Probably the most important thing we accomplished was the unanimous adoption of the new playing formula beginning with the 2002 season when we realign to eight divisions of four teams each. This is something that was unanimous, recommended by the Competition Committee and was adopted unanimously: 32-0.

Gene Upshaw visited and talked about a number of things. NFL Europe, Internet cooperation, extension of the CBA. The salary cap is in place along with free agency under the current system through 2003. Gene also talked about how to get a further extension – to 2005 so that the CBA would be in sync with the television contracts.

On NFL Europe, I informed the clubs that John Beake will be leaving the Denver Broncos to work for the league and will be in charge of all NFL Europe football operations and be a managing director of NFL Europe. John will go to Europe later this week and will spend a good deal of time over there.

We also approved a stadium investment loan to the Bears in connection with the proposed renovations to Soldier Field. We also discussed our player allocation for the NFL Europe League.

Q: Re league funding of stadium projects:

PT: We’re getting close to the limit that we can use from television revenue. In fact, there was quite a bit of discussion of different types of future circumstances that would keep us at the limit, put us over the limit or keep us well below the limit. If we look at Green Bay as another project that would require league support, and the potential for other stadiums such as Arizona and San Francisco, under certain circumstances we’ll be over the limit.

Q: Have you discussed the David Stern salary cap ruling with the owners?

PT: Not here. I had some discussions before we got here with some club people individually – some owners -- about David Stern’s decisions and what they were dealing with there. I’ve spoken to David about it, and it’s quite fundamentally completely different from the 49ers’ situation. It is one of the things that we are discussing with Gene Upshaw. I met with him on Saturday in Washington and we talked again today about the future groundrules for discipline for cap circumvention, the fact that we have to get to the point where multiple first-round picks can be part of the discipline for cap circumvention. That is not our current system. Under our current system, the draft pick discipline is limited, even under a system that we had presented to the clubs at our September 26 meeting. I think the NBA situation highlights that you need to be able to force the forfeiture of multiple first-round picks and/or suspend in certain cases. We hope to wrap something up with the Players Association for the future. The NBA kind of built on the system we had and now we’d like to, in some respects, build on the system they have as we both roll our Collective Bargaining Agreements forward.

PT: I would think we could get it resolved fairly quickly with Gene and then perhaps that might affect the timing either of going to trial on the 49ers matter or resolving the 49ers matter. We’re preparing for both eventualities.

Q: Regarding the Eagles’ stadium situation:

PT: It’s something that Jeff Lurie and I have discussed. I’ll be sitting with Jeff and talking with Jeff and Joe Banner maybe even tomorrow here to try to get some sense of how we could responsibly follow up with Mayor Street. Until we have a chance to talk, I wouldn’t want to comment. When I met with the Mayor, we discussed three different aspects of the Philadelphia project. One is the site acquisition. Two is the definitive agreement between the city and the Eagles, and the third is the City Council action. It’s sort of three legs on the same stool. I want to visit with Jeff prior to any conclusions as to what might be constructive next steps in the process.

Q: Re Minnesota and Arizona stadium situations:

PT: Minnesota obviously has a great team. I know from discussions with Red McCombs that he’s pretty anxious to try to work something out up there. He’s exploring all of the alternatives. The Bidwill family has made it clear they very much want to stay in Arizona and they are prepared to walk many miles and make a tremendous effort to get that done.

Q: Re scheduling:

PT: The Competition Committee did some really good work; they had a conference call last week and they came in with a very good preseation. Very analytical. The biggest question was those last two games – the 15^th and 16^th games, I call them, which are not necessarily common-opponent games under the formula. Under the formula, you would play everyone in your division twice. That’s six games. Then you would play everyone in another division in your conference once. That would be 4 games. That gives you 10. Then you play everyone in another division in another conference once. That gives you 14 common opponents. Then the 15^th and 16^th games are not common opponents. That’s where the committee recommended that the first-place teams in the divisions would play other first-place teams and second place would play second place and so on. I think the Competition Committee demonstrated that it’s a fair and balanced system. The concept of natural rivalries really breaks down after you get through about half the league. You don’t have natural rivalries for about half the league – however you want to define that term. And just as important, under this rotating formula, to the extent there are natural rivalries, those games will be played on a recurring basis anyway. For the first time, there will be a cycle of opponents over three years within your conference and four years outside your conference. So you will be picking up the more natural rivalries under the new formula than is case in the current formula.

Q: Differences between NBA violations and 49ers alleged violations:

PT: In the NBA case, it was open and shut. An admitted major, major breach, signed documentation. That is what the Special Master confirmed. In our case, we don’t have anything like that either in terms of the character of the alleged agreements or the magnitude of the contracts in question. Put it the other way around, in the case of the three 49ers players, the allegations that there were violations are sharply disputed. There is a need to take testimony on the different versions of what occurred and when it occurred and why. So they are very different situations, to put it mildly.

Q: Re realignment:

PT: I think that there is very strong sentiment in the league that no one will be paid to move from a division. When we had the discussion with the realignment group, those seven owners were unanimous that realignment has to be done on merits and not include any payments to any teams. I think there is overwhelming sentiment supporting that. There is also strong sentiment to look at a formula for equalizing visiting teams’ shares for all games, including preseason, as a way of eliminating that economic factor as an element of realignment. If you did that, you might look at a situation where you have two teams that are in older stadiums with lower gates and lower visiting team shares. We would be pooling the visiting teams shares so they would be distributed to the visiting team. It would limit the economic impediment to realignment. There is a lot of interest in that and it was brought up today by a number of owners. The 60/40 would remain in place, but under it now, you have $3-4-500,000 differences in terms of the visiting team shares received by teams in certain stadiums as opposed to other stadiums. That would be averaged for all games in order to make the economics of the visiting gate fruitful.

Q: Re future playoff formats:

PT: We discussed it today and I said we would not address the postseason, the number of teams in the playoffs. We would limit ourselves to the regular season formula. There are a lot of issues and opinions. I think there are a lot of impediments to adding teams to the playoffs. For one thing, it’s hard to predict how many teams you might have qualifying for the playoffs with 8-8 records or potentially a 7-9 record. So you’re changing three things at once – and so the past track record of experience is meaningless. You’re changing the number of divisions, and consequently the number of teams in the division. You’re changing the scheduling formula so you have different opponents playing different teams and then you are proposing to change the number of teams in the playoffs. To try to make all three of those changes at once leaves you in a vacuum in terms of predictability. So a number of owners would favor operating with the new scheduling formula for the last four years of the current television contracts and then making a judgment. Whether there is an opportunity to add winning teams to the playoffs. Most people want to add winning teams, not losing teams or teams that are 8-8. We didn’t get into that in any depth today.

 Q: Re realignment timetable:

PT: On realignment, we’re trying to bring something to a head by the League meeting in March. We have two owner meetings. One in mid-November, one in December.

Q: Re Eagles:

PT: In our short meeting with the press after visiting with the Mayor, he was very emphatic that things would get done on the timetable that exists. We talked about three specific things that have to get done – site acquisition, a definitive agreement with the Eagles and City Council action. I think with the teachers’ strike settled, hopefully, there is grounds for optimism that they can be met. Again, I want to talk to Jeff and get back to the Mayor.

Q: Re teams changing divisions:

PT: I think there are a number of owners who are prepared to move to other divisions and are under the assumption that it would be a rational and positive realignment.

END