- 30 -
Lease by 1 year. According to respondent, the 1975 Lease was
unfavorable because it lacked generous revenue incentives
consistent with the industry trend.
We find respondent's argument unconvincing. By focusing on
the duration of the benefit generated by the Second Lease
Amendment, respondent is simply attempting to broaden our focus
with respect to the evaluation of the 1975 Lease. As previously
noted, we are not persuaded by respondent's attempt to convince
us to consider proposed lease values contained in bids made by
cities interested in attracting the Saints.
Under the second factor, we are to consider the location of
the Superdome. Again, respondent seeks to define the "market"
and expand the focus of our evaluation to include those cities
that had expressed an interest in hosting the Saints.
Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that we limit our focus
to Louisiana, and specifically New Orleans. We are inclined to
agree with petitioner. At issue here is the fair market value of
the Superdome lease, and, as previously noted, the record does
not support an analysis of the comparability of the Superdome and
facilities located in other cities. The Superdome is located in
New Orleans, and we restrict our focus accordingly.
Under the third factor, we consider the duration of the 1975
Lease. We recognize that the lease was due to expire prior to
the start of the 1985 football season but note that the lease
provided for two successive 5-year renewal options. In our view,
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