Conservative Talk Radio Host Says Angels Deal Framework Good for Anaheim

Anaheim Insider here.

Conservative talk radio host John Phillips was on his AM790 colleague Doug Mcintyre’s this morning discussing the Angels negotiations framework (Mayor Tait and his backers have misled the public the impression this is the deal, and not negotiation starting points):

John Phillips is a conservative, small government, free-market guy, and he can’t exactly be tagged as standing to benefit from the outcome of the negotiations. He sees is the big picture: this is the framework for a deal that can keep the Angels in town (much more important than Tait & Co. seem to realize), have them pay for the huge stadium improvement tab, and put fallow city owned land to economic use that will create jobs and tax revenue for the city.

It’s too bad the mayor and his small faction of critics can’t see the forest because of a couple of trees (which may not even be in the final deal).

No comments

  1. He clearly can’t do math. Not one dollar from the general fund?

    What’s the delta on the loss of revenue from ticket sales vs. the $600k paid by the general fund for maintenance?

    Oh, right. It’s negative. By a lot.

    Come on John. More time doing simple arithmetic. Less time shilling for “the man.”

    Also– real classy misogynist joke there at the end. Guy seems like a real winner.

  2. Ryan – why don’t you scan and post a copy of the contract that was approved by the city council so we can all review what you and Mayor Tait are reading. I don’t see the delta you speak of in the MOUs anywhere. Can you say with a straight face that the city’s multi-decade contract with the team will amount to no more than a couple of pages of loose negotiating positions? The farce lies with Tait and his supporters that there is a done deal. That’s the real joke – and the only masogynist in this scenario is the Mayor who attacks the women on the council and the female members of the staff all day long every time they dare to disagree with him. If the Angels leave town – we can all thank Tom Tait – and then we will be talking real General Fund dollars to tear down a 50 year old stadium – all on the backs of Anaheim taxpayers.

    • Nice comebacker, CE. Matt has the MOUs posted. Read ’em if you like.

      The MOU raises the floor to 3,000,000 ticket sales before Anaheim starts receiving revenue. The dollar value lost by raising the floor grossly exceeds the $600,000 the city pays towards the stadium maintenance fund, which are the only two dollar values discussed in the stadium MOU.

      This means the general fund DOES take a loss based on the MOU, which means that either John Phillips is a liar or he can’t do math. I’m betting on the latter. If you disagree, perhaps you should scan the docs and post them– I’m just using what the city provides.

      There’s a substantial difference between stating that Hooters will have to rely on CSUF Women’s Studies department and disagreeing with a woman based upon her stated position on an issue.

      Guess which is misogyny. Trying to flip that as a reason to critize the mayor just makes you look really quite silly.

      You’re really doing a disservice to your fellow employees CE. You really ought to post under a different ID.

  3. I asked you to post a signed contract with those terms in it – not a couple of pages of MOUs to begin the negotiations process. We’ve all read the NON-BINDING MOUs. Can an attorney please post on this site and give people an education on the difference between a MOU and a contract please? If the council approves a final contract and it costs the city more than the current contract, feel free to continue the jihad against staff and the council. Until then, it’s just drummed up machinations clearly designed to cause the negotiations to falter and the team to leave.

    The Hooters comment was an apparent attempt at satire – degrading the women around you regularly is far more in the misogyny camp than one flippant attempt at ironic humor.

    Trust me – there isn’t just a majority opinion on the council at odds with the mayor – the super majority of employees are absolutely sick to death of his kindness campaign given his antics at City Hall and elsewhere.

    • It’s a retort to the claim made by John Phillips you dullard. He said not one dollar of general fund money . . . I’m just pointing out he’s wrong.

      There is no difference between a MOU and a contract.

      In case you missed that, and I wouldn’t be surprised . . . (Again, you’re doing your fellow employees a real disservice by commenting as “City Employee”. Let’s all hope you’re no where near the city attorney’s office.)


      In fact, a MOU IS A CONTRACT. In this case, in exchange for a reprieve on the unilateral contract termination deadline, the parties agree to negotiate in “good faith” for the terms outlined in the MOU.

      What you meant to ask, but failed to do, is “what does ‘good faith’ mean?” That’s a more complicated question. But the short version is the city just can’t up and say “no” to any of the terms specially outlined in the MOU. If they aren’t going to be met, substantial consideration must be offered (and accepted) by the Angels in its (their) place. It gets more complicated because there are two MOUs, which aren’t linked. Push comes to shove, because of how poorly these were drafted, if Arte can prove the city didn’t negotiate in good faith on one or both of the MOUs, he gets the land for $1 a year and gets to move the team anyway. Probably won’t happen, but the city ought to have more competence than to allow that possibility to exist.

      And the anti-feminist verbal diarrhea wasn’t an attempt at satire. Not even close. It was misogynistic. An allusion to the tired old male centric stereotypified view of what an angry feminist ought to be.

      You’re 0-3. Care to go 0-4?

  4. You are just wrong and its tiresome – and it’s ironic you resort to name calling because you fail to make a valid point. To say that the non-binding MOU is a contract is ridciculous – you dullard!

    If that’s the case, let’s all go home, the Angels are staying and there is nothing more to do.

    You must have been sick the day they taught law at law school…

    I trust our City Attorney far more than your rantings.

    • And Wikipedia for the win:

      Just to nail the point home, the MOU is the only instrument used to extend Arte Moreno’s opt-out time frame. If it’s not a contract, he can’t legally extend the provision to 2019 (can’t modify a contract without another contract). In this case, you’ll note the MOU has “all four corners”, which is why Moreno’s opt out window has been extended.

      0-4, city employee. Care to go 0-5?

  5. You are deranged – the scoreboard underscores your immaturity but if it works for you keep going. You are the only one keeping score. There is nothing contractually obligated by the city with the one exception of extending the lease terms. Perhaps you should just call the City Attorney and ask him these basic questions so you can better understand. Or better yet, perhaps Greg Diamond with his infinite and equally deranged legal advice can give you a puppet show. Either way, you have not made your points on legal grounds and I am not continuing to debate a brick wall. Put up or shut up – scan and post the legal contract with the Angels organization not the non binding MOU which does not bind the city to any financial contractual terms.

    • Forgive the, shall we say, absurdity.

      John Phillips: This costs zero dollars.

      Me: No, it costs lots of dollars.


      Me: I’m just replying to John, who is also using the MOU as the basis for saying it costs zero dollars. In the MOU it says the city gives up a $600k maintenance payment. It also says the Angels stop giving the city a cut of ticket sales after a much higher floor than what exists today. This means the deal isn’t general fund neutral and is in fact a burden on the general fund because the lost ticket revenue costs the city significantly more than what it saves from giving up the maintenance payment.


      Me: I understand that. I’m replying to John who’s using the exact same set of facts that I am, which is the MOU. By the by, the MOU is a contract. That’s why the Anaheim City Attorney says its a contract **seriously, hop over next door and ask him.**


      Me: Well, if you’re going to run around the place breaking things, you shouldn’t be advertising that you’re a city employee. Your co-workers are going to resent the fact you look, well, uncontrollable, uninformed– and for the large part, apparently illiterate. By posting as a city employee, you represent them, which they aren’t going to appreciate.


      Me: I see. Well, best of luck to you on that. Hey, look! A bright light!

      City Employee: Whaaaaaaaa?

      Me: . . .

      City Employee: What were we talking about? I’m so hungry. I need a Snickers bar.

  6. Does Tom Tait know who owns the stadium? The city does!

    How does he suggest the city come up with $150 million to maintain the stadium? Even if the Angels were, which I hope they don’t, the city would still have to come up with $150 million to maintain the building, or tear it down. For godsake we can’t have an old stadium just sitting there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *