"Anybody who hasn't talked about the Tiger thing in the last two months was on the moon."

It seems the SBS transcripts are posted on a new provider (not ASAP) and I got to learn a new buzzword from Commissioner Finchem. Here are the highlights, minus yesterday's cranky exchange.

On the topic of San Diego and a possible last minute sponsor signing:

We still prefer to close, as we always would, a multiyear commitment. But because of the activation time, it's increasingly and unlikely that we are going to get things done. We already can't get things done in a way that a sponsor can adequately, or even begin to adequately activate the sponsorship. It takes a long time. Which is why, when we do a sponsorship, we give ourselves a year and a half between the time a sponsor has to decide an extension, and the next affected tournament, because it takes that long, usually six months or eight months to bring a sponsor in and they want usually a year to activate.

When I say activate it, that means, who are the customers that I'm bringing? Can I get them there?

So thaaaatttttt's what activate means!

I got to invite them. I got to give them notice, save the date stuff, so you all understand that.

Not really, we writers don't get invited to those kinds of things.

Okay, get ready for the new word.

On the tournament side, it includes television sales to companies that buy media late in the game. We've done it before. You've seen it happen on the TOUR. So we have some things in place that if we don't have a longer agreement. I'm comfortable with how we are going to get through this year. I don't have any hesitation saying that there is enough marketplace interest in these events that I don't see a problem with them moving forward. So I doubt that we will need bridging. I doubt seriously we will need bridging again, but you may see it those two weeks this year.

Bridging: a short term sponsor who fills in after long time sponsor files for bankruptcy and the ironclad contract no longer is ironclad.

Q. Tim, it was announced Tiger will not be hosting the AT&T National. I'm wondering if that's a natural extension of the spirit of the privacy issue that you are bound to uphold?

Bound? Oh these writers get snarkier every year!

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: Well, I'm not going to go into all of the reasons behind it. All of the parties involved with the tournament got together and based their decisions and that was one of them.

Q. Tim, were you involved at all or was anybody involved with the discussions with AT&T as they deliberated on what their actions would be with regard to Tiger and the tournament?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: We were not involved in discussions with AT&T as it relates to AT&T's contractual relationship with Tiger.

Uh, that wasn't the question Tim!

We are not a party to that agreement. We did not have discussions with AT&T about their decision as it related to that decision. We've had discussions with AT&T about those issues where we are contractually related, for example, a tournament. But not the personal representation of the contract.

Q. So during that time that you talked to them about the contractual relationship in regard to the tournament, did any of the discussion pertain at all to what happened, and why they took their decision to take themselves off his bag, and how that might reflect on the tournament or anything?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: No, no. When we discussed the tournament with AT&T, they had made the decision on a personal representation and reported the decision to us. They did not discuss with us the details of how they came or arrived at that decision.

Well what good was it then for Finchem to play in the AT&T National Pro-Am with the AT&T Chairman? I thought these were bonding exercises over the course of six excruciating hours?

Q. I'm sorry, I want to be really clear on this. On Tiger as the host of the tournament, whose decision was that, or who was involved in the discussion that he would not be the host this year?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: The foundation, the AT&T and the PGA TOUR.

Q. All three parties?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM:

Yes.

Amazing they could make that decision entirely separate of any possible discussion about Tiger's relationship with AT&T. Now that takes skill!

Q. Tim, in regards to sponsorship, do you have specific focuses
that you are looking at? I mean in the past obviously there were automobiles, those went away, then the financial institutions, now that's obviously a difficult area, do you have certain focuses that you are looking at specifically?

And second, how much, if any, has the discussion of Tiger come up in discussions with potential sponsors?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: I'm not going to answer the second question. It's not really relevant to anything. Anybody who hasn't talked about the Tiger thing in the last two months was on the moon. The first part, we look at companies in all industry circuits.

Tiger's situation is not relevant to anything related to potential sponsors?

Sorry, tell us about those industry circuits. On second thought, don't.

Q. Just last year, around this time, some things sort of started occurring on Capitol Hill and there was some negative reactions from members of commerce toward golf. Have you been able now to sort of calm those waters and make lawmakers understand what the mission is here for golf and for the PGA TOUR specifically?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: I don't think you can make lawmakers understand anything. You can try to make them understand.

I hope that was said with a wink and a smile, but somehow I doubt it.