More on Angels name change to "Los Angeles"

[See Red]

yes, they played their within the last 10 years, and are still close to there. Do you not see the difference between moving from Los Angeles to Anaheim, changing your team name to California Angels, then to Anaheim Angels, and then back to Los Angeles Angels (Those are the changes I know of, there might've been more) when you still play in Anaheim

and from moving from Washington D.C. to Maryland, staying pretty damn close, and retaining the name Washington Redskins?

[Brian in Boston]

The second Los Angeles Times piece:

ANAHEIM WILL FIGHT ANGELS' NAME CHANGE (Tuesday, October 9, 2004)

City Council will discuss legal options, saying Moreno will be in violation of stadium lease if he changes team name to Los Angeles.

by Bill Shaiken

The anaheim City Council is scheduled to discuss possible legal action against the Angels today, one day after City Manager Dave Morgan sent a letter to Commissioner Bud Selig asking him to reconsider his endorsement of the team's potential name chane.

Morgan called Selig's support "very disingenuous" since the move would violate a lease agreement that Selig hailed upon approval eight years ago.

In addition to considering legal options if owner Arte Moreno proceeds in renaming his team the Los Angeles Angels, the council will discuss whether Moreno's previous moves - removing the city's name from the team uniforms, schedules, ads and website - warrant a legal response.

"We will be discussing our legal options with the City Council and seeking its direction in terms of the actions that have been taken by the Angels and what additional actions may be taken," Morgan said.

Selig declined to comment, saying he had not read the city's letter. Moreno also declined to comment.

The Angel Stadium lease requires the team to be called the Anaheim Angels, a condition attached to the city's $30-million contibution to the 1996 ballpark renovations agreement.

On Sunday, The Times reported that Selig had given his blessing to Moreno's name change but wanted him to work with Anaheim officials rather than engage in a public fight.

The council has pledged to veto any name change, and Morgan said Monday there was no bargaining chip Moreno could trade for city approval.

"We're not going to go there," Morgan said.

The lease specifies that "Anaheim" be included in the name of the team and stadium, and the council could authorize filing an injunction if Moreno chnages the team name without approval. The lease does not specify the team use "Anaheim" on uniforms or in publicity materials, but the city might retain legal counsel to explore whether Moreno's strategy has devalued the city's investment in the stadium.

"We don't know if any of that constitutes a breach of the lease, but we want to have that conversation," Morgan said. "We don't want this to be a slow transition where we never draw the line. We need to take a look at whatever is occurring."

In his letter, Morgan expressed his "strong disappointment and concern" over Selig's approval of the name change and vowed the city "is prepared to take every legal step necessary to enforce the lease." Morgan also told Selig the city not only contributed to the ballpark renovation but limited future city revenue streams by accepting restrictions on development in the stadium parking lot.

However, in Moreno's two years of ownership, the Angels have set attendance records and thus contributed about $2.5 million to city coffers. The lease requires the Angels pay the city $2 for every ticket sold over 2.6 million; the team sold 3 million in 2003 and 3.4 million last season.

Morgan faxed his letter to Selig, with a copy to Bob DuPuy, president and chief operating officer of Major League Baseball. The Angels did not receive a copy.

After the council determines the city's direction, Morgan said he would invite Angel president Dennis Kuhl to meet. Kuhl declined comment.

[RickV]

yes, they played their within the last 10 years, and are still close to there. Do you not see the difference between moving from Los Angeles to Anaheim, changing your team name to California Angels, then to Anaheim Angels, and then back to Los Angeles Angeles (Those are the changes I know of, there might've been more)

and from moving from Washington D.C. to Maryland, staying pretty damn close, and retaining the name Washington Redskins?

My point has nothing to do with whether they played there or not. It has to do with teams playing in locations that ARE NOT in the city they are named after without changing their names. In other words for those teams it doesnt seem mandatory that their venue = the city they are named after. So I'm not favoring the Redskins, Cowboys, or Giants changing their names to Arlington, Piscataway (or wherever they play), or Landover (I stand corrected). By the same reasoning i dont think the Angels MUST be named Anaheim simply because their ball park is there.

[Brian in Boston]

... so why cant the Angels be named after a city that doesnt host their stadium, ballpark, etc?

Because, the City of Anaheim was smart enough to recognize that a significant portion of the impact of playing host to a professional sports franchise is having people identify your municipality with the team. Having recognized that fact, and having invested $30-million public dollars into the renovation of a facility to be used by a private business entity, Anaheim's civic leaders had the foresight to insist that their lease agreement with the Angels require the team to identify itself with the city that was playing host to the club.

Bottom line? The City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County did not contribute to the renovation of Angel Stadium. The City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County are not the host communities for the team. If the team is allowed to market itself as the Los Angeles Angels, the City of Anaheim gets little-to-no public relations bump in playing host to the team. So, according to the provisions of the team's lease with the City of Anaheim, the franchise must be called the Anaheim Angels. Period.

As for the communities of Landover, Maryland, East Rutherford, New Jersey and Arlington, Texas: if they did not have the foresight to increase the value of their respective partnerships with the professional sports teams that they play host to... well, shame on them.

The City of Anaheim had the good sense to insist upon a return - both financially and in terms of publicity/marketing - in exchange for its investment of public monies to benefit a private entity.

[JamesCraven]

Of course, from 1961 (Old Wrigley Field where the classic "Home Run Derby" show was filmed) and 1962 to 1965 (Chavez Ravine, aka Dodger Stadium), they were known as the Los Angeles Angels. The powers that be in Anaheim and the OC have sent this four word message about the change back to Los Angeles: "When Hell Freezes Over."

[Brian in Boston]

Of course, from 1961 (Old Wrigley Field where the classic "Home Run Derby" show was filmed) and 1962 to 1965 (Chavez Ravine, aka Dodger Stadium), they were known as the Los Angeles Angels.

Yes, and that was when they actually played in the City of Los Angeles in Los Angeles County, so calling them the Los Angeles Angels made sense.

The team now plays in the City of Anaheim in Orange County. Further, the City of Anaheim's lease for use of the municipally-owned Angel Stadium insists that the team be called the Anaheim Angels. Kudos to the City of Anaheim's public officials for insisting that the municipality get a return on their investment into the renovation of the stadium.

[The_Admiral]

Just call them the L.A. Angels, it's what everyone thinks anyway

[Brian in Boston]

Well, I'm sure that the 75% of the team's season-ticket base that hails from outside Los Angeles and Los Angeles County (including the 65% from Orange County) wouldn't agree with that assessment.

The team doesn't play in the City of Los Angeles. The team doesn't play in Los Angeles County. The City of Los Angeles didn't contribute one dime to the $30-million dollar renovation of Angel Stadium in 1996. Ditto for Los Angeles County. The City of Anaheim was responsible for contributing that $30-million to the renovation. The City of Anaheim wanted to get a return on their investment, both financially and in terms of public relations/marketing. To that end, the City of Anaheim had it written into their Angel Stadium lease with the ballclub that the team must use Anaheim as a place-name.

Bottom line: To do otherwise is a breach of contract. Period.

It's also a bush-league move on Arte Moreno's part.

[LMU]

LA's KFWB newsradio had a report on the change. The Anaheim City Council's going to vote tonight on if they will file an injunction on the name change. The position of Anaheim is that the use of the city name is publicity for Anaheim, which is why they included that provision in the lease, and they refuse to allow Los Angeles to get free publicity. Plus, the stadium's also included in the provision, so it would be kinda weird to see the Los Angeles Angels playing in Angels Stadium of Anaheim.

[Brian in Boston]

BINGO!

It's a pretty simple concept, gang. After playing host to the team for 39 seasons, plus investing $30-million in public monies to renovate a facility for a private entity to use, why would the City of Anaheim allow the City of Los Angeles to reap the public relations/marketing benefits of attaching their name to an Anaheim-based Major League Baseball team? It's ludicrous to think that they would... or should.

Good for Anaheim! If Arte Moreno and Major League Baseball push the issue, the city should sue the $hit out of them.

[yh]

The City of Anaheim had the good sense to insist upon a return - both financially and in terms of publicity/marketing - in exchange for its investment of public monies to benefit a private entity.

I agree, this was a very shrewd move.

Let's not even address the issue as to whether it's logical for a team located in Anaheim to use the name Los Angeles - I don't think you have to even go there. Let's get a look-see at the black and white of the contract that was signed. And more specifically, let's see what, if any, liquidated damage terms might exist ("liquidated damages" = agreed upon dollar sums to be paid in the event a party breaches the contract or any of its components).

Assuming that the contract language is clear in reflecting the intent of the parties at the time it is signed, I can't imagine why Moreno would think he has the ability to act in contravention of the terms of that contract. It would be an outright breach of the contract. It seems to me that somehow or another he feels his team will profit more by using the name Los Angeles Angels than to continue using the name Anaheim Angels. He obviously feels that either he can negotiate down the liquidated damages he'd have to pay by contract or he can force Anaheim to have to pay a lot of money for an expert to forecast exactly how much money the city expects to lose if the Angels stay in town but use a different name.

Seems to me that Moreno is simply using a public forum as a bargaining tool to force the city of Anaheim to set a price, make a deal and change the name once the price is paid. It ain't pretty and it ain't necessarily honorable, but that's business.

[RickV]

The City of Anaheim had the good sense to insist upon a return - both financially and in terms of publicity/marketing - in exchange for its investment of public monies to benefit a private entity.

I agree, this was a very shrewd move.

Let's not even address the issue as to whether it's logical for a team located in Anaheim to use the name Los Angeles - I don't think you have to even go there. Let's get a look-see at the black and white of the contract that was signed. And more specifically, let's see what, if any, liquidated damage terms might exist ("liquidated damages" = agreed upon dollar sums to be paid in the event a party breaches the contract or any of its components).

Assuming that the contract language is clear in reflecting the intent of the parties at the time it is signed, I can't imagine why Moreno would think he has the ability to act in contravention of the terms of that contract. It would be an outright breach of the contract. It seems to me that somehow or another he feels his team will profit more by using the name Los Angeles Angels than to continue using the name Anaheim Angels. He obviously feels that either he can negotiate down the liquidated damages he'd have to pay by contract or he can force Anaheim to have to pay a lot of money for an expert to forecast exactly how much money the city expects to lose if the Angels stay in town but use a different name.

Seems to me that Moreno is simply using a public forum as a bargaining tool to force the city of Anaheim to set a price, make a deal and change the name once the price is paid. It ain't pretty and it ain't necessarily honorable, but that's business.

As I said before, if he wants to change the name of the team badly enough, he will find a way to do it, whether it be a court battle, or a pay off.

[Blackjack76]

He's already done away with including "Anaheim" on anything relevant (uniforms, press releases, logos, etc.). It seems the press is the only ones calling them "Anaheim." I wouldn't be surprised, if "Los Angeles Angels" are not allowed, that he tells his staff to just call the team "The Angels," a la MLS MetroStars.

[STL FANATIC]

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.

I think the major difference here is that Anaheim is a larger city than Arlington or Landover.

Actually, whether or not that is true, they want to be know as more of a major city. They don't want to be LA Jr.

Therefore, the city of Anaheim helped out with the stadium under the condition that Anaheim be the location name of the team.

[DEAD!]

Let's see:

Arlington, Texas: 354,100 http://www.nctcog.org/almanac/almanac.asp?0175

Anaheim, California: 343,000 http://www.fresnolibrary.org/ref/pop/caldof.html

so they are relatively the same size

Anaheim's got Disneyland, Arlington's got Six Flags over Texas

[STL FANATIC]

Let's see:

Arlington, Texas: 354,100 http://www.nctcog.org/almanac/almanac.asp?0175

Anaheim, California: 343,000 http://www.fresnolibrary.org/ref/pop/caldof.html

so they are relatively the same size

Okay, well my point about LA Jr. still stands.

[B-Rich]

A couple of more points for discussion....

(1) Brian in Boston and yhollander have the most solid points-- a contract is a contract is a contract. And Anaheim was shrewd in getting it on paper. It's great advertisement-- think of how often you've heard "Anaheim" on TV and in sports news since the mid 90s, when the Mighty Ducks began play ('94) and the Angels changed their name ('97), and think about how often you heard it before then. Almost never.

It helped to put it on the map, so to speak, much moreso than Arlington, Irving, Landover, Foxboro or Orchard Park. Before that time, you had the "California" Angels for about thirty years and the "Los Angeles" Rams for about 15, playing in Anaheim/the OC and giving them no props.

It's the same thought with the Hornets jerseys. Both in Charlotte and in New Orleans, both home and away have the city name (sorry, traditionalists). Great advertising for the teams's home in both cases; Charlotte needed it because they were that area's first franchise, and New Orleans needs it (1) to make people remember the team's no longer in Charlotte, and (2) to keep this tourism-oriented/economically recovering city on other people's minds.

(2) That being said, I wish there were a better, more consistent way of addresing the issue for each team in a given metro area. Minnesota and Tampa Bay seem to have worked it out best-- "one name to rule them all". In other areas, you've got this whole "big brother city" to "little brother city"/suburb dynamic going (Bay Area, Miami, LA/Anaheim) in which the cities/suburbs seem intent on establishing a separate identity. Or the team is "regionally" named to supposedly get a bigger fan base (Colorado, Arizona, New England, Carolina). And finally, you've got names that are appropriate in toto and sound better than if they adopted the actual city name: Texas Rangers, Colorado Rockies, Florida Panthers (an actual species).

[CubsFanBudMan]

Here's the original thread I posted, from April 8, 2004, under the heading "Angels Considering Return To 'California', or Los Angeles":

Apr. 8 thread

http://boards.sportslogos.net/index.php?sh...=7138&hl=angels

[jkrdevil]

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.

Ok, I will. Brooklyn is part of NYC. Brooklyn is not a city it is a borough. When there is a NYC election the people of Brooklyn vote in that election.

[rockchalk]

I really don't think that the Cowboys are a good example in this case, because the team hasn't actually played in the city of Dallas for 33 years, so the team's moving to Arlington is kind of a moot point when it comes to name changes.