RickV Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ia/13818651.htmHopefully this will be settled by next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickV Posted February 10, 2006 Author Share Posted February 10, 2006 Los Angeles Angels it IShttp://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2325102 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Now can they buy out their stupid glorified suburb and just be the LA Angels? I can't stand another "x team of y" joke. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Jurors reject Anaheim's claim in Angels name change dispute That means that it settled a legal antecedent. Soon we'll see more attemps of renaming like:- NY Yankees of Bronx- Boston Red Sox at the Fens- Florida Marlins of Miami (next Florida Marlins of Hialeah)- Chicago Cubs of Northside...and more, more... like the New Orleans Saints of Oklahoma... It's great to be young and a Giant! - Larry Doyle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tp49 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 I wouldn't be surprised if Anaheim appealed the ruling. Then it could drag out at the least another year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 oh yeah they will appeal and this fun case will drag on for a while. www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 What grounds do they have to appeal? I have not followed the trial so I don't know. Was there any controversial ruling by the judge or something. I don't think you can just appeal just because they lost their case. Unless there was something wrong with the trial I don't see this going very far? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickV Posted February 11, 2006 Author Share Posted February 11, 2006 I dont think they will be willing to spend millions more to appeal. This trial alone cost the city a cool 2 million. Dont think the citizens of Anaheim will be too keen to throw out more money on a case that was unwinnable from the get go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tp49 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 What grounds do they have to appeal? I have not followed the trial so I don't know. Was there any controversial ruling by the judge or something. I don't think you can just appeal just because they lost their case. Unless there was something wrong with the trial I don't see this going very far? Under the CA Rules of Court you can appeal a judgment or any order (makes preparing the record in a civil case especially fun). The losing party has anywhere from 30-180 days depending upon the circumstances to file. From personal knowledge of this in another CA county I would not be surprised if the case was appealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMU Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 That's smart. Throw more money at appealing a lawsuit that was frivolous at best. What a way to get yourself reelected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 That means that it settled a legal antecedent. Soon we'll see more attemps of renaming like:- NY Yankees of Bronx- Boston Red Sox at the Fens- Florida Marlins of Miami (next Florida Marlins of Hialeah)- Chicago Cubs of Northside...and more, more... like the New Orleans Saints of Oklahoma... Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 That means that it settled a legal antecedent. Soon we'll see more attemps of renaming like:- NY Yankees of Bronx- Boston Red Sox at the Fens- Florida Marlins of Miami (next Florida Marlins of Hialeah)- Chicago Cubs of Northside...and more, more... like the New Orleans Saints of Oklahoma... Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Come on now Swiss ... If anything, they'd be known as the New Orleans Saints of San Antonio of Baton Rouge of Los Angeles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smith03 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Any chance the city and team can reach a deal to allow the Angels to drop the "of Anaheim" from the name and just be the Los Angeles Angels perhaps return the stadium name to Anaheim Stadium and some $ Just say NO to gray facemasks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacker12 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 To this day, I refuse to refer to the Angels as the "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim". It is the stupidest, most asinine full name for a team ever made. To me, they are still the "Anaheim Angels". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinMcD Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 To this day, I refuse to refer to the Angels as the "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim". It is the stupidest, most asinine full name for a team ever made. To me, they are still the "Anaheim Angels". Same here, should be the Anaheim Angles because LA already has the Dodgers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Same here, should be the Anaheim Angles because LA already has the Dodgers So they should rename the Clippers or Lakers as well then since they both claim L.A.? Okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tp49 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Same here, should be the Anaheim Angles because LA already has the Dodgers So they should rename the Clippers or Lakers as well then since they both claim L.A.? Okay. The difference is that both of them play in LA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMU Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Same here, should be the Anaheim Angles because LA already has the Dodgers So they should rename the Clippers or Lakers as well then since they both claim L.A.? Okay. The difference is that both of them play in LA. Funny, this coming from an Islander fan. So, by your logic, they should be renamed the Uniondale Islanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tp49 Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Same here, should be the Anaheim Angles because LA already has the Dodgers So they should rename the Clippers or Lakers as well then since they both claim L.A.? Okay. The difference is that both of them play in LA. Funny, this coming from an Islander fan. So, by your logic, they should be renamed the Uniondale Islanders. Last time I checked though, Uniondale is in New York (State not City) which is what the New York refers to, where the Angels don't even play in LA City/County. Unlike the Lakers and Clippers who both play in LA City. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMU Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Same here, should be the Anaheim Angles because LA already has the Dodgers So they should rename the Clippers or Lakers as well then since they both claim L.A.? Okay. The difference is that both of them play in LA. Funny, this coming from an Islander fan. So, by your logic, they should be renamed the Uniondale Islanders. Last time I checked though, Uniondale is in New York (State not City) which is what the New York refers to, where the Angels don't even play in LA City/County. Unlike the Lakers and Clippers who both play in LA City. Do you honestly think that some team in Albany or Buffalo or Rochester would name themselves the New York _______? The Islanders are clearly named after the city, so according to the theory presented, the Islanders should be forced to rename themselves the Uniondale Islanders. Plus, since both the Giants and Jets play at the stadium, obviously one of them came first and the other should be forced to change their name to the New Jersey or East Rutherford Giants/Jets.This just proves how silly the theory is, especially considering the fact that the MLB commissioner's office designates the Angels as "the American League's Los Angeles representative." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.