November 9, 200421 yr According to a report published by ESPN, the city of Anaheim will plan to fight the Angels' attempted name change to the Los Angeles Angels. Currently the team resides within the city of Anaheim. ESPN says that Bud Selig himself has approved the proposed change of city name, which has prompted Anaheim city officials to get their lawyers together for a court battle. Full story below. Anaheim Name Change
November 9, 200421 yr why would they want to change it? 611413[/snapback] The owner of the Angels Arte Moreno beleives the LA Angels name would bring in more money. I can only imagine that possibly better TV deals would come from it. As the Angels drew 3.4 million last year and really don't have any more seats available. The Orange County fans are opposed to the proposal. I see no need to make the change....the Anaheim name is alright.
November 9, 200421 yr I believe the team has a deal with Anaheim that was brokered when Disney(former owner) got their new stadium built there. I know for a fact the Angels can't move out but I'm not sure about renaming. Personally, I always liked California Angels best.
November 9, 200421 yr I don't know why they would want to do this. Now they'll just be the second team identified with LA. Who from LA is going to go or watch these games just because of the name change? Meanwhile, the people of Anaheim might be turned off by this. If the owner doesn't give a nut about them, why should they come to the games? They're going to be like the White Sox (no offense, Sox fans)...only worse.
November 9, 200421 yr Let's not forget the Angels were originally the Los Angeles Angels, so there is precedence for the name change.
November 9, 200421 yr For those of you who think the that there is no need for a name change know nothing about marketing Thats like naming the Florida Panthers the "Sunrise" Panthers because they play in Sunrise, now tell me what has a more broad appeal, Florida or Sunrise, same would go if the Dolphins were to play in Ft Lauderdale, the name Miami would never leave because of the broad appeal Miami has, the name Los Angeles would most definately ensure more revenue for the Angels, and if thats the case, their fans shouldnt care
November 9, 200421 yr Not the most important thing but, i would now be for you scoreboard and ticker watchers: Los Angeles Dodgers- LAD Los Angeles Angels- LAA
November 9, 200421 yr gay. artie moreno is the anti-christ. 611694[/snapback] yeah my opinion on him has done a 180 the last couple weeks.
November 10, 200421 yr I just think changing to Los Angeles relegates them to second-tier status until the end of time. They'll always be second to the Dodgers both in LA and nationwide. I think they lose any chance at building an identity that would make them appealing to a nationwide market.
November 10, 200421 yr Let's not forget the Angels were originally the Los Angeles Angels, so there is precedence for the name change. Yes, but that was when they shared the field at Chavez Ravine with the Dodgers. When they moved to their own stadium in Anaheim (that year or the year before), they were renamed California Angels. I believe the team has a deal with Anaheim that was brokered when Disney(former owner) got their new stadium built there.? I know for a fact the Angels can't move out but I'm not sure about renaming. The City of Anaheim owns the stadium. They built it way back in the 60's (with major modifications along the way, most recently in 1996) so that the Angels would play in Anaheim, not Los Angeles. There is definitely room for the argument that they have an investment on this team that would be wasted if they decided to plug another city in their own park. Personally, I always liked California Angels best. Me too. :cool
November 10, 200421 yr For those of you who think the that there is no need for a name change know nothing about marketing Thats like naming the Florida Panthers the "Sunrise" Panthers because they play in Sunrise, now tell me what has a more broad appeal, Florida or Sunrise, same would go if the Dolphins were to play in Ft Lauderdale, the name Miami would never leave because of the broad appeal Miami has, the name Los Angeles would most definately ensure more revenue for the Angels, and if thats the case, their fans shouldnt care Your Sunrise Panthers argument is sound, but the example involving the Dolphins moving to Fort Lauderdale is really far-fetched. Assuming the City of Fort Lauderdale ever built a stadium to lure the Dolphins, given the political dynamics of the tri-county area, there is no way in hell they would allow the franchise to keep "Miami" in their name. Your point would probably be best served by citing the New York Giants and (at least for now) the Jets both playing in New Jersey, as an example instead.
November 10, 200421 yr Not the most important thing but, i would now be for you scoreboard and ticker watchers: Los Angeles Dodgers- LAD Los Angeles Angels- LAA 611656[/snapback] The Dodgers may be LAN as well, like a lot of tickers list the cubs as CHC, the Sox as CHA, the Mets as NYN, and the Yankees as NYA
November 10, 200421 yr The City of Anaheim owns the stadium. They built it way back in the 60's (with major modifications along the way, most recently in 1996) so that the Angels would play in Anaheim, not Los Angeles. There is definitely room for the argument that they have an investment on this team that would be wasted if they decided to plug another city in their own park. 612047[/snapback] I believe one of the terms of sale from Disney to the current owners was they could not move the franchise(although now as I write this, that may have been a term of sale for the Mighty Ducks). At any rate, it's just a marketing move by Angels to get more $$$ by being called the LA Angels.
November 10, 200421 yr Not the most important thing but, i would now be for you scoreboard and ticker watchers: Los Angeles Dodgers- LAD Los Angeles Angels- LAA 611656[/snapback] The Dodgers may be LAN as well, like a lot of tickers list the cubs as CHC, the Sox as CHA, the Mets as NYN, and the Yankees as NYA 612141[/snapback] i have never seen the ones you are talking about. i have always seen CHC, CHW, NYY, NYM.
November 10, 200421 yr For those of you who think the that there is no need for a name change know nothing about marketing Thats like naming the Florida Panthers the "Sunrise" Panthers because they play in Sunrise, now tell me what has a more broad appeal, Florida or Sunrise, same would go if the Dolphins were to play in Ft Lauderdale, the name Miami would never leave because of the broad appeal Miami has, the name Los Angeles would most definately ensure more revenue for the Angels, and if thats the case, their fans shouldnt care Your Sunrise Panthers argument is sound, but the example involving the Dolphins moving to Fort Lauderdale is really far-fetched. Assuming the City of Fort Lauderdale ever built a stadium to lure the Dolphins, given the political dynamics of the tri-county area, there is no way in hell they would allow the franchise to keep "Miami" in their name. Your point would probably be best served by citing the New York Giants and (at least for now) the Jets both playing in New Jersey, as an example instead. 612051[/snapback] My scenaio with the Phins was completely hypothetical, Jets Giants is a very good example of this argument, good point :thumbup
November 10, 200421 yr lame take it back to the California Angels 612225[/snapback] teams should not be named after the state they play in
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.