PDA

View Full Version : LA Angels of Anaheim to officially become LA Angels. Staying in Anaheim till 2057?



KingsFan1985
September 2nd, 2013, 01:50 PM
According to the LA Times the city of Anaheim will vote on Tuesday (9/3/13) to enter a lease negotiation with the Angels to keep the team in the city possibly until 2057. Here are some of the key points.

* The team will agree to a new lease deal with the city of Anaheim to keep the team where they are at until 2057. The team can opt out on the deal in 2036, and 2050.

* The team can officially drop the of Anaheim portion of their name, and simply be called the Los Angeles Angels.

* The Angels will pay 200 million dollars for another renovation of Angels Stadium.

* Angels owner Arte Moreno will be able to rent land around the stadium for $1 a year and will secure development rights to that land for 66 years.

* The current lease deal which ends in 2016 will be extended to 2019 so that the city can work out a complex deal with the team.

'Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim' could be no more - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-angels-anaheim-los-angeles-arte-moreno-20130830,0,2484255.story#axzz2dlignkxp)

empire
September 2nd, 2013, 02:45 PM
If they win the big shiny thing they can be in LA, otherwise they're the Ducks of the MLB.

KingsFan1985
September 5th, 2013, 01:41 PM
So to give a update, the city approved the lease extension by a vote of 4-1. The mayor of Anaheim was very against this agreement becuase he feels Arte Moreno is just going to move the team out of the city anyways. The Angels came back and said they need the extra three years to organize their future plans in Anaheim.

gescom
September 5th, 2013, 01:43 PM
i really think something needs to be done about this L.A. s***.

SuperCalo2000
September 5th, 2013, 07:03 PM
Uncle Artie just wants a handout or a sweetheart deal from the city. Who needs police, fire dept., schools and libraries when the city of Anaheim can subsidize the Angels ? It happens in other cities all the time. See Detroit.

beedee
September 5th, 2013, 07:57 PM
If they win the big shiny thing they can be in LA, otherwise they're the Ducks of the MLB.

I'm not getting this.

KingsFan1985
September 11th, 2013, 12:43 AM
Uncle Artie just wants a handout or a sweetheart deal from the city. Who needs police, fire dept., schools and libraries when the city of Anaheim can subsidize the Angels ? It happens in other cities all the time. See Detroit.

Not to turn this into some sort of political debate, but if people don't like what Arte is doing then simply don't support the team over the next few seasons and make you displeasures know vocally. In a sense do what Dodgers fans did to get rid of Frank McCourt.

In either case I don't think Arte Moreno nor his group will own this team 50 years from now, or even 10 years from now. I think his end game was always to build up the team's value as much as he can, then sell it off when it's at its peak value. I'm pretty sure he has already explored many options for moving to LA and has probably hit many walls in getting something going for getting a ballpark built there (just look at Farmer's Field). I think Moreno's options are limited so if he's going to be stuck with Anaheim, might as well milk the city for all it's worth. Won't be Arte's mess to deal with 60 years from now.

KingsFan1985
September 26th, 2014, 09:09 PM
Update

Looks like the Angels leaving Anaheim is now 100% confirmed. Tustin looking like the most likely destination, so at least the Halos are not leaving the OC.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-angels-stadium-anaheim-tustin-20140926-story.html

TooCool
September 27th, 2014, 10:16 PM
Can someone explain why they keep changing the name of that team? I grew up with them as the California Angels and thought it was fine. Then it was Anaheim Angels which I adjusted to. Then it was Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Since the team didn't move locations why did they have to be named according to a different city? Anyone know the history or reasons for all the changes?

Here's a great article about Arte Moreno and why he's smart. Angels owner Arte Moreno, who stayed the course, closes in on big goal - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/sports/angels/la-sp-angels-moreno-20140926-story.html#page=1)

It's all about money. Changing the name back to the LA Angels generates them more money. Here's a quick snippet from the article


The Angels, born in 1961, never had made consecutive postseason appearances. They had eight logos in their history, and three division championships.

In 2003, they finished 19 games out of first place. But they sold 3 million tickets for the first time, and after the season Moreno invested $145 million in free agents, intent on transforming the image of the franchise from a mid-market team with a middling payroll to a large-market powerhouse that would challenge for a championship every year.

I obviously believed, from the marketing side, that we needed to go back to representing the region. We had to go back to the real name of the team, to Los Angeles Angels. There are 300,000 in Anaheim, 3 million in Orange County, 18 million in the metro area. I just felt that if we could draw outside the little bubble that I believe the franchise was in — let's call it an average of 2 million — that would give us opportunity to grow our revenues.

If we were able to go out and sign an extra free agent, or if we had to pay someone that we had traded for a little bit more, that would give us a little bit of an edge to compete at a higher level.

The Angels won the World Series in '02 and lost $20 million. A lot of people forget that. While Disney owned them, they lost an average of $20 million a year, plus a lot of people forget that they put in over $100 million into the stadium, in capital improvements.

Believe it or not, when the Halos won the World Series back in 2002 a lot of people outside of California didn't know where Anaheim really was. So the easy answer was "Near Los Angeles". It's the same thing with Disneyland. Do you think tourists actually know that Disneyland is in Anaheim? Hell no. They think L.A. first or at least they know it's near L.A.

Bitter Dodger fans (who care too much about the name and not their own team) and angry Angel fans (the ones who still want it to be called Anaheim Angels) aside, the bottom line is that it's STILL the Angels. They may be called the LA Angels or LA Angels of Anaheim on TV, newspaper, internet, etc... but the fact is... they have never referred to the Angels as the "LA Angels" when you're at Angel Stadium.

It's always the Angels, Halos, and the "A Team" and it'll stay that way.

mugs
September 28th, 2014, 10:06 AM
The Los Angeles Angels of Tustin.

Ice24
September 28th, 2014, 01:42 PM
Los Angeles Angels of California, End of Story

SloMo26
September 28th, 2014, 06:03 PM
Update

Looks like the Angels leaving Anaheim is now 100% confirmed. Tustin looking like the most likely destination, so at least the Halos are not leaving the OC.

Angels end stadium negotiations with Anaheim; Tustin on deck? - LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-angels-stadium-anaheim-tustin-20140926-story.html)


I highly doubt this........

KingsFan1985
September 29th, 2014, 02:11 PM
I work in the OC (Santa Ana), and moving the Angels to Tustin has been the talk of the town for a while already. You would be surprised how many people complain about it because they feel Tustin is somehow too far away from where the current stadium is. Give me a break. Will an extra 5-10 minute drive really kill you?

Let's be honest here for a minute. Anaheim is ghetto now, and not just kind of ghetto, but really ghetto! Where I work feels like Tijuana, and I work a few blocks away from the stadium. Truth is Tustin is way nicer, and you could build a lot really nice things on that old air base. The Angels have a rich history, and outside of the 50'th season and ramming 2002 down our throats (it's getting as sad the Dodgers celebrating '88), Arte has really dropped the ball on showcasing the history of the ball club and the ballpark. I think it's time for a new ballpark, one that honors the Angels past but will also serve as a monument to the house that Trout built.

mugs
September 29th, 2014, 03:38 PM
I work in the OC (Santa Ana), and moving the Angels to Tustin has been the talk of the town for a while already. You would be surprised how many people complain about it because they feel Tustin is somehow too far away from where the current stadium is. Give me a break. Will an extra 5-10 minute drive really kill you?

Let's be honest here for a minute. Anaheim is ghetto now, and not just kind of ghetto, but really ghetto! Where I work feels like Tijuana, and I work a few blocks away from the stadium. Truth is Tustin is way nicer, and you could build a lot really nice things on that old air base. The Angels have a rich history, and outside of the 50'th season and ramming 2002 down our throats (it's getting as sad the Dodgers celebrating '88), Arte has really dropped the ball on showcasing the history of the ball club and the ballpark. I think it's time for a new ballpark, one that honors the Angels past but will also serve as a monument to the house that Trout built.

The ghetto will follow the stadium.

KingsFan1985
October 1st, 2014, 02:48 PM
The ghetto will follow the stadium.

True! Even new stadiums don't chase the ghetto away. Ask New Yorkers.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wurF8QYtvc

Ice24
October 1st, 2014, 02:56 PM
True! Even new stadiums don't chase the ghetto away. Ask New Yorkers.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wurF8QYtvc

You have to love it! Some classy mitches.