Strib editorial weighs in on alcohol issue

Donate To GopherHole

Thank you upnorthgopher and your cadre of "populist faction of fans"

I think you and your fellow troublemakers should donate the $2-3 mil the U is gonna lose on this and also buy out all the suites and club seats the U loses to cancellations etc....
 

Just piles onto a big list of why most people can't stand politicians. I normally advocate term-limits as a good remedy to cycle these people out of government. But Pawlenty supported this and he's not running for re-election, so, I don't know what he was thinking.
 

Donovan said:
Just piles onto a big list of why most people can't stand politicians. I normally advocate term-limits as a good remedy to cycle these people out of government. But Pawlenty supported this and he's not running for re-election, so, I don't know what he was thinking.
Click to expand...

not running again?! righhhhhhht. you think little old t paw wasn't still thinking about his presidential election run in two years when he refused to take the "correct" side on this issue? he was pandering just like the house/senate pols were.
 

Can anyone link the results of the vote in the house and senate for this bill?
 



Maverick said:
Thank you upnorthgopher and your cadre of "populist faction of fans"

I think you and your fellow troublemakers should donate the $2-3 mil the U is gonna lose on this and also buy out all the suites and club seats the U loses to cancellations etc....
Click to expand...


I have always told people that I am a "liberal", but I am starting to like being referred to as a "populist". I think that is what I am going with from now on.

In Charlie Walter's column this morning he states that the lost revenue will be about $1 million. Who knows what the answer is at this point, but I guess the U has an incentive to puff up the number as much as possible.

Based on a recent GopherHole poll, I believe approximately 25% of the Holers who responded to it supported the action of the Governor and Legislature. Judging from that number I would guess that 30% to 40% of Gopher fans who don't post in GopherHole also support it. And furthermore, I think it is safe to say that the action has the support of well over 50% of taxpayers in Minnesota who own the U of M and Gopher Stadium for all practical purposes. It is my contention that regular GopherHole posters are well outside of the mainstream on this issue.

In all seriousness I regret the way this all ended up. But I don't think it had to happen this way. This whole mess could have been easily resolved by the establishment of a beer garden for non-premium seat holders. The U would have substantially increased the amount of revenue earned from beer sales in Gopher Stadium, and absolutely nobody under 21 would be served. However, Bruininks and the Board of Regents chose not to go that way because that is not the way it is done at other colleges and universities. Bruininks repeats that rationale every time he opens his mouth on this issue. Needless to say, I am not persuaded by that ridiculous line of reasoning. All public policy decisions should be made strictly on the merits of the particular issue being considered. To pursure a course of action because that is the way it has always been done, or that is the way it is done in other places, is the kind of reasoning my children use when they want something.

I have said it before and I am going to say it again. The U has made a financially irresponsible decision by electing to not increase the revenues at Gopher Stadium by selling beer in a very contolled manner to any adult willing to pay the price.

Note: You will all be happy to know that this is my last post on this issue. I am done with it.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
Based on a recent GopherHole poll, I believe approximately 25% of the Holers who responded to it supported the action of the Governor and Legislature. Judging from that number I would guess that 30% to 40% of Gopher fans who don't post in GopherHole also support it. And furthermore, I think it is safe to say that the action has the support of well over 50% of taxpayers in Minnesota who own the U of M and Gopher Stadium for all practical purposes. In effect, it is my contention that regular GopherHole posters are well outside of the mainstream on this issue.
Click to expand...

Wow...you just took an internet poll on a fan message board and via 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon logic found a way to turn it into "proof" that over half the state supports your point of view. I'd love a little of whatever you're smoking. I'm cool if your opinion is that GH posters are outside the mainstream...its your opinion. But don't pretend like there is some factual basis for your gut feeling.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
I have always told people that I am a "liberal", but I am starting to like being referred to as a "populist". I think that is what I am going with from now on.

In Charlie Walter's column this morning he states that the lost revenue will be about $1 million. Who knows what the answer is at this point, but I guess the U has an incentive to puff up the number as much as possible.

Based on a recent GopherHole poll, I believe approximately 25% of the Holers who responded to it supported the action of the Governor and Legislature. Judging from that number I would guess that 30% to 40% of Gopher fans who don't post in GopherHole also support it. And furthermore, I think it is safe to say that the action has the support of well over 50% of taxpayers in Minnesota who own the U of M and Gopher Stadium for all practical purposes. In effect, it is my contention that regular GopherHole posters are well outside of the mainstream on this issue.

In all seriousness I regret the way this all ended up. But I don't think it had to happen this way. This whole mess could have been easily resolved by the establishment of a beer garden for non-premium seat holders. The U would have substantially increased the amount of revenue earned from beer sales in Gopher Stadium, and absolutely nobody under 21 would be served. However, Bruininks and the Board of Regents chose not to go that way because that is not the way it is done at other colleges and universities. Bruininks repeats that rationale every time he opens his mouth on this issue. Needless to say, I am not persuaded by that riduculous line of reasoning. All public policy decisions should be made strictly on the merits of the particular issue being considered. To pursure a course of action because that is the way it has always been done, or that is the way it is done in other places, is the kind of reasoning my children use when they want something.

I have said it before and I am going to say it again. The U has made a financially irresponsible decision by electing to not increase the revenues at Gopher Stadium by selling beer in a very contolled manner to any adult willing to pay the price.

Note: You will all be happy to know that this is my last post on this issue. I am done with it.
Click to expand...

so let me see if i have this right: a blow hard named charlie walters, unscientific internet polls, beer gardens that were never planned in the first place, the U of M should oppose guidelines that the rest of the big ten follow.......

somehow you still have not convinced me based on this awesome line of logic. not quite sure why..........

:rolleyes:
 



If you have to drink....go to a Vikings game.
I'm in favor of the no-alcohol policy. I like to watch the game and cheer. Don't need to be looped in order to do so.
I got rid of my Vikings tickets because in the past 5-6 years fans there have become more drunk, more obnoxious and more vulgar while heaping verbal abuse on anyone comnnected to the opposition.
My hope when the new stadium becomes a reality is that it doesn't become a place with an NFL/Vikings atmosphere. We already have one of those.
 

It's been 3 years since I bought a beer in the dome. I have enough before the game, I don't need to shell out money during the game for an overpriced beer. I wouldn't have bought beer in the new stadium one way or another. The thing that sickens me about this whole ordeal is that the notion of "getting what you pay for" no longer applies. A premium experience entitles you to some perks. If you think that isn't fair, welcome to life on Earth. This isn't kindergarten, where if you didn't bring enough gum for the whole class, you can't chew any either. People in this country need to grow up and quit pouting when you don't get your way. Life isn't fair, get over it.
 

PlayHosea said:
It's been 3 years since I bought a beer in the dome. I have enough before the game, I don't need to shell out money during the game for an overpriced beer. I wouldn't have bought beer in the new stadium one way or another. The thing that sickens me about this whole ordeal is that the notion of "getting what you pay for" no longer applies. A premium experience entitles you to some perks. If you think that isn't fair, welcome to life on Earth. This isn't kindergarten, where if you didn't bring enough gum for the whole class, you can't chew any either. People in this country need to grow up and quit pouting when you don't get your way. Life isn't fair, get over it.
Click to expand...

Exactly! There are tons of perks that premium seat holders get. The more you are willing to pay, the more you get. Here are some I can think of off the top of my head.

- A better view of the game
- Leather seats
- Easier access to seating area
- Wait staff (?)
- A private lounge area
- Protection from climate elements
- Access to better food
- A TV/video monitor

I'm sure there are many others. Why is it that of all these perks that come with a higher ticket price, alcohol sales are singled out? It makes no sense. If this was such a concern, then why did the legislature not care that this went on at Williams and Mariucci for years? Why didn't the legislature also mandate that leather seats be installed stadium-wide, that "bad" seats were allowed, and that the stadium have a roof to protect everyone?
 

gopher7 said:
Exactly! There are tons of perks that premium seat holders get. The more you are willing to pay, the more you get. Here are some I can think of off the top of my head.

- A better view of the game
- Leather seats
- Easier access to seating area
- Wait staff (?)
- A private lounge area
- Protection from climate elements
- Access to better food
- A TV/video monitor

I'm sure there are many others. Why is it that of all these perks that come with a higher ticket price, alcohol sales are singled out? It makes no sense. If this was such a concern, then why did the legislature not care that this went on at Williams and Mariucci for years? Why didn't the legislature also mandate that leather seats be installed stadium-wide, that "bad" seats were allowed, and that the stadium have a roof to protect everyone?
Click to expand...

I think this is the best argument supporting the fact that this was pure pandering. No one cared about this plan until they realized that this could be exploited for populist political benefit. Since beer has never been available to the general seatholders in The Barn or Mariucci it could not be exploited. The move from the Dome is when the opportunity presented itself to score cheap political points.

If this is such a huge fairness issue, why is it that these legislators never made a peep in all the time since the U shared their alcohol plan years ago? Yet suddenly, when the bill was up for a vote and the first STrib and WCCO stories about going dry began to run this decision became elitist and wrong. Hmmm...
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom