- 29 -
to their respective cities. Similarly, respondent explains that
the city of Philadelphia offered to defer all stadium rental
payments for a period of 10 years if the Saints agreed to
relocate to Philadelphia. Hence, according to respondent and in
light of these proposed rental terms, the terms of the 1975 Lease
after the Second Lease Amendment were not more favorable to the
lessee than those of comparable stadium leases.
We are not persuaded by respondent's attempt to expand our
focus with respect to the fair rental value of the 1975 Lease.
Not only are the lease values advanced by respondent merely
proposals, the record is insufficient for an analysis of the
comparability of the facilities located in other cities.
Respondent also attempts to refute petitioner's argument by
directing our attention to the duration of the period during
which the benefits stemming from the terms of the Second Lease
Amendment were realized by the Mecom Group. Specifically,
respondent maintains that the Mecom Group experienced little
benefit from the terms of the Second Lease Amendment because that
amendment preceded the sale of the team by 1 year. Additionally,
respondent maintains that had the Mecom Group been unable to sell
the team, it would not have benefited from the terms of the
Second Lease Amendment for a period exceeding 1 year unless it
exercised its option to extend an otherwise unfavorable lease.
This is so, respondent explains, because the Second Lease
Amendment preceded the expiration of the primary term of the 1975
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011