Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anaheim's appeal denied

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Anaheim's appeal denied

    sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2351187

    Thursday, March 2, 2006
    Angels can keep the 'L.A.'
    Anaheim's request to block team's new name denied.

    By SARAH TULLY
    The Orange County Register

    SANTA ANA — The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim can keep their name, a judge ruled today.

    Judge Peter Polos of Orange County Superior Court denied Anaheim attorneys' request to block the hometown team from using "Los Angeles" in its name.

    Polos sided with a jury, which decided last month that the team did not breach its contract by changing the name.

    Anaheim will decide at their March 7 meeting whether to appeal the decision handed down by the jury February 10.

  • #2
    It would have sure helped my adopted state of Louisiana shed its "Banana Republic" reputation if the judge went back on his decision of two restraining order attempts last year and trumped the jury decision of the five-week trial this year.

    I understand the sentiment toward the Anaheim Angels name, because I grew up in Orange County. But I also remember the difficulty the club had fielding championship teams and think Arte Moreno is taking the necessary steps to avoid the pitfalls that befell the previous owners.

    It's my opinion that if you are going to market a region you have to identify yourself with a brand name that covers the entire region. I feel California Angels didn't represent any region and Anaheim Angels didn't represent the entire region.
    Last edited by CaliforniaCajun; 03-02-2006, 02:19 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      I listened to an interesting interview on KFI February 18, when the legislator Tom Spitzer interviewed Andy Guilford and Tim Mead.

      Mead didn't try to respond to Guilford's arguments about intent and the customs of MLB. He mentioned how Jackie Autry was raked over the coals for declaring this a small market, that the name change was designed to reach out to many more people, and that the club has had three owners in 10 years because it lost money ($100 million by Disney). Guilford said it was insulting to suggest Los Angeles had to be tacked on to the name in order to be successful, and that the right management could make it successful. He also said that both Disney and Anaheim agreed on the intent of the lease, but didn't mention Larry Murphy's testimony.

      Spitzer said he didn't want Los Angeles in the name, but he was frustrated that an attempt is being made to reverse the jury's decision. He thought sentiment is in Anaheim's favor but the law is in the Angels favor because the contract did not protect the things important to Anaheim. He suggested to Guilford that Anaheim cut its losses and work with his client to make sure Moreno eats his attorney's fees.

      The two callers (one was cut off presumablydue to a glitch) couldn't understand why the Angels would want Los Angeles in the name.

      One thing Spitzer said confirmed something I suspected all along, that the NFL is afraid of doing business with the City of Anaheim. The City had better have that in mind before they decide to file an appeal.

      Comment


      • #4
        The Anaheim City Council, lead by "Mayor Potato Chip" (Curt Pringle), are a good example of of being pennywise and pound foolish.

        Once again, I feel that the city has jeopordized its chance to get a basketball team and more importantly, a NFL team. Also by doing this, they most likely have driven its baseball team to relocate to another So Cal city for the 2017 season.

        Knowing how this city council thinks, maybe they do belive that Mayan Calander that ends in December 2012 which would make this quite moot.

        Recent photo of the Anaheim mayor:
        Attached Files
        Last edited by Bluesteve32; 03-03-2006, 01:41 AM.
        http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/ex...eline_1961.jpg

        Comment


        • #5
          It's a good thing I don't live in Anaheim, I think it's a huge misappropriation of city funds for the council to fight this case. If I lived in Anaheim I would be livid that the council was wasting my tax funds on this frivolous case. Anaheim has a history of wanting to do things their way and this case shows a total disregard for what thier constituants would want done with thier tax dollars.

          That said, I am an Orange County resident and don't like the name change but I do like the Angels winning. I have spent many years watching Mr Autry try to buy a championship the wrong way with washed up vets. This team is headed in the right direction with one of the most talented organizations in baseball and Anaheim needs to do what they have to do to repair thier relationship with Mr Moreno. I guarantee you, if you don't like Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, you really won't like Las Vegas Angels or Portland Angels.

          Comment


          • #6
            Do you think the Angels will be plaing in Anaheim after 2016?

            Do you think Anaheim has a snowballs chance in the infernal regions to land an NFL team after all of this?

            I beileve as we write here that Mr Moreno is looking for a suitable loaction, centrally located to the LA region, to build a new stadium for this club. I am sure it will have sufficiant freeway access, located by metro rail and metrolink lines, and have some ascthetic backdrop for those great TV shots.
            http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/ex...eline_1961.jpg

            Comment


            • #7
              Terrific letter to the editor in the Orange County Register

              (Note: the Orange County Register used to be called the Santa Ana Register. I wonder if Santa Ana sued.)

              Tuesday, February 14, 2006 :atthepc
              Jury was a good umpire for Angels' trial


              Contrary to the Feb. 12 editorial, "Bad call," the jury in the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim trial made a great call, and the replay in the Court of Appeal (if the case ever gets there) will back it up.

              Unexpressed intent in a contract is worthless, and it is dangerous to base the rights and responsibilities of the parties on it. That is why the terms of a contract are interpreted strictly, and why the jury's verdict was correct.

              A party who comes in after a contract is negotiated and who is assigned the rights and responsibilities of one of the parties (the assignee here is Arte Moreno), must be able to rely on the express words of the contract. Business would grind to a halt if the remaining party to a contract (in this case the city of Anaheim) could simply say, "Yeah, we know the lease says that, but what we really meant when we drafted it was this," anytime there is a dispute.

              No one would ever take over leases, or auto sales contracts, mortgages or any other type of agreement for that matter. Business in this country is based on the ability of the parties to rely on what their agreement says - in express terms - and on the ability of a third party to buy one of the original parties out of a contract, knowing what he or she is getting into.

              There is no way a potential assignee of a contract can track down the original parties to a contract and ask what they meant on a myriad of issues but failed to put into the words of the written agreement. So the jury not only got it right, it saved the judge from a potentially bad call - allowing the city to put on evidence of unexpressed intent in the first place.

              Undoubtedly, the officials in the booth (the Court of Appeal) will review the videotape and let stand the call made on the field.

              Maurice Sanchez
              Coto de Caza

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by CaliforniaCajun
                It would have sure helped my adopted state of Louisiana shed its "Banana Republic" reputation if the judge went back on his decision of two restraining order attempts last year and trumped the jury decision of the five-week trial this year.
                How's that?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by atlbravesfan
                  How's that?
                  Because all the contract says about the name of the team is that "Anaheim" has to be included. The City of Anaheim tried to get Disney to agree to contract language requiring that the team be named "Anaheim Angels" but Disney refused. Anaheim signed the contract anyway based on a verbal assurance by Tony Tavares (club president).

                  Disney proceeded to lose $100 million in seven years and wanted out of the baseball business. Arte Moreno bought the team, and wasn't privy to what "Tony told them" seven years earlier. In an effort to make the club financially viable Moreno decided he had to market the entire Greater Los Angeles area rather than just part of it (Anaheim and Orange County) and the name "Los Angeles Angels" suggests to the 17 million that live there that this is their team, too. If your fan base increases the more broadcast revenue you can get because people will pay more for broadcast rights and pay more for advertising.

                  Moreno feels he can do that because the contract he signed says that if he renames the team the Los Angeles Angels OF ANAHEIM, he is compliant. The City of Anaheim sued the pants off of him because they said Tony Tavares' verbal promise represented the true intent of the contract. Justice prevailed.

                  A similar experience happened in Louisiana with my alma mater. In 1984, the then-University of Southwestern Louisiana went through the same procedure that LSU-New Orleans did with their name change and was granted the name University of Louisiana. (LSU-New Orleans was renamed the University of New Orleans.) LSU didn't want it and unlawfully and unconstitutionally got the University of Louisiana name change reversed. UL sued, and frankly the judges were beholden to LSU and ruled against them. The University of New Orleans kept its new name. One of the ridiculous arguments LSU's lawyers had is that UNO's change was made when the management board was "young" under the new state constitution. You can't have it both ways unless your state is a banana republic.

                  I was looking intently at how the Angels name change dispute was handled, and was pleased to find out that the judge and jury were willing to make an unpopular decision based on the merits of the case and justice was served. Several jurors said later that they wanted to rule against the Angels' name change but couldn't because of what the contract said.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Great explaination, John. That seems the be the whole story in the Reader's Digest version.

                    I have read that Anaheim is again sore at Arte for pumping money into the Baseball Academy sponsored by MLB in Compton. I believe Darrell Miller, the former Angel catcher-OF and Cal Poly Pomona player, but better known as Cheryl and Reggie's brother, is one of those helping to run it. Darrell has been on the Angel's speaker board with Bobby Grich and Clyde Wright (Jaret's dad and former 22 game winner for the Halos) and worked in other capacities for the club after his playing days were over. Dave Winfield was also one of the digntaries involved as well.

                    Baseball needs to reach the innercity kids back to the game. This ought to benefit all of baseball in the long run.
                    http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/ex...eline_1961.jpg

                    Comment

                    Ad Widget

                    Collapse
                    Working...
                    X