Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Friday, January 27, 2006 |
Pickoff Moves
OT: Delgadillo Gets A Cup Of Cold Coffee
LA city attorney Rocky Delgadillo, demanding the public needs to know about the so-called (and NSFW) "Hot Coffee" easter egg sequences hidden in Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto video game, has filed suit against the maker and parent Take Two, claiming the firms engaged in a misleading marketing campaign and unfair competition. By this, we assume that he means members of the Valley's largest industry were disappointed at not getting a piece of the, er, action. Delgadillo didn't mention his next step, but I expect he'll demand spoilers on the wrapper of The Crying Game.Goodyear, AZ Makes Another Pitch For Spring Training
Despite the Angels renewing their commitment to Tempe, Goodyear, Arizona is working a proposal to establish a 10,000 seat stadium on 120 acres in that city, as part of a centerpiece to attract one or two major league clubs to that facility. Good luck with that, then...Renovations At Tempe Diablo
Here's a bit more on the renovations at Tempe Diablo Stadium, with 3,200 green folding seats replacing the old aluminum ones between first and third bases, and benches with actual backs above the dugouts. Also, four new fields allow minor league spring training to take place within walking distance of the big league stadium.Another McCourt Casualty
The Dodgers fired 15-year veteran clubhouse manager Dave Dickinson, for reasons unknown, but allegedly related to comments made about the McCourts at a company softball game:"I was getting ready to hit," Dickinson said. "I was wearing a pair of batting gloves, and a guy walked by and asked me why the McCourt kids didn't have those (gloves). I said, 'They didn't ask me for them, and I don't like them.' I meant it as a joke, and we all started laughing. But apparently, the guy ran upstairs and told them."...
"I'm confused and shocked," Dickinson said. "And they wait 10 days before I go to spring training to tell me. That's the thing I can't understand. I was excited about this team. It seemed like a decent group of guys. I was looking forward to working with (new GM) Ned Colletti, because I have heard he's a really good guy, and (new manager) Grady (Little).
Add Logan White To The List Of Reds GM Candidates
In that same Daily News article above, Dodgers Scouting Director Logan White is believed to be on the Reds' short list of GM candidates.Judge Rules City Needs To Show Actual Harm
In an important development (finally!) in the Anaheim Angels name case, Superior Court Judge Peter Polos ruled the city of Anaheim must show actual financial damage caused by the team's name change, disallowing testamony from sports economist Andrew Zimbalist that the city gave up $138.5 million by renovating the stadium rather than demolishing it, selling the land, and collecting property taxes.Angels Airtime
Despite failing to sign a long-term deal so far, FSN remains interested in extending the contract, though Arte remains more interested in preserving his rights to start a cable network of his own. Fox will only commit to airing 50 games unless the Angels sign a long-term contract.A Francophone Sea Monster
Eric Gagné pitching? On the beach? In Hawaii? Nah. Must be a speck on my glasses. But at least he likes the team's offseason:"Frank McCourt has stepped up to the plate, big-time, with money and players, and he deserves praise," Gagne said. "Last year he got crushed in the media. This year, you look at the players we have, what more can he do?"
Comments:
From an editorial in today's O.C. Register:
'That appears to be the clear intent of the parties signing the contract: stadium renovations in exchange for the team being an Anaheim team. Contract law doesn't only look at the technical words in a contract, but at the agreed-upon intent of the signing parties. Mr. Tavares gave the crucial answer to the reason the contract was worded to say "to include Anaheim therein."'
I'm not a lawyer. To what extent does intent have a bearing on such matters?
'That appears to be the clear intent of the parties signing the contract: stadium renovations in exchange for the team being an Anaheim team. Contract law doesn't only look at the technical words in a contract, but at the agreed-upon intent of the signing parties. Mr. Tavares gave the crucial answer to the reason the contract was worded to say "to include Anaheim therein."'
I'm not a lawyer. To what extent does intent have a bearing on such matters?
# posted by 
: 1/27/2006 09:20:00 AM
: 1/27/2006 09:20:00 AM
I think it was probably a good idea to throw out that Anaheim could have gotten X amount of dollars if they had demolished the stadium. I mean, were they even considering it at all? If I remember correctly, Disney wanted to make the stadium better and decided to not hold the city hostage for the whole amount (Anaheim paying only $30 million to get a beautiful stadium is on the extremely low end of cities paying for such things). In order for Anaheim to help out at all, they wanted to be the location name of the team. Disney could have paid for the whole thing, but they were also fine with the Anaheim name (their other sports team was Anaheim and their theme park is widely known as being in Anaheim...so it was great synergy already).
Obviously, the folks over at the OC Register haven't actually been paying attention to the facts of the case. To say that the deal was that Disney would pay for 80+% of stadium renovations in exchange for giving up naming rights simply ignores the terms of the contract. Among numerous benefits the City acknowledged receiving in the deal (indeed, the reason the city accepted the deal) were: keeping the Angels long-term and getting a completely renovated stadium for practically nothing. The name wasn't mentioned.
Tavares (who really comes off sounding like a used-car salesman) testified that he basically made all kinds of unwritten promises about the name to the city in order to coax it into accepting the deal, but those assurances were not included in the final agreement. Tavares' intent to pull a fast one on the city is clear; the parties' intent is anything but.
It's possible that the parties really did intend that Anaheim would be the only region mentioned in the team name. But for the OC Register to assert that this was the main feature of the contract is simply to ignore reality.
In contract law, the parties MUTUAL intent is very important. Rules of contract interpretation dicate that you try to determine intent from the plain language of the agreement. You listen to what the parties say about what they each intended, in order to determine whether the contract language is ambiguous. If you find the language ambiguous, then you examine what the parties say to determine what they mutually intended (not just what one party intended). Then, using that mutual intent, you try to figure out what the ambiguous part of the contract really means.
In this case, the city first has to prove that the contract is ambiguous - in other words, that the lease language about the name doesn't actually mean what it says on its face. So, the evidence about the negotiations comes in, to figure out if both Disney and Anaheim both intended that, with respect to the name, that there is some additional requirement other than simply including the word Anaheim. If they find that the language is subject to more than one interpretation, then they determine what it actually means. The next step is to determine whether the name violates the true meaning of the lease. Then the city has to estblish that it suffered some type of economic harm because of it (I guess the City will try to present evidence as to what the value is of hearing the word Anaheim mentioned a few more times during a broadcast, or of seeing the word a few more times in each newspaper article about the team).
Tavares (who really comes off sounding like a used-car salesman) testified that he basically made all kinds of unwritten promises about the name to the city in order to coax it into accepting the deal, but those assurances were not included in the final agreement. Tavares' intent to pull a fast one on the city is clear; the parties' intent is anything but.
It's possible that the parties really did intend that Anaheim would be the only region mentioned in the team name. But for the OC Register to assert that this was the main feature of the contract is simply to ignore reality.
In contract law, the parties MUTUAL intent is very important. Rules of contract interpretation dicate that you try to determine intent from the plain language of the agreement. You listen to what the parties say about what they each intended, in order to determine whether the contract language is ambiguous. If you find the language ambiguous, then you examine what the parties say to determine what they mutually intended (not just what one party intended). Then, using that mutual intent, you try to figure out what the ambiguous part of the contract really means.
In this case, the city first has to prove that the contract is ambiguous - in other words, that the lease language about the name doesn't actually mean what it says on its face. So, the evidence about the negotiations comes in, to figure out if both Disney and Anaheim both intended that, with respect to the name, that there is some additional requirement other than simply including the word Anaheim. If they find that the language is subject to more than one interpretation, then they determine what it actually means. The next step is to determine whether the name violates the true meaning of the lease. Then the city has to estblish that it suffered some type of economic harm because of it (I guess the City will try to present evidence as to what the value is of hearing the word Anaheim mentioned a few more times during a broadcast, or of seeing the word a few more times in each newspaper article about the team).
# posted by : 1/27/2006 12:28:00 PM
: 1/27/2006 12:28:00 PMNewer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.