More on Angels name change to "Los Angeles"

[B-Rich]

Following up on recent posts, the below AP story was up on the ESPN.com website this morning:

Monday, November 8, 2004

Report: Selig OKs 'Los Angeles' Angels

Associated Press

LOS ANGELES -- The city of Anaheim will resist any attempt by the Angels to change their name to the Los Angeles Angels.

The franchise began play as the Los Angeles Angels in 1961, became the California Angels when it moved to Anaheim in 1966 and has been the Anaheim Angels since 1997, after the team negotiated a 30-year lease with Anaheim.

"We're pretty fired up. We want the Angels to understand this is very important to us," Anaheim city manager Dave Morgan told The Associated Press on Monday. "They won the world championship as the Anaheim Angels two years ago and should remain the Anaheim Angels. The mayor and City Council of Anaheim are very clear and unambiguous that we will do whatever we need to do legally to enforce the lease we have with the Anaheim Angels."

The possibility of a name change was first reported in July. On Sunday, the Los Angeles Times quoted an unidentified high-ranking baseball official as saying baseball commissioner Bud Selig has given permission to Angels owner Arte Moreno to rename the team.

Angels president Dennis Kuhl declined comment Monday.

"It's important to say the Angels publicly and privately have never told us they're intending to make this change. We only hear rumors to that effect," Morgan said. "I'm sending a letter to Bud Selig today expressing my concerns. I'm telling him that if in fact that's where he is, I'm asking him to reconsider.

"This isn't strictly a matter of civic pride, although that's also very important to us. When this lease was negotiated, the city made major contributions as part of the negotiations to the renovation of the stadium, anywhere from $20 million to $30 million. We also significantly adjusted our revenue-sharing downward as part of this deal and agreed to some significant limitations on our development ability around the stadium itself."

Morgan said Selig attended the City Council meeting where the lease agreement

was approved by a 3-2 vote.

The name "Anaheim" was removed from uniforms, schedules and advertisements last season and isn't on news releases issued by the team.

Thoughts? Comments?

[Survival79]

Bush league move by Angels owner Arte Moreno.

Hello, Mr. Krinkle

How are you today?

Seems the rumors are abound

Your team might move away

Now, me I'm sentimental

But, I'm not one to cry

[RyanB06]

Think you guys missed it...

http://boards.sportslogos.net/index.php?showtopic=14535

[Swiss]

Er--- uhum... I think that my SF Giants fellows were right when they chanted before the 2002 WS "BEAT LA!" through Anaheim isn't LA. Hahahahahaha!!!

Well, I think that the Angels must be loyal to the city of Anaheim. If they change to Los Angeles Angels, it's like the Brooklyn Dodgers changing to New York Dodgers.

[jerkstore]

Actually its not at least Brooklyn is part of the City of NY

[RickV]

Anaheim sure didnt have a problem with the Angels when they were known as the California Angels for bout 30 yrs or so. Why are they getting their panties in a bunch now?

[LMU]

I don't even know why this is even an issue. I could have sworn that the name "Anaheim" was to be used as a condition of the stadium renevation/lease package.

[RickV]

I don't even know why this is even an issue. I could have sworn that the name "Anaheim" was to be used as a condition of the stadium renevation/lease package.

Is that a definite fact? Even if it is, I bet Artie can hire some lawyers and find a loop hole in it, if he wants the team to be called the Los Angeles Angels badly enough, I'd be willing to bet that he can find a way to do it. MLB wont step in on Anaheim's behalf, that's for sure.

[Swiss]

Actually its not at least Brooklyn is part of the City of NY

Ha, let's say it in Flatbush Av. if Brooklyn is currently part of the NYC.

[LMU]

I don't even know why this is even an issue.  I could have sworn that the name "Anaheim" was to be used as a condition of the stadium renevation/lease package.

Is that a definite fact? Even if it is, I bet Artie can hire some lawyers and find a loop hole in it, if he wants the team to be called the Los Angeles Angels badly enough, I'd be willing to bet that he can find a way to do it. MLB wont step in on Anaheim's behalf, that's for sure.

Then again... if the Ducks are going to be sold and moved to KC, and the Angels become the Los Angeles Angels, could this be a conspiracy to bring the NFL team promised to LA to Anaheim instead?

[RickV]

How is this scenario different than the Dallas Cowboys playing in Arlington, and still being called Dallas, or the NY Giants playing in New Jersey, or the Redskins playing in Northern Virginia and still being identified as Washington? The Angels originally were the Los Angeles Angels anyways, why not let the owner of the team decide what he wants to call his team?

[Brian in Boston]

I'll post a pair of lengthy pieces from the Los Angeles Times that put the issue in greater perspective. Here's the first:

KEEPING UP APPEARANCES (Sunday, November 7, 2004)

by Bill Shaiken

The Angels' latest billboard campaign isn't selling anything. There is no pitch to buy tickets, no phone number to call, not even the name of the team.

There is a portrait of a player in action, next to the team logo, against a backdrop of Angel red. That's it. If you don't know what the logo represents, or you don't recognize Vladimir Guerrero, the ads make no sense.

"It actually kind of violates what you're supposed to do," said John Carpino, the Angels' senior vice president of sales and advertising. "But if some people see it and don't know what it's about, they're probably not my target."

In the month after the Angels won the American League West championship and set a franchise attendance record, the billboards are designed to keep the team on the minds of Southern California sports fans as season tickets go on sale and Christmas approaches.

The ads do not appear in Orange County but do appear throughout Los Angeles County - the most recent evidence of owner Arte Moreno's strategy to sell the team as a Southland team, even if he decides not to risk the legal battle that might be necessary to rename his team the Los Angeles Angels.

The Dodgers have had internal discussions about how they might respond, and club officials are so convinced Moreno might make the change that last week's release of the 2005 Angels' schedule prompted one curious Dodger executive to ask, "Does it say Los Angeles Angels?"

No, but it does not say Anaheim Angels, either, just Angels. According to a high-ranking baseball official, Commissioner Bud Selig has given Moreno his blessing to rename the team.

"That can't hurt the Dodgers," the official said.

However, the official added, Selig wants Moreno to work with Anaheim rather than engage the city in a bitter public fight. The Angel Stadium lease, which Moreno inherited from the Walt Disney Company when he bought the franchise last year, requires the team to be called the Anaheim Angels.

The Angels have not discussed the subject with city officials since July, City Manager Dave Morgan said. The City Council has pledged to veto such a name change, and Morgan said the city attorney was prepared to seek an injunction should Moreno implement a change without council approval.

"We love Arte Moreno. We love the Angels. We want to work with them," Morgan said.

"In the unfortunate situation that they would try to move ahead anyway, we would take legal action. We hope it doesn't come to that, but we're prepared to do that if we need to."

The city would like - but would not need - Moreno's support in its pursuit of an NFL franchise, Morgan said. The city would not violate the Angels' lease by building a football stadium in the Angels Stadium parking lot, Morgan said, because repainting would provide the 12,500 surface-level parking spaces required in the lease.

In the Angels' first public acknowledgement of the possible name change, vice president of communications Tim Mead said the idea remained under consideration, with no decision about whether to implement the change and no timetable for a decision.

"It's a concept that has been discussed," Mead said.

Moreno doers not plan to move the team to Los Angeles or change the team logo or uniforms. He believes he can generate additional revenue by selling the team to all of Southern California, not only Orange County, then persuading broadcasters and advertisers to pay more because the Angels are a regional attraction rather than a local one.

The Angels' ratings last season rose 29% on Channel 9 and 62% on Fox Sports Net, Carpino said.

The team's contract with Channel 9 is up for renewal after the 2005 season. The Angels will receive $5.2 million from Channel 9 next year; the Dodgers will get $8 million from Channel 13.

Moreno removed the word "Anaheim" from uniforms, schedules and billboards last season. The Angels sell 65% of their season tickets in Orange County, 24% in Los Angeles County and 10% in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, according to Carpino.

Carpino said billboards in the current campaign do not appear in Orange County because he could not secure space in prime locations, but it is not accidental that the series of player ads includes one featuring new closer Francisco Rodriguez that looms over Ventura Boulevard.

"If we can generate interest in Encino, Tarzana, Pasadena or wherever, the likelihood of people there attending an Angel game becomes higher," he said. "If they just watch games, that benefits us too, because that benefits our media partners."

If Guerrero wins the AL most-valuable-player award - the announcement is November 16 - the Angels might slap "MVP" atop his billboards. With Guerrero leading the charge to the playoffs and the Angels selling a record 3.4 million tickets, sports business consultant David Carter said that the team has the credibility to run an ad campaign without selling anything, one that evokes the excitement of the summer.

"It's a bold statement, that they can use an image to communicate their brand," Carter said. "It would work for the Angels. It would not work for the Clippers. It's not just a short-term thing. It's the overall momentum this franchise has in the community and their belief this is not just a one-time spike."

By using bold color and what he called "bigger than life" player images, Carpino said the Angels hoped fans would relive the joy of last season and start anticipating thne next one - cash in hand, of course.

"From November through February, when we're not playing, that's a real imortant time for season ticket renewals and sponsorships, and baseball isn't at the top of people's minds," he said. "We're trying to create awareness throughout the whole region and trying to make the Angels more than just March through October."

[See Red]

How is this scenario different than the Dallas Cowboys playing in Arlington, and still being called Dallas, or the NY Giants playing in New Jersey, or the Redskins playing in Northern Virginia and still being identified as Washington? The Angels originally were the Los Angeles Angels anyways, why not let the owner of the team decide what he wants to call his team?

Well, for one -- The Redskins are identified as Washington because they played in Washington D.C. for a while. See how that works? And they actually play in Landover, Maryland.

And personally, I don't mind so much that the Giants or Jets are known as NY because they're pretty damn close to NY and there's no other NY teams. And as for the Cowboys, they're known as the Dallas Cowboys -- they've been kown as the Dallas Cowboys for a while now and it would be stupid of them to change their name to the Arlington Cowboys.

The Cowboys won't change very often from Dallas Cowboys to the Arlington Cowboys, to the Texas Cowboys, back to the Arlington Cowboys and then eventually back to the Dallas Cowboys like the Angels seem to be doing.

[RickV]

How is this scenario different than the Dallas Cowboys playing in Arlington, and still being called Dallas, or the NY Giants playing in New Jersey, or the Redskins playing in Northern Virginia and still being identified as Washington? The Angels originally were the Los Angeles Angels anyways, why not let the owner of the team decide what he wants to call his team?

Well, for one -- The Redskins are identified as Washington because they played in Washington D.C. for a while. See how that works? And they actually play in Landover, Maryland.

And personally, I don't mind so much that the Giants or Jets are known as NY because they're pretty damn close to NY and there's no other NY teams. And as for the Cowboys, they're known as the Dallas Cowboys -- they've been kown as the Dallas Cowboys for a while now and it would be stupid of them to change their name to the Arlington Cowboys.

The Cowboys won't change very often from Dallas Cowboys to the Arlington Cowboys, to the Texas Cowboys, back to the Arlington Cowboys and then eventually back to the Dallas Cowboys like the Angels seem to be doing.

Well your analogy of the Redskins being called the Washington Redskins because they originally played in Washington helps my argument because the Angels once played in Los Angeles TOO. So to follow your logic, they should be known as the Los Angeles Angels. See how that works, Smart A$$?

[See Red]

But the Redskins didn't change their name to the Maryland Redskins and then later decide to change it back to the Washington Redskins. When they do THAT, then you can call me a smart ass. Plus, the Redskins played in Washington as recently as '96. While that was certainly a while ago -- it compares favorably to the Angels who haven't played in Los Angeles since '66.

[Survival79]

Moreno doers not plan to move the team to Los Angeles or change the team logo or uniforms. He believes he can generate additional revenue by selling the team to all of Southern California, not only Orange County, then persuading broadcasters and advertisers to pay more because the Angels are a regional attraction rather than a local one.

How about the Socal Angels? In all seriousness, I could really care what they call the club, but if I were a resident of Anaheim I probably wouldn't be supporting the Angels at this point.

[RickV]

The only point I was trying to make with my original post was that teams play in venues that arent in the city that they are named after, so why cant the Angels be named after a city that doesnt host their stadium, ballpark, etc? Youre the one who came back with the smart ass remark about the Redskins being named after Washington because they once played there.

[DEAD!]

Youre the one who came back with the smart ass remark about the Redskins being named after Washington because they once played there.

Or Boston, because they played there as well

[OMMF]

Youre the one who came back with the smart ass remark about the Redskins being named after Washington because they once played there.

Or Boston, because they played there as well

Man '36 was a great year for them. Those were the days. *walks off towards pond with pipe in mouth*

[RickV]

Youre the one who came back with the smart ass remark about the Redskins being named after Washington because they once played there.

Or Boston, because they played there as well

LOL, that's a good one.