RE: Lengthening the regular season to 17 or 18 games.
…to support our relationship with our fans, because of the length of the season. That included weather conditions, with the potential for the season to go into late February. It involved, obviously, our relationship with the players, our relationships with media companies and the quality of the preseason. We’ve discussed this also in the context of the offseason. Again, that goes to the part about football readiness and how there’s greater interest from our fans of having a longer and deeper relationship with the NFL all year round.
I’m not suggesting playing games all year, but there was a suggestion about idea of a spring game of some type. A preseason-type game.
Q: You don’t want to give us an offseason, do you?
RG: We know you don’t want one.
Q: Any suggestion that two preseason games would hurt the evaluation process for teams as they make their final roster cuts?
RG: I think that’s what we mean about football readiness. I think that has to be evaluated. From a football perspective, there are two purposes. One, you want to get your team ready. Two, you make your evaluations of who will make your team. Those are the two primary objectives. We want to make sure teams have the ability to do that.
The likelihood is that teams will adjust to this, work in more scrimmages or other ways to evaluate players. The second point is, and I think I mentioned this yesterday, a developmental league of some type. That’s another question that a lot of clubs raised: how do we continue to develop our players?
Q: Before there is a vote on this, will the proposal include a definitive number (17 or 18 games), or will there be more discussion as the CBA negotiations move along?
RG: First, we have a lot more work to do on the analysis. This is something we will continue to pursue and will continue to evaluate. Eventually, we’ll have to decide strategically which proposal would be most beneficial to our players, our media partners, and other parties involved.
Q: Do you have a timetable for when you’ll decide on a proposal and then make it?
RG: We’re working on a proposal now. The major focus is analyzing the labor agreement and assessing the impact that this could bring to the table. We’re talking about cost recognition, the overall economics of the labor agreement, including stadium construction, retired players, and potential of expanding to more regular season games within the 20-game format. All of those things are factors that we’re considering.
Q: Is it clear whether or not the proposal will be 17 or 18 games yet?
RG: There are different viewpoints on that. I would say the prevailing thought that I sensed in the room was that it would be 18 games rather than 17 right now. People were still debating that.
RE: Are you exploring expanding the number of teams in the playoffs?
RG: There was some discussion of that. That came up. Some folks thought that was important to consider and include. Others had a different view on that also.
Q: What is your personal preference?
RG: We have to evaluate it a little bit more. I think it should be very special to get to post-season. I think to set a bar where to make it into post-season you have to achieve success, and make that special, is something we should continue.
RE: Super Bowl ticket prices
RG: The core prices have been set. We’re still evaluating some things.
RE: NFLN and whether there is any chance that negotiations with Comcast will be restarted before there’s a ruling by the judge
RG: We would hope so. We still believe that this should be settled at the negotiating table. Ultimately, that’s what’s in the best interest of all parties, most particularly the consumers. We would like to engage in a dialogue. We think the FCC ruling is significant from the standpoint that it is very clear that there is discrimination. We would like to get that done either at the negotiating table, or if we’re forced, to go through the process with the judge.
RE: When the last negotiations took place with Comcast?
RG: I’ll have to get back to you on that.
RE: Issue of players being fined after the game on plays that did not draw a penalty
RG: It’s always been an issue. That’s not new or recent. We’ve had that over the years, and it happens. When you see something that’s an illegal technique or something that we think that’s not proper and it wasn’t called, we’ll take whatever actions are appropriate to make sure the player and the coach understands that’s not permissible.
Q: You don’t feel it weakens the officials’ calls?
RG: I don’t think so. I think they do a great job.
RE: The role the economy will play in the upcoming season for the league and the clubs
That’s a pretty broad question, but the reality is it’s going to impact us. The economy is impacting us directly, and our business partners and our fans. So we’re sensitive to that, and we’re looking at everything we do, whether it’s our facilities, our stadium financing, or our pricing at the club level. We’re looking at all of those issues to determine how to best work our way through this.
RE: Do you get a sense from the union that they are more sensitive to the risks the owners are taking on?
RG: I really believe the players recognize what’s going on out there. Our business isn’t immune. This is a very significant time with what’s happening with the economy. And I don’t believe our players would be insensitive to that either.
Q: Is that based on conversations with union executives or individual players?
RG: I have had discussions with union executives and with players.
RE: Is there a change? Previously, they ignored your complaints. Has there been a change in emphasis?
RG: I wouldn’t agree that they ignored it. Obviously, the developments over the last couple weeks… We’ve seen this coming for quite some time. We’ve discussed this publicly and privately. There are risks in the marketplace. These risks are shifted to the owners and that’s a significant risk that usually results in difficult economic consequences. That’s what we’re seeing in the market. I think the players recognize that, certainly in the economy we’re in right now.
RE: Priority on security for the Super Bowl
RG: People derive comfort from knowing that we’re taking significant steps to ensure their safety. People come to our stadiums and want to know they’re safe. This Sunday here in Tampa you saw a good example of that. We had the pat downs and want to be able to accomplish that. People seemed to be generally accepting of it. People recognize it’s part of an everyday reality. We have a significant initiative to improve the experience at the stadium, not only security but making sure people feel comfortable.
Q: What’s the priority for you in terms of ensuring that fan behavior is within these standards?
RG: The big issue to me is making sure that everyone who comes to our stadium enjoys the event and that nobody stays away from our stadiums because of others’ behavior. There was a point made in our presentation this morning that one individual’s actions can affect up to 20 people’s view of the experience at the stadium. Most of the people who come to our stadiums come and enjoy them and have a great time. Unfortunately, somebody can behave in such a manner that can ruin it for a lot of other people. If they do, we are going to deal with it properly. First action is taken in the stadium, and the second is to revoke their ticket privileges.
Q: Is adding two more teams to the playoffs two total or two per conference?
RG: We haven’t gotten into the specifics of it. There have been proposals over the last 10 years or so of extending the playoffs.
RE: Those haven’t gotten much support. Do you sense more support?
RG: There was support last time. I think there was quite a bit of discussion when we realigned the league. It’s been a few years.
Q: Do you think there would be more support if it comes in conjunction with a longer season?
RG: I’m not certain whether there is a strong correlation between the two. They are two distinct decisions. I think in some people’s minds those might impact on their ultimate vote. But I think they are ultimately two distinct decisions at this point in time. As we evaluate it, we might draw that this is something that should be done as part of that, if we get to the conclusion that we should expand or restructure the season.
RE: Adding a potential regular season game to the back end of the season as opposed to the starting the season earlier
RG: That is how we discussed it this morning and that is how we’re analyzing it. On the other hand, there are people who want to discuss how fans perceive that if they are going to regular season games in January. That is something we have got to be sensitive to. We’re going to evaluate that and doing some studies on that to see what we can determine.
Q: So you’re still open to starting the season a little earlier?
RG: Yeah, I wouldn’t rule anything out.
Q: Are you looking at reintroducing the idea of reducing debt cap?
RG: Yes. In this kind of market every company is evaluating their debt levels and we’re not different from that. We have an obligation to do that on an annual basis. We’re all concerned about debt in this kind of environment. You can see what it can do. Companies that are over-leveraged – that is what this is – this is a massive de-leveraging on a global basis. It can have significant consequences for a business and that is what we want to avoid.
Q: Is it a concern that the Union will once again file a complaint if the NFL wants to lower its debt?
RG: They very well might, but we’re running our business. We have to be able to run our business just like everyone else and managing your debt is a big part of that, just as it is for everybody.
Q: You mentioned a spring preseason game. Is there an appetite for that?
RG: It is interesting. That was raised by a few clubs. It is more in the context of what colleges do with their spring game. It can be in the form of a scrimmage. It was an interesting concept that has been raised before and was discussed this morning by a number of people.
Q: Is it one team playing another?
RG: It could be. It was an interesting idea, which we’ll look at. It was raised by more than one club.
Q: Do you plan to look into the assault charge against Larry Johnson?
RG: Yes.
RE: Are stadium costs the fastest rising costs you have?
RG: I’d have to look at it statistically. Either player costs or stadium costs, yes. Our costs continue to rise and revenues are under pressure right now.
RE: Backlash regarding the NFL going overboard on cracking down on over the top touchdown celebrations.
RG: It is a fine line between an emotion and enthusiastic response that is natural versus something that is predetermined that is nothing more than to affect the other team or reflect poorly on the game. We always try to find that balance.
Q: So you are not trying to discourage it when it is spontaneous?
RG: No. It is a passionate part of our game, it is a big part of our game so we don’t discourage that, but it can cross the line where it becomes staged and inciting to the other team, and that is a problem.
# # #
No comments:
Post a Comment