From NFLmedia.com
DALLAS – MAY 2, 2006
We had some very good meetings. All 11 of the owners on the Los Angeles working group were here. We started with an internal discussion last night and met early this morning. We officially began shortly after 8:30am and went until
after 2:00pm. The commitment of time, the interest and the energy of the owners were very good. Most of all, it was a reflection of the quality of the presentations that we had from Anaheim and Los Angeles, in particular the Coliseum.
Both of them gave us a really good overview, not only of the stadium projects, but of the demographics of the immediate fan base and also the overall development of downtown LA and the core of Orange County. Both presentations, which were very high quality, were very informative and really provided the basis for some excellent dialogue. The owners all appreciated not
only Mayor Villaraigosa and Mayor Pringle being here, but also the governor as well. The dialogue when the governor was present focused to some degree on the importance of the business community and having the business communities
be supportive and be committed, making everybody understand the value of an NFL team as an economic engine in the community and also as a community asset.
We also appreciated the Pasadena representatives being here. We had an excellent exchange with them.
The long and short of it is that we have a lot of information to digest. Certainly our staff has been immersed in these issues for the past year or more. But for our owners, this type of first-hand dialogue and first-hand opportunity to speak with political leadership in these communities, including the entire state with the presence of the governor, gives us a lot to digest.
We will be having a conference call with this working group next week to talk about their thoughts and ideas on next steps. We will be meeting with the working group in Denver on Monday, May 22. We will then report to the membership on Tuesday, May 23. We are also going to discuss further with the Pasadena representatives next week and try to understand exactly the status of their proposal, including the ballot initiative. If need be, we will talk more with members of the working group on Pasadena issues separately from our conversation next week on the Los Angeles Coliseum and Anaheim issues.
Q: Will a decision be made on May 23?
PT: That’s what we’re going to be talking about. There is a lot to digest here, not just in terms of projects, but in terms of business community support.
Q: The governor talked about the possibility of having two teams in the market. How realistic is that in the short-term and near future?
PT: If you limit it to the short-term and near future, then one team is our immediate goal. We’d like to have one team in a state-of-the-art stadium, wellsupported both in the short-term and long-term within the community. Longerterm, two teams is a realistic goal.
Q: If there is too much to digest to make a decision soon, where does that leave Anaheim with the upcoming May deadline?
PT: I’m not going to speculate on that.
Q: What stood out in each presentation?
PT: They both emphasized that their stadiums would be very fine NFL football stadiums.
In Anaheim, previously, we shared a baseball stadium. This would not be the case in Anaheim this time. It would be a football stadium located in close proximity to the Angels’ stadium. It would be at the core of a lot of the broader residential and commercial development efforts.
Similar things we’re discussing in respect to the Coliseum. It would be a state-of-the-art stadium, not a retro stadium. They emphasized and highlighted all the investment that’s taken place in downtown LA.
I think both groups did a terrific job of emphasizing the attractiveness of their stadiums and the broader economic developments in the context in which the stadium is being projected. We did have a discussion about costs, which is a
continuing concern. There is a recognition that construction costs have escalated dramatically and will continue to escalate given the worldwide economic pressures that there are for steel, petroleum and everything else that factors into construction costs. Those in turn led to some good discussion on financing, naming rights, PSLs and about the role of the business community being a surrogate, in a sense, for public investment of tax dollars. The business community, as in the case of Carolina and New England, has strongly supported those teams in a variety of ways. So, financing a stadium with private resources, team resources and league resources becomes realistic.
Q: Did each side provide convincing arguments that the costs of each project would be made up in the long run?
PT: Each side clearly understands the challenges and we’ve identified a number of areas to look into. A lot of additional work will have to be done.
Q: What do you think was the biggest accomplishment today?
PT: First of all, uninterrupted four-to-five hours of focused discussion on issues in southern California is an accomplishment. With the expanded group of 11 owners, we had a lot of new, different points of view from Steve Tisch, Jeff Lurie, Bob McNair, Jerry Jones and others who previously weren’t part of the working group. Everyone came away feeling that it was the best time spent on these issues. I felt that having it here, having it in this setting, having it focused with a relatively small group and with a compact group presenting gives us an excellent understanding of these issues.
Q: You’ve always been accused of not wanting to rush…
PT: Nobody has accused me of rushing this issue.
Q: If there is any uncertainty when you get to Denver, will you rush this and move ahead?
PT: I’m not going to get into that. I’m not going to rush, but I want to emphasize that this is the year for us to make a decision, up or down. We’re not going to keep moving sideways.
# # #
No comments:
Post a Comment