BOOZE AT THE BANK PASSES, GOV NEXT STOP.

Donate To GopherHole

Even if the Gov signs it, what are the chances the U embraces it and finds a way to make it work. I say very slim. Even if the U goes for it, the athletic dept does not gain a lot since 75% goes to non-athletic scholarships, but atleast it makes the suites easier to sell.
 

Just another example

Of the legislature taking more time Micro managing the U. I understand they fund the U, and they should. I understand they bought some property for a park. I get all that. But to one year say no, and this year say well, ok, kinda makes them look foolish. And to tout this as what they can get done while they cannot seem to close a 3 babiillion dollar gap is outlandish. They should have never stuck their noses in the U's plans. They were aware of the Suites, the refridgeration, taps, bar sets. And once its built, they were all to eager to chime in no, no, no. Who truely are the elitists? Not the U, the suite holders, but those legistators who no whats best for you, and have the gall not only to infringe your liberty, but at the same time go on their merry way and do what they want even if its something they have told you, you cannot do. If it wasn't true it would be satire at its highest form.
 

Just when I thought the lawmakers could not get any dumber, they prove me wrong. This bill is as useless as the paper it is written on. If approved, how would the U even go about implementing this if they wanted to? What one-third of the stadium sections would get to have alcohol? What about who gets left out? What about seat selection based on where the alcohol was going to be served?

Basically, these idiots in St. Paul passed a "compromise" bill that will almost certainly not be put in place by the U, and even if it was, would be nearly impossible to implement.

Pure genius.
 

If you think the Regents are going to go for this, I've got a bridge in San Francisco to sell you.
 


One-turd is turde-tree and one turd percent of a bunch of crap. The Regents will flush it.
 

Wow, simply wow. Why is this an issue for THEM??? The U (marketing, AD..) does a good enough job screwing things up. Why does the legislature have to assist them?
 


This could be an opportunity...

//In a key change from a plan that passed the House late Thursday, the new proposal says "it is solely within the discretion" of the university to decide which general seating areas would serve alcohol. Legislators said the language would make it possible for the school to use wristbands, so-called beer gardens or other approaches to make alcohol available in the general seating areas.//

In an ideal world, the U wants no alcohol available to general seating. My guess is that they could get this passed within the next couple years, if they stand their ground. However, this proposal does give them an opportunity to make more money on the stadium than initially planned, largely keep alcohol out of the student section, and give them political cover amongst other NCAA institutions in providing more general access to alcohol.

For example, you could offer wrist-bands (heck, you could charge for wristbands) for anyone who doesn't have a student ticket, or you could have a beer garden outside one of the corner exits - with a one beer maximum, and allow entry/re-entry. Both would make alcohol largely inaccessible to the student section and generate a lot of revenue.

As I said before, they might be able to get exactly what they want in the future, but there are no guarantees, and this could be the best overall situation for the U, assuming they do have "wide lattitude" in their decision-making process.
 




from what one of top athletic department members that spoke in my class, she said the pres and her are highly against selling booze so i don't think it's going to get implemented...
 

Unless the Regents are irritated enough to find some create way to implement this without actually selling booze in the general seats as a way to give the legislature the bird, this isn't going to happen. But maybe it will make repeal easier next year. And maybe the folks in Rukavina's district can send the arrogant SOB out on his rear. However, he's a republican in an anti-democratic wave election so that's unlikely.

My suggestion: Randomly make wrist bands for sale to 1 of every 3 people in the general seats. They cost $200 per game. If they choose to purchase them, they're allowed into one of the clubs where they get free/cheap booze. Almost no one will accept the offer, and it will be easy enough to monitor those that do.
 

hyaluronic said:
//In a key change from a plan that passed the House late Thursday, the new proposal says "it is solely within the discretion" of the university to decide which general seating areas would serve alcohol. Legislators said the language would make it possible for the school to use wristbands, so-called beer gardens or other approaches to make alcohol available in the general seating areas.//

In an ideal world, the U wants no alcohol available to general seating. My guess is that they could get this passed within the next couple years, if they stand their ground. However, this proposal does give them an opportunity to make more money on the stadium than initially planned, largely keep alcohol out of the student section, and give them political cover amongst other NCAA institutions in providing more general access to alcohol.

For example, you could offer wrist-bands (heck, you could charge for wristbands) for anyone who doesn't have a student ticket, or you could have a beer garden outside one of the corner exits - with a one beer maximum, and allow entry/re-entry. Both would make alcohol largely inaccessible to the student section and generate a lot of revenue.

As I said before, they might be able to get exactly what they want in the future, but there are no guarantees, and this could be the best overall situation for the U, assuming they do have "wide lattitude" in their decision-making process.
Click to expand...

Good idea, only problem is some students will probably feel that is unfair to them if they are of age. But that is why you should have a cover charge. Another problem, visiting students don't need a student ticket. Anyone can just go on Stub Hub and buy a general admission ticket, and then pay the cover, and then have all the beer they want. Which is what the U does not wish to have.

Find a way to solve that issue and it is a sound plan. Was also wondering if the language says that in order to sell in premium seats you MUST sell in general admission, or if that conveniently got left out? "Solely in the discretion" sounds like the U might have an option to just not serve on gamedays. As in, all the hardware is in place, 1/3 of the stadium has taps....they just don't have any kegs available....oops.

Still think you could get around the issue by charging a "luxury fee" in premium seats and have alcohol served complimentary. Nothing is sold, still follows the law.
 



howeda7 said:
maybe the folks in Rukavina's district can send the arrogant SOB out on his rear. However, he's a republican in an anti-democratic wave election so that's unlikely.
Click to expand...

Rukavina is a Democrat. He was one of the DFL candidates for governor at the Democratic state convention a few weeks ago and got ousted early.
 

I don't think the U is likely to try something that violates the spirit of the law, and irritate important legislators. As a result, I don't think they'll do anything at all.

I agree with others here who say that the U won't ever serve alcohol in general seating so as not to be out of line with respect to the Big Ten, NCAA, etc.
 

howeda7 said:
Unless the Regents are irritated enough to find some create way to implement this without actually selling booze in the general seats as a way to give the legislature the bird, this isn't going to happen. But maybe it will make repeal easier next year. And maybe the folks in Rukavina's district can send the arrogant SOB out on his rear. However, he's a republican in an anti-democratic wave election so that's unlikely.

My suggestion: Randomly make wrist bands for sale to 1 of every 3 people in the general seats. They cost $200 per game. If they choose to purchase them, they're allowed into one of the clubs where they get free/cheap booze. Almost no one will accept the offer, and it will be easy enough to monitor those that do.
Click to expand...

Rukavina is a lifelong DFLer and an alcoholic. You do the math...
 

highwayman said:
Rukavina is a lifelong DFLer and an alcoholic. You do the math...
Click to expand...

He needs to drink during the game, but won't buy premium seats unless it's with someone else's moeny?

This is a pointless bill that the U will ignore. Apparently our brilliant minds in St. Paul don't understand the concept of NO ALCOHOL IN PUBLIC AREAS OF THE STADIUM.
 

GophBen said:
This is a pointless bill that the U will ignore. Apparently our brilliant minds in St. Paul don't understand the concept of NO ALCOHOL IN PUBLIC AREAS OF THE STADIUM.
Click to expand...

I think you got it wrong, Ben. The people who don't understand are everyone who wants to prevent responsible adults from buying and drinking a beverage which is sold everywhere in the world except state-owned college football stadiums.

Read Rukavina's lips: IF NO ALCOHOL IN PUBLIC AREAS OF THE STADIUM - THEN NO ALCOHOL IN PRIVATE AREAS OF THE STADIUM.

Thank God for our hard working state legislators who provide much needed oversight of the U's President and Board of Regents to prevent them from abusing the authority given to them by the citizens of Minnesota.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
Read Rukavina's lips: IF NO ALCOHOL IN PUBLIC AREAS OF THE STADIUM - THEN NO ALCOHOL IN PRIVATE AREAS OF THE STADIUM.
Click to expand...

Wow, this is a new (and bizarre) tangent to your arguments. Pray tell, which of the areas in the stadium are "public" and which are "private"?
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
I think you got it wrong, Ben. The people who don't understand are everyone who wants to prevent responsible adults from buying and drinking a beverage which is sold everywhere in the world except state-owned football stadiums.

Read Rukavina's lips: IF NO ALCOHOL IN PUBLIC AREAS OF THE STADIUM - THEN NO ALCOHOL IN PRIVATE AREAS OF THE STADIUM.

Thank God for our hard working state legislators who provide much needed oversight of the U's President and Board of Regents to prevent them from abusing the authority given to them by the citizens of Minnesota.
Click to expand...

You're doing a good job trying to push your spiel. You're still wrong.

I'm all for anyone being able to have a drink at TCF Bank Stadium, as long as they bought a seat in a premium section.
 

The alcohol in 1/3 of the sections is nonsense. All it would mean is that people would walk a couple sections over to buy a beer. The U should challenge this law in court, the state constitution is on the U's side, the legislature doesn't have the authority to dictate alcohol policy at the U. The legislature does have power over funding, of course, and I can see some in the legislature who would retaliate by cutting funding.

But let's not try to turn this into a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It's bipartisan political grandstanding. It's a hard sell, the state Constitution vs. beer.
 

tjgopher said:
Rukavina is a Democrat. He was one of the DFL candidates for governor at the Democratic state convention a few weeks ago and got ousted early.
Click to expand...

You're right. Sorry, don't know why that wasn't in my mind.
 

I would like to see them come up with a way to 'comply' but effectively not sell any booze in the GA seats. I'd think they could open up one of the suites, designate that anyone who sits in the sections around that suite that comprise 1/3 of the total can apply for a wrist band to enter that suite and buy booze. Ask for every piece of information under the sun in the application, which should help ensure no students make it through, make the wrist-band expensive and then serve the booze for free, but limit it to 3-4 per game maximum and enforce that they must stay in an enclosed area near the suite while they consume it. Make it a big pain and expensive, so no one will bother, but yet you will comply with the stupid law.
 

RodentRampage said:
The alcohol in 1/3 of the sections is nonsense. All it would mean is that people would walk a couple sections over to buy a beer. The U should challenge this law in court, the state constitution is on the U's side, the legislature doesn't have the authority to dictate alcohol policy at the U. The legislature does have power over funding, of course, and I can see some in the legislature who would retaliate by cutting funding.

But let's not try to turn this into a Democrat vs. Republican issue. It's bipartisan political grandstanding. It's a hard sell, the state Constitution vs. beer.
Click to expand...

I believe the Legislature has the authority over granting Liquor Licenses. Isn't that how all of this got started? The U applied for a Liquor License for TCF and stated it was for the Premium Seats. Then state legislators starting saying, "Wait a second, that doesn't represent the majority of the people of the state, blah blah blah." You know the rest of the story....
 

howeda7 said:
I would like to see them come up with a way to 'comply' but effectively not sell any booze in the GA seats. I'd think they could open up one of the suites, designate that anyone who sits in the sections around that suite that comprise 1/3 of the total can apply for a wrist band to enter that suite and buy booze. Ask for every piece of information under the sun in the application, which should help ensure no students make it through, make the wrist-band expensive and then serve the booze for free, but limit it to 3-4 per game maximum and enforce that they must stay in an enclosed area near the suite while they consume it. Make it a big pain and expensive, so no one will bother, but yet you will comply with the stupid law.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the U would make more money just selling the Suite for the season without serving alcohol. With the cost of bringing in the booze, paying the staff, producing wristbands etc. might as well just book the Suite and not have to worry about it. It would be cheaper for the U and guarantee revenue, provided they sell the Suite.

It's why alcohol is important in premium seats. Big corporations can entertain high rolling cliental at a unique event. Without the sauce, businesses can just save money hosting a small party somewhere else, play the game on TV for those interested, and have booze and food themselves.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Wow, this is a new (and bizarre) tangent to your arguments. Pray tell, which of the areas in the stadium are "public" and which are "private"?
Click to expand...

I agree that it doesn't make any sense. I was just going for symmetry between GopherBen's post and my reply. When posting on internet message boards the meaning of what you say is always less important than how you say it.
 

Gopherdrummer said:
Unfortunately, the U would make more money just selling the Suite for the season without serving alcohol. With the cost of bringing in the booze, paying the staff, producing wristbands etc. might as well just book the Suite and not have to worry about it. It would be cheaper for the U and guarantee revenue, provided they sell the Suite.

It's why alcohol is important in premium seats. Big corporations can entertain high rolling cliental at a unique event. Without the sauce, businesses can just save money hosting a small party somewhere else, play the game on TV for those interested, and have booze and food themselves.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that. If they really had to discount the suites 25%, leaving one empty for the booze for the 'General Seats' and getting the 25% back on all of the others would still be a worthy trade-off.
 

According to FringeBowl blog: "U of M president Bob Bruininks is not a fan of the TCF Bank stadium alcohol proposal, calling the measure to allow alcohol sales in premium seating only if 1/3rd of general seating is also allowed to purchase booze “bad legislation.”

This is certainly predicatable. He was too nice and should have said "stupid legislation."
 

Gopherdrummer said:
I believe the Legislature has the authority over granting Liquor Licenses. Isn't that how all of this got started? The U applied for a Liquor License for TCF and stated it was for the Premium Seats. Then state legislators starting saying, "Wait a second, that doesn't represent the majority of the people of the state, blah blah blah." You know the rest of the story....
Click to expand...

Technically yes. But the U had been serving booze in the suites at The Barn and Marriuci for decades and the legislature never said boo. They also never said anything while the stadium bill itself was being debated, when the U's intentions were completely clear. In fact the U requested liquor licenses for all 3 venues in 2006 as part of that process and were granted them. Only when Rukavina was made to realize he couldn't have his beer at the new stadium in the 2009 session was the uproar commenced. This policy is in effect at schools in every other state with a major-DI program. Yet the Minnesota legislature was the only one who saw fit to stick it's nose in and micro-manage. They have one of the longest sessions in the country (most states can get thier business done in 2 months or less) yet they accomplish little except meddling where they dont' belong and still require special sessions to actually get thier work done.
 

Gopherdrummer said:
I believe the Legislature has the authority over granting Liquor Licenses. Isn't that how all of this got started? The U applied for a Liquor License for TCF and stated it was for the Premium Seats. Then state legislators starting saying, "Wait a second, that doesn't represent the majority of the people of the state, blah blah blah." You know the rest of the story....
Click to expand...

The thing is, this isn't about the licenses. The U already has the licenses. As howeda notes, the legislature knew what the plan was for TCF when they approved the licenses (and no one made a peep).

This is about how to serve once they have the licenses. And that is not something the legislature has the power to do. The U has constitutional autonomy, the right to govern the University as they deem appropriate. If the legislature wanted to be petty they could cut funding to retaliate. But this move has always been outside their bounds.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom