• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Angels tell Anaheim they're opting out of their lease on Angel Stadium

Jiggsawpuzzle35

Active Member
Original Poster
The Angels opted out of their lease with the city of Anaheim on Tuesday, setting the stage for another round of negotiations over whether the team remains in their longtime host city or finds a new home elsewhere in Southern California.
Angel Stadium, which opened in 1966, is the fourth-oldest ballpark in the major leagues, behind Boston’s Fenway Park, Chicago’s Wrigley Field and Dodger Stadium.
“As we look to the future, we need the ability to continue to deliver a high-quality fan experience beyond what the original lease allows,” Angels president John Carpino said in a statement. “It is important that we look at all our options and how we can best serve our fans now and in the future.”
Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait, who led the drive against a tentative 2013 agreement between the city and the team for an Angel Stadium renovation, is in his final term. Voters in Anaheim will elect a new mayor and three new council members next month.

Angels spokeswoman Marie Garvey said the decision to opt out was not meant to influence voters. She said the lease required the team to opt out no later than Tuesday or wait until 2028 for another chance to do so.
“It’s today, or 10 years from now,” Garvey said. “There’s no option in between.”
Garvey would not say whether remaining in Anaheim was the Angels’ first choice.
“We’ll sit down with the new mayor and city council,” she said. “We also are going to look at all our options.”
The Angels ended negotiations with Anaheim in 2014. They explored options for new ballparks in Los Angeles, Carson and Irvine, but prioritized Tustin because of its proximity to the current stadium and fan base.
The sides are believed to have focused on a stadium that would have seated about 37,000 and cost about $700 million. Tustin officials have said they will not provide taxpayer funding for stadium construction.
Garvey said the Angels understand they are unlikely to find a city in Southern California willing to pay for a new ballpark.
“We understand the realities of California,” she said. “There is a significant investment involved either way.”

http://www.latimes.com/sports/mlb/la-sp-angels-anaheim-lease-20181016-story.html
 

Phrubruh

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
They need to stop calling them The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. Just call them the Anaheim Angels and leave any association with Los Angeles out of it!
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
At least Disneyland isn’t the only business having issues with Anaheim City Hall.

That said, I hope the Angels don’t expect a giant tax break and/or public subsidy from Anaheim city coffers for a splashy new stadium. Just like Disneyland and that silly 1996 parking structure deal, I think the Angels should spend their own money to earn back their future profits. That’s how Free Enrerprise is supposed to work, with risks based on solid business decisions.

Heck, the Angels don’t even want to admit they live in Anaheim, so why should the local taxpayers admit they want to help them out?
 

Phrubruh

Well-Known Member
At least Disneyland isn’t the only business having issues with Anaheim City Hall.

That said, I hope the Angels don’t expect a giant tax break and/or public subsidy from Anaheim city coffers for a splashy new stadium. Just like Disneyland and that silly 1996 parking structure deal, I think the Angels should spend their own money to earn back their future profits. That’s how Free Enrerprise is supposed to work, with risks based on solid business decisions.

Heck, the Angels don’t even want to admit they live in Anaheim, so why should the local taxpayers admit they want to help them out?
How often do sports teams actually pay to build their own stadium?
 

freebird72

Member
How often do sports teams actually pay to build their own stadium?
The SF Giants did--although there was public money involved with upgrading the local transportation and infrastructure associated with the ballpark. I think the Oakland A's are trying to do so as well?
 

freebird72

Member
The SF Giants did--although there was public money involved with upgrading the local transportation and infrastructure associated with the ballpark. I think the Oakland A's are trying to do so as well?
Golden State Warriors are also privately financing their new arena. Can you guess where I live?
 

Disney Irish

Well-Known Member
The SF Giants did--although there was public money involved with upgrading the local transportation and infrastructure associated with the ballpark. I think the Oakland A's are trying to do so as well?
Golden State Warriors are also privately financing their new arena. Can you guess where I live?
I live in the region as well, so there is a little more to it than what is being stated. So while the ball park/arena was/is being financed by the teams, the land was basically just given to the teams for free. So there is a little more than just local transportation and infrastructure from the public money perspective.
 

freebird72

Member
I live in the region as well, so there is a little more to it than what is being stated. So while the ball park/arena was/is being financed by the teams, the land was basically just given to the teams for free. So there is a little more than just local transportation and infrastructure from the public money perspective.
The Giants lease the land from the SF Port Authority (66 year lease, $1.2 Million per year in rent). Not free, but you could make an argument that the rent is below market? The Warriors bought the land for Chase Arena from Salesforce. Forbes reported in September that the A's offered $137 Million to buy the Coliseum site, although they haven't given up on the Howard Terminal location.
 

Disney Irish

Well-Known Member
The Giants lease the land from the SF Port Authority (66 year lease, $1.2 Million per year in rent). Not free, but you could make an argument that the rent is below market? The Warriors bought the land for Chase Arena from Salesforce. Forbes reported in September that the A's offered $137 Million to buy the Coliseum site, although they haven't given up on the Howard Terminal location.
Really the lease came later, the land was basically given to the Giants in order to entice them to stay and to entice growth in the waterfront area.

As far as the A's are concerned they've been trying to get public financing for years. Remember the Fremont site, which was all set to go until the voters said no. That has been the case many times. The same with the Raiders, until Vegas came calling.

And on the Warriors front, there was a bit of a company rivalry going on there. Who has the naming rights to the current Warrior's arena? The terms were never disclosed as far as I know other than $150 Million figure thrown around. But I wouldn't doubt given how Marc B wants to stick it to Larry E that its a sweetheart of a deal over like 100 years.
 

jbradway

Active Member
You can also point to the fact that before AT&T park was built, that area was nothing more than run down and industrial. That park transformed the area. Real estate development in the surrounding neighborhood boomed and suddenly it was a cool place for the burgeoning tech industry to locate there. All this adds revenue for the city general fund that far outpaces whatever investment was put up. Sometimes these deals do make a lot of sense for a city.
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
http://www.anaheimblog.net/2018/10/16/angels-opt-out-of-stadium-lease-with-anaheim/

>>
The Angels today announced they are opting out of their stadium lease with the City of Anaheim, which owns the 52-year old stadium.


“As we look to the future, we need the ability to continue to deliver a high-quality fan experience beyond what the original lease allows,” Angels president John Carpino said in a statement. “It is important that we look at all our options and how we can best serve our fans now and in the future.”


An Angels spokesperson noted that under the terms of the lease, the opt-out clause had to be exercised by today, or else the team would locked into the current lease until 2028.


Negotiations between the team and the Angels broke down in 2014 after Mayor Tom Tait in the wake of an acrimonious public campaign the mayor mounted attacking a council-approved negotiation framework memorandum of understanding as a “taxpayer giveaway.” Tait also engineered the firing of the city’s chief negotiator Charles Black and his replacement with the Wylie Aitken of Aitken, Aitken and Cohn.


Aitken’s daughter Ashleigh, who also works for Aitken, Aitken and Cohn, is currently running for mayor of Anaheim.


Another mayoral candidate, gadfly Cynthia Ward, contributed to the breakdown in negotiations by suing the city in 2013 over the Angels MOU.


What does the Angels’ decision mean? Practically speaking, they have one more season at Angel Stadium. After, they’ll have no more rights to use the stadium.


Owner Arte Moreno could have asked the city for an extension, but did not. It speaks volumes about how the city has come to be seen as an adversarial and faithless bargaining partner that he would rather take his chances finding a different venue for his team for the 2020 season.


Given the treatment being meted out to Disney and Resort hoteliers by the Tait-Moreno majority, is Moreno’s decision really that surprising?


After Disney had the rug pulled out from under its 4-Diamond hotel project by the Tait-Moreno majority, the mantra was “Disney will build the hotel anyway.”


The same people said the Angels would never opt out of their lease. And now they have.


UPDATED: Mayoral candidate Harry Sidhu released this statement regarding the Angels’ decision:


As Mayor, I will fight to keep the Angels in Anaheim. The Angels are an important asset to Anaheim. I will change the political environment and keep the Angels in Anaheim where they belong.

I am disappointed that they felt the need to opt out of the lease and explore their options, but it is not surprising in light of the hostile political environment in Anaheim. It is time for new leadership at City Hall that will work hard to keep our top business partners, jobs, and revenue in Anaheim.<<​
 

Disney Irish

Well-Known Member
You can also point to the fact that before AT&T park was built, that area was nothing more than run down and industrial. That park transformed the area. Real estate development in the surrounding neighborhood boomed and suddenly it was a cool place for the burgeoning tech industry to locate there. All this adds revenue for the city general fund that far outpaces whatever investment was put up. Sometimes these deals do make a lot of sense for a city.
In the end there is nothing wrong with public/private deals.....
 

Darkbeer1

Well-Known Member
So guess what the Ange;s want... The Land.

They will build the Ball[park.

Looks like they will build the Ballpark, though with around 35,000 seats, a lot less than the current version.

The new Stadium would be built to the North West on the parking Lot where the Grove of Anaheim is, and after it opens, the old Stadium gets torn down, and replaced with parking and new development built by the Angels, which will use the profits to help offset the costs of the new ballpark.
 
Top Bottom