Skip to content

Kroenke criticized for staying silent on Los Angeles

E. JonesDome AP

It was a good weekend for Rams owner Stan Kroenke.

With the help of COO Kevin Demoff, the Rams landed Jeff Fisher to be their next head coach. That move will prove to Rams fans the team is serious about winning and willing to spend to do so.

That doesn’t mean Kroenke is escaping criticism in St. Louis. In an otherwise positive column Monday, Bernie Miklasz of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch writes that Kroenke is “flunking” in one critical area as an owner.

The happiness about Fisher is mitigated by the possibility of the team leaving town.

“Fans here are also on edge. They want to fully embrace Kroenke, but he won’t allow them to do so,” Miklasz writes.

Reports emerged last week that Fisher was concerned about taking the job because the team may leave for Los Angeles. While Fisher eventually signed up, his trepidation was telling.

Who is more connected in league matters than Fisher? He was a long-time member of the league’s competition committee and worked for the NFL last year. His concerns about the Rams possibly moving were well-informed.

Kroenke has been reluctant to say anything public about the Rams’ future in St. Louis. The team will reportedly be free to leave after 2014 and Kroenke is using the possibility of moving to L.A. for leverage as the Rams search for improvements to their stadium.

We know that’s all part of the stadium game, but Kroenke’s silence on the matter is not going to help sell tickets, much less ease fears that the Rams leaving town is a legitimate possibility.

Permalink 47 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, St. Louis Rams, Top Stories
47 Responses to “Kroenke criticized for staying silent on Los Angeles”
  1. koufaxmitzvah says: Jan 16, 2012 9:46 AM

    Georgia Frontierre never should have the Rams in the first place.

  2. koufaxmitzvah says: Jan 16, 2012 9:47 AM

    *moved, owned, ran….

    A dancer who grabbed the team when her sixth husband died in a boating accident.

  3. realitypolice says: Jan 16, 2012 9:49 AM

    Why would Fisher be concerned about taking the job because they might move to LA?

    “Wow, I really want to take this job with this mediocre, small market franchise. But golly, what happens if they up and move to the 2 largest media market in the country and play in a brand new, state-of-the-art stadium?”

    Yes, I can see where that would be troubling.

  4. thingamajig says: Jan 16, 2012 9:51 AM

    “We know that’s all part of the stadium game, but Kroenke’s silence on the matter is not going to help sell tickets, much less ease fears that the Rams leaving town is a legitimate possibility.”

    Staying silent will sell alot more tickets than saying that you are thinking about moving the team to L.A..

  5. purpleman527 says: Jan 16, 2012 9:56 AM

    “The team will reportedly be free to leave after 2014″

    So the Vikings are headed to L.A. (They don’t even have a lease at the dome anymore)

    The Jags are headed to L.A.

    And now St. Louis?

    So L.A. will have 3 teams in 2014?

    It always amazes me that many franchises “could go to L.A.”, but it hasn’t happened. And PFT keeps writing about teams moving to L.A.

    I have a hard time digesting any story about any team moving to L.A.

  6. jcusa514 says: Jan 16, 2012 9:56 AM

    since when is a stadium that opened in 1995 “outdated”

  7. nflinla says: Jan 16, 2012 10:00 AM

    Rams will move back to LA no doubt

  8. skito13 says: Jan 16, 2012 10:00 AM

    I agree that spending big bucks for tickets is a commitment. I also understand business,hopefully the meetings with the dome committee will happen soon and Mr. Kronke can sell out the ED like it use to be when we had a winning,even competitive team on the field. Mr. K has a good start.

  9. robigd says: Jan 16, 2012 10:02 AM

    I think the NFL would be better off just splitting the 32 teams and putting them in LA and NY.

    After that Goddell can take over the world.

  10. raiders4life says: Jan 16, 2012 10:07 AM

    Wouldn’t it be ironic if both the Rams and Raiders moved back to L.A.? Maybe just fitting.

  11. corneliuscruys says: Jan 16, 2012 10:12 AM

    Kroenke is nicknamed ‘Silent Stan’ here in the UK as he very rarely opens up to fans, especially Arsenal FC fans.

    He did have a problem ‘warming up to fans’ of Arsenal and only did so after months of pressure from the Arsenal Supporters Trust (fans who are shareholders). It was more a gesture.

  12. damnsureis says: Jan 16, 2012 10:17 AM

    The NFL needs to impose a rule that prohibits teams from moving back to a city that they just left. The Rams and Raiders both left LA and now they both seem like they want to go back. If it didn’t work the first time I don’t see the attraction in trying it again.

  13. richie500 says: Jan 16, 2012 10:22 AM

    Jeff Fisher is from Southern California, maybe that’s your answer right there?

  14. nflfan1326 says: Jan 16, 2012 10:26 AM

    @purpleman527

    You forgot about Oakland, San Diego, Buffalo, Cincinnati and Tampa Bay.

    All of those teams will just ring the Los Angeles suburbs and play in two different stadiums.

    When is that ground breaking again?….crickets.

  15. lasher1650 says: Jan 16, 2012 10:28 AM

    Kroenke has the reputation as a strong business man and his love for “making the deal” is stronger than any sentimentality he might feel for keeping the Rams in STL. He is set to make at least a few hundred million dollars if the Rams were to go back to LA – and this will likely drive him to relocate the organization.

    As a Rams fan, I certainly wish Shahid Kahn would have ended up with the team and Kroenke would not have exercised his price matching option on the deal that Kahn had made with Rams majority ownership (Frontierre’s children). Kahn was willing to at least work to keep the Rams in STL – with some strong indications that Kahn had support from Illinois legislators (Kahn resides in Springfield, IL and is well-connected there) on a stadium development deal on the Illinois side of the river – possibly at the Gateway Raceway super speedway site that is no longer hosting races.

    Unfortunately the excitement of the Fisher hiring is short-lived for many of us Rams fans, as the process further illuminated Kroenke’s likely intentions for the future of NFL football in STL>

  16. sj39 says: Jan 16, 2012 10:33 AM

    I know Stan. He is thinking of only one thing now – building a winning team. And he really could care less about what the local hack writes.

  17. stl45fan says: Jan 16, 2012 10:36 AM

    By bringing Fisher in, Kroneke now has a coach in place with the experience to run a team that may be in transition to make a move to another city.

  18. smackadabassmon says: Jan 16, 2012 10:38 AM

    How bout this scenario. Jags new owner (from the midwest) moves the Jags to the Lou, Rams go back home to LA and finally we have a legit NFC “West”. Minny is not going anywhere, let’s be honest……

  19. mogogo1 says: Jan 16, 2012 10:45 AM

    If it were such a no-brainer decision for LA to have a team, they wouldn’t have been without one for this long. Lots of talk about how great it will be when LA has a team again, but it never seems to move past talk.

    If Fisher truly is concerned about the Rams possibly moving back, it can only mean that in his inner dealings with the league he’s heard troubling talk about the viability of an LA franchise.

  20. Tom G says: Jan 16, 2012 10:47 AM

    The Rams belong in Cleveland!

  21. skito13 says: Jan 16, 2012 10:50 AM

    Season tickets also require buying the tickets for several years. I would buy, and have, tickets but not if the team can split in the middle of my ticket contract. Probably would not be able to give the tickets away after a move was announced.

  22. rosloe62 says: Jan 16, 2012 10:54 AM

    The NFL has to stop forcing the LA market down our throats when they want to leverage cities to build new stadiums. Why can’t billionaire owners just build their own stadiums like Jerry Jones? Isn’t my $3,000 a year for my season tickets enough?

  23. rosloe62 says: Jan 16, 2012 10:57 AM

    If LA is such a great NFL market, why did the Rams and Raiders leave?

  24. pyr8fan says: Jan 16, 2012 10:59 AM

    So Jerry is too involved and Stan is too far removed.

    Since when do we care how much the owner talks? Why would Stan show his cards about L.A.?

    Sounds like Bernie Miklasz has his panties in a bunch because he doesnt get the team access he thinks he is entitled to.

    I am a supporter of Arsenal as well, owned by Stan. I could care less if he speaks. He is the owner. Not the Manager, not a player. Stay silent Stan. Finance the team and stay out f the way of the people you hire to manage it.

  25. fcoprado says: Jan 16, 2012 11:02 AM

    As a lifelong rams fan,I would like to see the rams stay in STL.LA has never supported the Rams the way STL has,and by the way doea LA need another sports team since they have about 8 already

  26. maddenisfordorks says: Jan 16, 2012 11:06 AM

    If we are going to go to 18 games … why not have 2 expansion teams there?

    That way we can cut the PFT trash talk for all of us who support teams located in smaller towns than LA.

  27. clintonportisheadd says: Jan 16, 2012 11:07 AM

    “The team will reportedly be free to leave after 2014 and Kroenke is using the possibility of moving to L.A. for leverage as the Rams search for improvements to their stadium……….”

    —————————

    Here (once again) is the reason why Packer fans are only too happy to purchase “worthless” shares in the team.

    For less than the price of a NFL “authentic jersey” (whatever THAT means!) Green Bay fans never have to worry about a Kronke or Wilf or Mark Davis pulling that game with us.

    Eventually all of you will (or already have been) be financially raped by your team owner(s). Your taxes for a new stadium. PSL’s. Fees to park and watch a summer scrimmage. $10 beer. Etc etc.

    So keep on with the Packer stock jokes. The last laugh is ours….

  28. dolphincritic says: Jan 16, 2012 11:13 AM

    It would make sense that the Rams go back to L.A. It would also make sense for the Jaguars to move to St. Louis with a killer stadium deal. Their owner is a Midwest resident. The Vikings make no sense so they move to Oklahoma City! The Memphis Vikings sounds good!

    Either way St. Louis taxpayers will take it in the shorts; one way or another!

  29. drew44 says: Jan 16, 2012 11:25 AM

    Move back to LA. I want it to mean something when the 49ers beat down the Rams. It is not as sweet as when they were in LA

  30. jimsjam33 says: Jan 16, 2012 11:26 AM

    Bring our team back ! They were stolen in the first place by Frontiere .

  31. thankheavenfornumberseven says: Jan 16, 2012 11:34 AM

    clintonportisheadd says:
    Jan 16, 2012 11:07 AM
    “The team will reportedly be free to leave after 2014 and Kroenke is using the possibility of moving to L.A. for leverage as the Rams search for improvements to their stadium……….”

    —————————

    Here (once again) is the reason why Packer fans are only too happy to purchase “worthless” shares in the team.

    For less than the price of a NFL “authentic jersey” (whatever THAT means!) Green Bay fans never have to worry about a Kronke or Wilf or Mark Davis pulling that game with us.

    Eventually all of you will (or already have been) be financially raped by your team owner(s). Your taxes for a new stadium. PSL’s. Fees to park and watch a summer scrimmage. $10 beer. Etc etc.

    So keep on with the Packer stock jokes. The last laugh is ours….
    ________________

    Makes sense, except for the fact that keeping the Packers in Green Bay forever was accomplished with the first stock sale. Subsequent stock sales have just been a way for the team to get free money. Why do you keep buying the worthless stock?

    And the last laugh belongs to the Giants.

  32. kevpft says: Jan 16, 2012 11:50 AM

    Everyone seems to be assuming that Fisher was nervous about the potential move to L.A. because he doesn’t want to go there.

    Is it possible that he does want to go there, and his concern is that the team potentially might not make the move? Maybe he needed a different sort of reassurance than we think, one which ties in with the owner’s silence.

  33. thesportgenius says: Jan 16, 2012 11:57 AM

    damnsureis says: Jan 16, 2012 10:17 AM

    The NFL needs to impose a rule that prohibits teams from moving back to a city that they just left. The Rams and Raiders both left LA and now they both seem like they want to go back. If it didn’t work the first time I don’t see the attraction in trying it again.

    ~~~~~~~~~

    Its called smart business…new stadium with luxury box revenue in the 2nd largest market, Hollywood stars…etc. In addition to the new crib & cash flow players want the big spotlight so attracting FA’s is easier. Oh and there is no tundra or snow in LA, playing in the sun on real grass…very nice.

  34. quickwitt says: Jan 16, 2012 12:00 PM

    Hey, don’t forget Atlanta! Arthur Blank wants an outdoor stadium and taxpayers aren’t exactly yearning to replace the Dome – which is not outdated by the way. Unless you’re a rich NFL owner envious of the latest and greatest.

  35. ramofsteel says: Jan 16, 2012 12:16 PM

    Before starting to worry about Rams to LA, the better way to understand this so called criticsm is where it’s coming from. This Miklasz fella always seems to have a vendetta on any and every authority figure w/ the Rams. His job is to “stir the pot” so lets not take his “expert opinion” so seriously.

  36. effedinLA says: Jan 16, 2012 12:23 PM

    Just try living in LA where all we hear is what piece of crap team is headed our way this week. It doesn’t really matter what loser team eventually ends up in LA. The citizens want a team but we have voted idiots and thieves into our political arena and they will prevent any stadium to be built based on their inability to do anything right for the state or city. The mayor hears talk Football, he is thinking about what we call soccer!
    Good thing we have a million other things to do here in LA, because the only pro football we will see is U$C.

  37. effedinLA says: Jan 16, 2012 12:25 PM

    Just try living in LA where all we hear is what piece of crap team is headed our way this week. It doesn’t really matter what loser team eventually ends up in LA. The citizens want a team but we have voted idiots and thieves into our political arena and they will prevent any stadium to be built based on their inability to do anything right for the state or city. The mayor hears Football, he is thinking about what we call soccer!
    Good thing we have a million other things to do here in LA, because the only pro football we will see is U$C.

  38. kahnsbushymustache says: Jan 16, 2012 12:26 PM

    smackadabassmon says:
    Jan 16, 2012 10:38 AM
    How bout this scenario. Jags new owner (from the midwest) moves the Jags to the Lou, Rams go back home to LA and finally we have a legit NFC “West”. Minny is not going anywhere, let’s be honest……

    —————————————–
    Yes, because a smart businessman would move his newly-bought team from Jacksonville to a market that has lower average attendance…

  39. clintonportisheadd says: Jan 16, 2012 12:38 PM

    thankheavenfornumberseven says: Jan 16, 2012 11:34 AM

    Makes sense, except for the fact that keeping the Packers in Green Bay forever was accomplished with the first stock sale. Subsequent stock sales have just been a way for the team to get free money. Why do you keep buying the worthless stock?

    And the last laugh belongs to the Giants.

    ——————————

    The “subsequent” stock sales were for stadium improvements-which you may have seen yesterday on TV. The same improvements that are the impetus for other teams to ask for tax dollars or move to another town. Or both!

    But you are right-the last laugh is on the Giants (FANS). While you STILL are paying off the white elephant known as The Meadowlands (and will be for decades) you ALSO got hosed on PSL’s for MetLife Stadium.

  40. effedinLA says: Jan 16, 2012 1:23 PM

    rosloe62 says:
    Jan 16, 2012 10:57 AM
    If LA is such a great NFL market, why did the Rams and Raiders leave?
    —————————–
    Because both teams were owned by crazy people and the stadiums they played in were crap!
    They both leveraged deals that were good for them but bad for the city, therefore a new stadium was not built using taxpayer funds. So they left. One to go back to the crappy stadium they previously left and the other was hijacked by a murdering crazy bitch.
    It’s so expensive to attend a game that now most tickets are owned by businesses. In LA, there is so much money and business that between the entertainment biz and all the lawyers there will only be a few tickets for the real fans. It will sell out but not be full.

  41. banjojones says: Jan 16, 2012 1:33 PM

    Kroenke, like the Honey Badger, don’t care.

  42. NoHomeTeam says: Jan 16, 2012 2:23 PM

    fcoprado says: “As a lifelong rams fan,I would like to see the rams stay in STL.LA has never supported the Rams the way STL has,and by the way doea LA need another sports team since they have about 8 already”

    Evidently you are not more than 18 years old.
    The Rams enjoyed tremendous support in Southern California until incompetent and/or corrupt ownership finally managed to alienate the fan base.

    Just to be fair, though: We will trade St. Louis the Clippers and the Kings for the Rams. We may even sweeten the deal by including the Dodgers, depending on outcome of the the McCourt affair.

  43. upperdecker19 says: Jan 16, 2012 3:06 PM

    rosloe62 says:
    Jan 16, 2012 10:57 AM
    If LA is such a great NFL market, why did the Rams and Raiders leave?

    A – Al Davis
    B – Georgia Frontiere

    L.A. is to be applauded for running them out of town and not lining either of their pockets at the time. Looking back, the wacky city council out here probably made the right call.

  44. raidersfreak says: Jan 16, 2012 3:38 PM

    That is why L.A. has no team because these cities love to hand out the hard on tax money to a billionaire. When that cycle stops the last team of musical stadiums will fall down in L.A. I hope the State Minnesota tells the NFL to EF OFF to their tax money.

    California is broke and has to teams playing in stadiums that were uilt in the 60s renovated slightly later.

    NFL needs to rethink their program because one day the tax payers and city legislatures wont give into these demands by getting hosed today and with nothing in return but a little tax refund at the end of the year from the team and stadium revenue generation.

  45. bassrecord says: Jan 16, 2012 6:50 PM

    Sadly the Rams playing in LA or Anaheim always had to fight the stands half full of fans of whoever was playing the Rams that week. When Georgia (say her name like the song) took over things got progressively worse as Rams fans evaporated.

    It is not clear if returning to LA would ever be profitable for whoever owned the Rams, or any other team except the LA Traitors. The Black Hole loonies from Oakland will drive, fly or waddle down to LA every weekend just to see the Raiders. Plus their goonie rank would be swollen from other similar fans from East LA. Ugh! Just imagine a whole stadium full of Black Holes.

  46. NoHomeTeam says: Jan 16, 2012 9:24 PM

    bassrecord says: . . . It is not clear if returning to LA would ever be profitable for whoever owned the Rams, or any other team except the LA Traitors. The Black Hole loonies from Oakland will drive, fly or waddle down to LA every weekend just to see the Raiders. Plus their goonie rank would be swollen from other similar fans from East LA. Ugh! Just imagine a whole stadium full of Black Holes.”

    The Rams, or any other relocating team, will have a 2-3 season honeymoon period here before being judged on their actual merits. They get one year from the euphoria of having a team back in Los Angeles (two, if it’s the Rams “returning home”). They’ll get another when the glitzy new stadium opens for play. After that . . . if they’re competitive, and the owner demonstrates that he’s dedicated to winning, they’ll draw just fine. If not, they may well suffer declining attendance.

    As far as the Raiders and their fans go . . . this is why any moving vans from the Bay Area must be stopped and inspected before the Grapevine. Any truck found to be carrying Raider paraphernalia (or worse, actual Raider personnel) must be turned back at all costs.

  47. Eric Geller says: Jan 16, 2012 11:12 PM

    Tired of this……………

    The ONLY REASON the NFL isn’t in Los Angeles and the ONLY REASON the Rams and Raiders left L.A. in the first place is because no California government entity has ever been or ever will be willing to allocate tax-payer dollars for a billion dollar, PUBLICLY FUNDED football stadium.

    WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Hence, the Chargers, 49ers and Raiders (who are and will always be OAKLAND’S TEAM) are all playing in the league’s three oldest and out-dated stadiums and are NOW looking for new homes.

    AEG and Majestic Realty have each offered to build a PRIVATELY FUNDED STADIUM in Los Angeles. AEG’s FARMERS FIELD, unanimously approved by the L.A. City Council and Governor Jerry Brown as well as the State Legislature, will be ready to begin digging at the beginning of Summer which is when the Environmental Impact Report will be approved. Once that happens, AEG will be able to negotiate a team(s) coming back to L.A.

    The Rams/Raiders leaving had nothing to do with lack of fan support. Had that been the case the Rams, who called L.A./So. Cal. home for 49 years prior to leaving for St. Louis, would’ve left WAY BEFORE calling L.A. home for that half century.

    If you think a football team or two won’t make money calling L.A. home in the newest, state-of-the-art, 21st century football stadium in the country, YOU’RE NUTS.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!