Angel President Calls Lease ‘Vague’

In a statement that could help the city of Anaheim in its lawsuit against his team, Angel President Dennis Kuhl testified Tuesday that the lease language at the heart of this trial is “very vague.”

The city contends the new team name -- the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim -- violates the intent of a provision requiring the inclusion of Anaheim. The Angels argue that intent is irrelevant because the language is clear and Anaheim is included.

But, under questioning from city co-counsel Andy Guilford about the requirement to include Anaheim, Kuhl said, “It doesn’t say for how long, or if something would happen, or if we could ask for it to be changed. It’s very vague. It doesn’t say for how long it has to be in the name.”

The lead lease negotiators have testified that the city and Disney, then owner of the Angels, intended Anaheim to be the only place in the team name. Under California law, a judge can instruct a jury to consider intent if the lease language is ambiguous, as Kuhl indicated Tuesday.

“It sure seems to corroborate the city’s position,” said Sheldon Eisenberg of the Santa Monica law firm Bryan Cave.

The language at issue required Disney to “change the name of the team to include the name Anaheim therein ... no later than the commencement of the 1997 season.”

Asked whether he believes Anaheim must remain in the team name until the lease expires, Kuhl said, “I don’t know.”

Earlier Tuesday, sports and marketing executive Arthur Adler testified that the name change deprived the city of $16 million in media exposure last season and would deprive Anaheim of $175 million worth of exposure through 2016, when the Angels can opt out of their lease. Both figures excluded playoffs.

On Monday, sponsorship expert Laren Ukman valued lost exposure, including playoffs, at $33 million last season, $191 million through 2016 and $373 million through 2029, when the lease ends.

Under questioning from Angel attorney Bill Custer, Adler said there is no standard methodology for valuing lost exposure. Ukman said she based her calculations on “more than 1,000” related studies by her firm.

She said the city hired her strictly to assess lost exposure, not how the missing “Anaheim” and “ANA” references might have translated into more tourism or even more consumer awareness. When Custer said she could not testify that the city had lost “even one dollar” because of the name change, she said, “Correct. That was not part of the analysis.”

After Angel attorneys question Kuhl today, the city plans to call Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle and then rest its case.