in college and my wife tells me I’m very patient. I have come to develop the ability to speak with Willie Brown, Mayor Daley, and many other government officials in a way that I think is reasoned and respectful. It’s not a ‘lions den.’ We were not in there arm wrestling. We’re trying to look at the principles of private and public finance. They are different and we are trying to blend them in a way that is responsible and respectable and I think we are making progress.

PT: I would hope so. We are getting to a point were differences are being narrowed, financial analysis is being done and hopefully we can arrive at some conclusion.

PT: No. It is my responsibility as Commissioner to not only accept an alternative that’s developed by the team but to see whether an alternative exists in the existing community of the team. That’s explicit in our league policies. It’s been emphasized to me many times by Congress and public officials that we should play that kind of a role. We should try to come in, perhaps in the role of a mediator, perhaps in the role of an intermediator, and make sure we have walked the last mile to explore alternatives. If we end up with two alternatives it begins the process of comparison and evaluation, ultimately leading to the process of our owners voting. The first step is to see if there are two alternatives rather than one and I think we are making progress on that first phase.

PT: We’re working as hard as we can. We are not going to set artificial deadlines but as I said we are making progress.

PT: That’s a question I’ll have to ask him if we get to the point of having that alternative. I think that Mr. Kraft is a Massachusetts person. He’s also a New England person, but I think he recognizes both the support that the fans of Massachusetts have given to the team not only during his ownership but for many years prior to that when he was a season ticket holder going back to the opening days when it was then called Sullivan Stadium. I think he also understands the interest of his own team and that he is part of a broader partnership called the NFL and that he has to eventually balance the Patriots’ interest with the league’s interests with the Connecticut interest. He obviously has to respect his contractual obligations and I think he will do those things in a responsible way. I have said before he not only has done a good job leading the Patriots but has done a very important job leading league committees. I think we are dealing with people who are engaged in serious, civil and constructive discussion.

PT: One of the points I made to the Speaker was that it’s not the popularity of the owner or the popularity team or the unpopularity of the team that should influence these judgments. Whether a baseball team wins the World Series or a football team wins the Super Bowl or an owner is young and good looking -- that’s not what we are here to argue about. Sometimes that’s what the media and fans get worked up over. What’s important here is how to put together the principles of public finance and private finance. That’s what we have tried to do throughout this entire decade with some considerable success in other states and cities and hopefully we can come up with that kind of alternative here.

TF: What’s different is the league’s expression of an active interest and a willingness to participate and to contribute in some fashion. That’s a fluid situation that continues to evolve and as the Commissioner has pointed it has to make sense from the precedents and principles of the league and private finance, and trying to mesh those principles with principles of public finance that have been articulated is not always a situation but we continue to work on it in a very civil way. We are listening very closely to each other and trying to find in a good-faith way ways to piece it together. The Commissioner and his team are very conversant with their history here in Massachusetts. They are aware of some of the concerns that we have articulated over a number of months of the standards and protocols which would be applied on the Patriots’ situation would have to be equivocally applied to the Red Sox. For example, the convention center standards that we articulated, and we are aware that the league has shown in other jurisdictions a willingness and ability to adopt and adapt to local nuance, local standard, and local practice. I’m encouraged by that. It’s anecdotal because I was not at The Greater Boston Chamber meeting this morning but I heard that the business community had a relatively positive, perhaps even an enthusiastic, response to the Commissioner’s comments and suggestions. There are at least maybe three or four sides to this discussion. Obviously the team itself has a very self-evident interest. The league has indicated its interest and the Greater Boston business community has indicated its interest. And the Governor, the Senate president and myself and our respected memberships are all aware of this, and trying to get those four pieces in harmony and into alignment is not an easy task.

TF: I would say that nothing that has been discussed or articulated before has been completely rejected nor etched in stone. The Commissioner and his team seem to be responsive and fluid and willing to investigate alternately and clearly and we want to act upon the same principles in good faith.

TF: I’m not going to conduct a negotiation or discussion. I respect Commissioner Tagliabue’s expertise, intelligence and the courtesy he has shown throughout this new chapter and it would be unfair to him, unfair to the team, to the city, to Massachusetts to start talking about specifics.