Angels Ask for Ruling on Report

With the state appellate court threatening to strip “Los Angeles” from the Angels’ name within days, the Angels have asked the court to consider a document that they say shows the city of Anaheim is far more interested in linking the team name to the cost of stadium renovations now than at the time of the 1996 agreement.

In a hearing today in Santa Ana, the Angels must explain why the appellate court should not block the team from playing as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim until a trial can decide whether that name violates the stadium lease. A ruling is not expected today.

The city contends it would not have invested $20 million in stadium renovations if the team had not renamed itself the Anaheim Angels and featured the Anaheim name in marketing and promotions. In a report dated Aug. 5, 1996, city officials note the stadium lease requires the team name to include Anaheim.

However, the 16-page document ends by citing eight items in a “summary of major benefits” in the agreement. The team name is not one of those items.

The report also outlines five goals for stadium ownership accomplished by the deal -- again without citing the team name -- including long-term retention of the Angels at a time the old lease was nearing expiration, shifting the costs of running the stadium from the city to the team and completing a “major overhaul of [the] stadium at minimum cost to the city.”

That report, the Angels argue, “completely undermines the city’s recently hatched theory that it ‘paid dearly’ for the stadium renovations.”

The renovations cost $118 million. Disney, then the team owner, paid the remaining $98 million.

In its response, the city claims the report is legally irrelevant and asks the court not to consider it. Nonetheless, the city alleges, declarations from negotiators representing Anaheim and Disney provide “uncontroverted evidence” that both sides “intended that the Angels be identified with Anaheim.”

In his declaration, then-Angel president Tony Tavares cited the team name as one of four deal points he recalled as crucial to the city and said “city negotiators made clear on several occasions” that the deal hinged on use of the Anaheim name.