Another Chance for Alcohol at TCF Bank Stadium?

Donate To GopherHole
Calgoph

Calgoph

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
1,122
Reaction score
31
Points
48
How did you miss this, Bleed? It's from the same column mentioning Tubby and Rick Rickert that you linked on the basketball board.

Shooter wrote, "Don't be surprised if the sale of alcohol at Gophers sports venues that could be worth about $2 million annually to the University of Minnesota is restored in time for football season at TCF Bank Stadium."

If this was to be slipped into the state budget bill, alcohol sales at TCF would increase tax revenue for the state and eliminate the need for the $1.7 million now given annually to the athletic department from the U's general fund. A double win for the state budget and also a double win for the U since they would have alcohol for the heavy hitters and the athletic department would be self-supporting.

Of course, this would all be at the expense of the anti-Maturi crowd...just another good thing falling in his lap. LOL

Here's the link again to Shooter's column:

http://www.twincities.com/ci_18399508?source=most_viewed

:)
 

Any chance they can pass it in time for the U2 concert? I'll drink to that.
 


The state pays for only a small percentage of the operating cost of the U, most of it comes from endowments. When the athletics department dips into the U's general fund, all they are doing is getting back some of the parking revenue, which goes into the general fund instead of to the athletics department. I think the athletics department should get at least a cut of the gameday parking, the lots would be empty otherwise.
 

Hmm. So Beer For One, Beer for All only lasts until the $$ is needed. Thanks State Legislature. I wonder what T-Paw thinks of this.
 


They either do it...or they don't. They either will or they won't. Talking about it doesn't mean it will happen. Does prexy k have the hair to "just do it??????" Talk is cheap. You either do it or you should shut up about it University of Minnesota administrators.

If it's coming from Charlie, there might not be much substance to the controlled substance sales rumors... ; 0 )
 

They can't "just do it". They could go to court to have the law overturned, as the legislature overstepped its authority under the state constitution. Short of that, the U can't "just do it" and have alcohol in the suites. And Kaler cannot "just do it" and decide to have alcohol in the entire stadium, even if the U wanted that, the regents would have to decide that, Kaler could not do it on his own. Caving on the issue by having alcohol in the entire stadium would not be having balls, but the opposite.
 

It starts somewhere...

If prexy k says nothing...nothing will happen. IF he doesn't push the regents...nothing will ever happen. If he and the regents then don't push the legislators...nothing will ever happen. prexy k does need to "just DO IT..." and start pushing on the regents.

The substance of any "controlled substance sales" in the stadium is totally dependent upon how much spine prexy k shows to the regents re: this issue. IF he is a spineless shy "new prexy in town" with the regents this issue is a dead issue.

Why give him a space to hide on ANY issue dealing with finances at the University of Minnesota. Finanaces will make him or break him. Finances will make or break the furure of the Unviersity of Minnesota. Lack of finances could destory positive growth and the entire mission of the University of Minnesota. prexy k had best start showing some spine re: revenue generation to the regents right now...it is ALL about money ALL of the time...

; 0 )
 

Even if Kaler did want to make the U one of only a very few universities in the country to have alcohol in general seating, he can't make the Regents do anything. He also has limited ability to persuade the legislators to do anything.

You think he's spineless for not bending to your will. Your idea of spineless is what most people would call having a spine. Do you call ice "hot"? Do you call rockets slow? Might as well if you are going to use words in the exact opposite of their actual meaning.
 



I could care less if they ever serve alcohol in the stadium or any where else on the campus. However, it appears some people would like to have them do that. In fact, some people would like to have them increase tailgating on campus. The thing is, when they opened the stadium, their plan was to sell alcohol and they sold special seating just with that idea in mind. The revenue would have been rather significant from that plan. On this forum, people complain that the legislators mucked up those plans.

People like Charlie Walters write about alcohol sales in the stadium to this date...even several years after the fact.

Now if this prexy k wants alcohol sales in the stadium...he should start lobbying and pressing on the issue with the regents. IF he does not, he should contact Charlie Walters and inform him that is not a part of the plan.

prexy k has the ability to put those kinds of issues to bed once and forever just by getting off his duff and addressing the issue any and every time it comes up. Certainly, if he doesn't support an issue and CW is writing about it, he should contact CW and tell him in no uncertain terms that CW is writing about something the he (prexy k) does not support. I'd say it is spineless if prexy k lets stuff like what CW wrote just "float" out there. I cut prexys NO slack...

; 0 )
 

walrus (wren) - not saying that i don't agree with some of your points on various topics (i agree on this one regarding alcohol sales in fact), but you certainly are a strange fellow at times. would be interesting, to say the least, to meet you in person and see what you are really like when you don't have the computer screen to hide your true identity. just saying.

p.s. do you have a wife, kids? if so, do they know what you spend your days doing and some of the stuff you write here and in various other places?
 

As your moniker would imply, it sounds as if you are up to "nogood" kinds of things. just saying....

What the hey is a "supadupafly?" And, are you married, do you have kids and do they know what you are up to and what you write here and various other places? just saying....

So what's the deal supadupafly....you seem to be trying to lay down some downright unfriendly noise here while you are hiding your true identity behind the computer screen. You are one strange dude or dudette...which ever your case may be. just saying....

supadupafly: I'll have none of what ever kind of scam you are trying to run here. just saying....

You are dismissed now and don't bother me any more. I have nothing to say to you and you certainly have nothing to say that I could care in the least about... just saying....

; 0 )
 

deflecting, deflecting......always deflecting. sign of an insecure individual. just saying. :rolleyes:

p.s. you don't dismiss me. i dismiss you.....and you will like it.
 



According to case law, the legislature may put conditions on university appropriations, if the
conditions do not violate university autonomy. If the State declared selling food and beverage at a state institution shall not exclude sales based on other purchase considerations, the U would be mandated to accept this principle to make beer sales available to all ticket buyers. If the state appropriation included a rider on its funding authorization to the U, the U would either have to reject the money or accept the provision.

The legislature is not limited to regulating the university only by putting conditions on an appropriation. The court in Lord noted that several general laws were applicable and not tied to appropriations applied to the U without having expressly naming the U because it promoted the general welfare and provided general public access. If food and beverage is not considered part of the general welfare and public access to purchase not an interference with general management, the U could be compelled to sell beer to all areas of the stadium, and not merely the premium seating areas. The whole Constitutional exemption has been shown to not apply to general laws that cover more than the U. As long as beer is served in the Capitol building, then there very well could be a way to craft legislation that would cover who could be served at state agencies and other public institutions. I bet there is statute that covers that right now. I'll dig a little further and find out. Constitutional Autonomy is not all encompassing and case law provides several examples where public interest outweighed autonomy.

But, what do I know, a poor peasant boy, uneducated, rotten-commie hanging out in general seating, when I am not, myself, granted corporate access under the glass box by a politburo member.

How many will jump up and down, lay down the tantrum that I, a non-lawyer know nothing bumpkin, how could I possibly understand the intricacies of the law! Only the elite ticket holder could possibly understand that they paid for the exclusive privilege to drink beer. It said so right on the brochure.
 

The court in Lord noted that several general laws were applicable and not tied to appropriations applied to the U without having expressly naming the U because it promoted the general welfare and provided general public access. If food and beverage is not considered part of the general welfare and public access to purchase not an interference with general management, the U could be compelled to sell beer to all areas of the stadium, and not merely the premium seating areas. The whole Constitutional exemption has been shown to not apply to general laws that cover more than the U.
Click to expand...

The provision doesn't apply to anything else but the U.

HP 1476

Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 340A.404, subdivision 4a, is amended to read:
Subd. 4a. State-owned recreation; entertainment facilities. (a) Notwithstanding
any other law, local ordinance, or charter provision, the commissioner may issue on-sale
intoxicating liquor licenses:
(1) to the state agency administratively responsible for, or to an entity holding a
concession or facility management contract with such agency for beverage sales at, the
premises of any Giants Ridge Recreation Area building or recreational improvement area
owned by the state in the town of White, St. Louis County;
(2) to the state agency administratively responsible for, or to an entity holding a
concession or facility management contract with such agency for beverage sales at, the
premises of any Ironworld Discovery Center building or facility owned by the state at
Chisholm; and
(3) to the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota for events at Northrop
Auditorium, the intercollegiate football stadium, or at no more than seven other locations
within the boundaries of the University of Minnesota, provided that the Board of Regents
has approved an application for a license for the specified location. provided that a license
for an arena or stadium location is void unless it requires the sale or service of intoxicating
liquor throughout the arena or stadium if intoxicating liquor is sold or served anywhere in
the arena or stadium; and
(4) to the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center Authority for beverage
sales on the premises of the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center Arena during
intercollegiate hockey games.
The commissioner shall charge a fee for licenses issued under this subdivision in an
amount comparable to the fee for comparable licenses issued in surrounding cities.
(b) No alcoholic beverage may be sold or served at TCF Bank Stadium unless the
Board of Regents holds an on-sale intoxicating liquor license for the stadium as provided
in paragraph (a), clause (3).
 

Mustang Mountain Man said:
The whole Constitutional exemption has been shown to not apply to general laws that cover more than the U.
Click to expand...

This is where the the current law falls apart. The legislation the U responded to told the U what to do at their athletic facilities only. It didn't even address the University as a whole much less institutions beyond the U. So yea, if they rewrote it then I'm sure they could put something on the books that didn't seemingly violate the U's autonomy. Since the U clearly does not feel the need to put the mess into court it ends up being a moot point.
 

RodentRampage said:
The provision doesn't apply to anything else but the U.

HP 1476

Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 340A.404, subdivision 4a, is amended to read:
Subd. 4a. State-owned recreation; entertainment facilities. (a) Notwithstanding
any other law, local ordinance, or charter provision, the commissioner may issue on-sale
intoxicating liquor licenses:
(1) to the state agency administratively responsible for, or to an entity holding a
concession or facility management contract with such agency for beverage sales at, the
premises of any Giants Ridge Recreation Area building or recreational improvement area
owned by the state in the town of White, St. Louis County;
(2) to the state agency administratively responsible for, or to an entity holding a
concession or facility management contract with such agency for beverage sales at, the
premises of any Ironworld Discovery Center building or facility owned by the state at
Chisholm; and
(3) to the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota for events at Northrop
Auditorium, the intercollegiate football stadium, or at no more than seven other locations
within the boundaries of the University of Minnesota, provided that the Board of Regents
has approved an application for a license for the specified location. provided that a license
for an arena or stadium location is void unless it requires the sale or service of intoxicating
liquor throughout the arena or stadium if intoxicating liquor is sold or served anywhere in
the arena or stadium; and
(4) to the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center Authority for beverage
sales on the premises of the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center Arena during
intercollegiate hockey games.
The commissioner shall charge a fee for licenses issued under this subdivision in an
amount comparable to the fee for comparable licenses issued in surrounding cities.
(b) No alcoholic beverage may be sold or served at TCF Bank Stadium unless the
Board of Regents holds an on-sale intoxicating liquor license for the stadium as provided
in paragraph (a), clause (3).
Click to expand...

the new hockey arena up at UMD is a case study in political hypocrisy, being two-faced, and paroachial b.s. when it comes to meticulously legislating liquor sales on a location by location basis.

if i am not mistaken, alcohol is only sold at that new UMD hockey arena in select premium seating/club areas during UMD hockey games. it is not served in general admission. this is exactly the same treatment (in regards to only allowing limited alcohol sales that the U of M has been asking for all along and was the policy in place at all U of M athletic facilities long before TCF stadium was even built.

yet, it is somehow okay for UMD to be granted this ability when it comes to limited alcohol sales, but not the real U of M?!?! huh?

and guess who lobbied hard (while they were still in the MN legislature) for UMD to be able to sell alcohol in this way (only in select seating areas - and not demanding it also be sold in general admission) at the new UMD hockey arena before they left office? even while they lobbied fellow legislators hard to not allow the U of M to be able to sell alcohol only in select areas in williams, mariucci & TCF stadium like it had always been done in the past? that annoying, fat-faced, hypocrite named yvonne prettner-solon is who. now her dead-husband coattail riding, fat-arse is sitting in the lt. governor's chair alongside that dolt mark dayton.

anyways, a big FU to hypocritical, socialist teatolling d-bags yvonne prettner-solon (duluth), tom rukavina (virginia, mn) and leon lillie (north st. paul). these jerks are the ones who led this charge against the U of M (when it came to messing with alcohol sales policy -- and their finances -- in their athletic facilities) back in 2009 right before the stadium opened.
 

The law was a bad law, but it was a bipartisan law, so drop the spin.
 

supadupafly
Member Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 30



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by RodentRampage
The provision doesn't apply to anything else but the U.

HP 1476

Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 340A.404, subdivision 4a, is amended to read:
Subd. 4a. State-owned recreation; entertainment facilities. (a) Notwithstanding
any other law, local ordinance, or charter provision, the commissioner may issue on-sale
intoxicating liquor licenses:
(1) to the state agency administratively responsible for, or to an entity holding a
concession or facility management contract with such agency for beverage sales at, the
premises of any Giants Ridge Recreation Area building or recreational improvement area
owned by the state in the town of White, St. Louis County;
(2) to the state agency administratively responsible for, or to an entity holding a
concession or facility management contract with such agency for beverage sales at, the
premises of any Ironworld Discovery Center building or facility owned by the state at
Chisholm; and
(3) to the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota for events at Northrop
Auditorium, the intercollegiate football stadium, or at no more than seven other locations
within the boundaries of the University of Minnesota, provided that the Board of Regents
has approved an application for a license for the specified location. provided that a license
for an arena or stadium location is void unless it requires the sale or service of intoxicating
liquor throughout the arena or stadium if intoxicating liquor is sold or served anywhere in
the arena or stadium; and
(4) to the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center Authority for beverage
sales on the premises of the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center Arena during
intercollegiate hockey games.
The commissioner shall charge a fee for licenses issued under this subdivision in an
amount comparable to the fee for comparable licenses issued in surrounding cities.
(b) No alcoholic beverage may be sold or served at TCF Bank Stadium unless the
Board of Regents holds an on-sale intoxicating liquor license for the stadium as provided
in paragraph (a), clause (3).

supadupafly's response to rodentrampage" from 07/06/2011

"...the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center and the new hockey arena up there are a case study in political hypocrisy, being two-faced, and paroachial b.s. when it comes to meticulously legislating liquor sales on a location by location basis.

if i am not mistaken, alcohol is only sold at that new UMD hockey arena in select premium seating/club areas during UMD hockey games. it is not served in general admission. this is exactly the same treatment (in regards to only allowing limited alcohol sales that the U of M has been asking for all along and was the policy in place at all U of M athletic facilities long before TCF stadium was even built.

yet, it is somehow okay for UMD to be granted this ability when it comes to limited alcohol sales, but not the real U of M?!?! huh?

and guess who lobbied hard (while they were still in the MN legislature) for UMD to be able to sell alcohol in this way (only in select seating areas - and not demanding it also be sold in general admission) at the new UMD hockey arena before they left office? even while they lobbied fellow legislators hard to not allow the U of M to be able to sell alcohol only in select areas in williams, mariucci & TCF stadium like it had always been done in the past? that annoying, fat-faced, hypocrite named yvonne prettner-solon is who. now her dead-husband coattail riding, fat-arse is sitting in the lt. governor's chair alongside that dolt mark dayton.

anyways, a big FU to hypocritical, socialist teatolling d-bags yvonne prettner-solon (duluth), tom rukavina (virginia, mn) and leon lillie (north st. paul). these jerks are the ones who led this charge against the U of M (when it came to messing with alcohol sales policy -- and their finances -- in their athletic facilities) back in 2009 right before the stadium opened..." * quote by supadupafly



Isn't there an "off-topic board?" supadupafly's political comments would make an excellent contribution to the "off-topic board...

Due to the nature and content of this post the political commentary would be a fantastic, supadupa contribution to the off-topic topics! It probably belongs right at the very top of the off-topic board...

' 0 )
 

The existing law is ....

In the past, I thought the law was constitutional. I have seen the error of my thinking.

But, the scenario for compelling the U to sell beer to everyone at the stadium is realistic if:

1) the TCF alcohol prohibition gets tossed out in court or is repealed, which it seems clear, it should
2) the U is granted a liquor license for selling beer at TCF.
3) the legislature enacts general legislation granting universal (ticket holder) access for food and beverage sold at places that take state funds. The State Supreme Court expressed in Lord that the state may make law that applies to the U, even under Constitutional Autonomy when: a) the law applies to all, b) it does not substantially limit independent management of the U, c) protects a viable public interest, d) is not expressly intended exclusively for the U.

I don't see any beer sales at TCF anytime soon under this scenario. What a waste.
 

The U is not going to sell beer at TCF period at anytime in general seating. Until all other Big 10 schools jump on board with having beer sales in general public the U of M will not do it regardless of what the legislators pass the regents will not follow besides that the board of AD’s from all the Big Ten schools strongly oppose alcohol sales to the general public. I have been to games at 8 of the other Big 10 schools and they do not seem to have a problem without the beer just get your drink on prior and after the game or bring the flask to the game.

It all comes down to the Regents we are in year 3 of TCF and I don't see the Regents backing down, the legislators just need to drop the whole all or nothing thing and send it to the suites like every other Big 10 school.
 

Paulie Star said:
The U is not going to sell beer at TCF period at anytime in general seating. Until all other Big 10 schools jump on board with having beer sales in general public the U of M will not do it regardless of what the legislators pass the regents will not follow besides that the board of AD’s from all the Big Ten schools strongly oppose alcohol sales to the general public. I have been to games at 8 of the other Big 10 schools and they do not seem to have a problem without the beer just get your drink on prior and after the game or bring the flask to the game.

It all comes down to the Regents we are in year 3 of TCF and I don't see the Regents backing down, the legislators just need to drop the whole all or nothing thing and send it to the suites like every other Big 10 school.
Click to expand...

I do not plan on bringing a flask to a game. As for backing down, I won't. Not in my own best interest. As for the B1G, they can do what they want as far as how they sell beer. Sure it is not the biggest issue for them as we have autonomy as to what we serve in our stadium. As for the Legislature, I hope they revisit the issue. What if a visitor wants a beer and does not have premium seating? Why not sell them a beer? What if I only want one beer and that in the stadium? Seems to me the U wants to capitalize on beer by offering it only to the high buck donors. That may make economic sense to the U to enhance the endowment and ticket revenue this way. However, they also lose out on sales. I doubt if ticket sales and donations would drop to the U if general beer sales were made available. Instead, I think the U could increase ticket sales and beverage revenue as a result.

As for the appointed Regents, they can be replaced over time to a more sympathetic quorum. I am a non drinker, who maybe twice a year has a beer, and no more. I am a populist at heart and really do have a strong distaste for walled communities, the extension of cultural elitism to campus life. The issue has been raised again, and again I post as a means of being heard.
 

Mustang Mountain Man said:
What if I only want one beer and that in the stadium?
Click to expand...

What if I only want one beer at a high school game? Should that be allowed?

Mustang Mountain Man said:
I am a populist at heart and really do have a strong distaste for walled communities, the extension of cultural elitism to campus life.
Click to expand...

This isn't elitism at all, and certainly not cultural elitism. It is not a "walled community". It is discrimination on one basis - how much money you are willing to pay. It is getting more for paying more. Plain and simple. It extends to all walks of life (first class vs. coach, Bentley vs. AMC Gremlin, Murray's vs. McDonald's, etc., etc., etc.) so I can't for the life of me fathom why a college football stadium should be any different.
 

I think the key point in all of this was already stated by another poster:

NO other Big 10 football program allows beer sales in the general admission seating area. None of them.

The policy the U wanted to adopt - liquor in private boxes and luxury seating only - is the same policy used by a majority of the other schools in the conference. (a few schools have No liquor at all in the stadium.)

The legislature butted into the U's business, and tried to impose a policy that no other school in the conference follows. The Regents did not want to set a precedent, so they reluctantly chose to have no alcohol sales at TCF, thereby causing the U to lose at least $1millon in annual revenue.

IMHO, the legislature should let the U run its facilities the way the U sees fit - or the legislature should give the U more state aid to make up for the lost revenue. Sadly, I don't think either of those options are likely to take place, with the legislature as messed up as it is now.
 

How about just do alcohol sales in the suites only? It's really a completely different level than the rest of the stadium - I imagine they have their own kitchen, pantry, staff, etc.

I don't see anything wrong with that. You get what you pay for.
 

I believe the main reason for not allowing beer in the general seating area is very pragmatic. The U simply does not have the means to properly control the "consumption" of beer after it is sold.

Whereas in a bar there are bartenders and servers to insure underage or intoxicated people do not consume drinks purchased by others, these servers (functioning as consumption monitors) do not exist in the general seating areas of a stadium or arena. It would be all too easy for an under-age drinker to reach under a friend's seat, take the beer sitting there and pour it into a soft drink cup. Are stadium staffers going to move through the seat rows looking in cups to make sure all the drinks are soft? No.

At least when people sneak liquor into the stadium, the U has covered itself both morally and legally by doing what they realistically can to stop it. But it is not realistic to think the U can control consumption of beer that can openly be carried into the general seating areas.

I'm not sure, but don't the suites and club seat areas usually have hosts or servers that can keep an eye on things there?
 

Shorty summed it up very well.

The UM had liquor sales in the suites as part of its plan that was submitted to the legislature and the cost of those services was a part of the total cost. Then the legislature butted in and screwed things up which resulted in loss revenue at a time when revenue sources are desperately needed.

IMO, the Regents will not allow wholesale sale of beer at TCF. Its won't happen and was not part of the original plan. Yet I can get a Summitt EPA at McNamara right across the street which is OK by me.
 

Calgoph said:
I believe the main reason for not allowing beer in the general seating area is very pragmatic. The U simply does not have the means to properly control the "consumption" of beer after it is sold.

Whereas in a bar there are bartenders and servers to insure underage or intoxicated people do not consume drinks purchased by others, these servers (functioning as consumption monitors) do not exist in the general seating areas of a stadium or arena. It would be all too easy for an under-age drinker to reach under a friend's seat, take the beer sitting there and pour it into a soft drink cup. Are stadium staffers going to move through the seat rows looking in cups to make sure all the drinks are soft? No.

At least when people sneak liquor into the stadium, the U has covered itself both morally and legally by doing what they realistically can to stop it. But it is not realistic to think the U can control consumption of beer that can openly be carried into the general seating areas.

I'm not sure, but don't the suites and club seat areas usually have hosts or servers that can keep an eye on things there?
Click to expand...

The Legislature said a Beer Garden for the cheap seats would be acceptable to them. No beer will ever leave its confines. In all of their wisdom Bruininks and the other Puritans and Teetotalers on the Board of Regents said no to even a Beer Garden. Reason and common sense will prevail and that ridiculous attitude will change sooner or later.
 

Go4Broke said:
The Legislature said a Beer Garden for the cheap seats would be acceptable to them. No beer will ever leave its confines. In all of their wisdom Bruininks and the other Puritans and Teetotalers on the Board of Regents said no to even a Beer Garden. Reason and common sense will prevail and that ridiculous attitude will change sooner or later.
Click to expand...

And where would you put this magic beer garden? On the plaza? Where it could hold only a couple of hundred folks? And would look tacky? Because ruining the look of the plaza is worth it to crowd a couple of hundred folks into a temporary fenced area.
 

I upgraded my seats yesterday from the benches to the non-donation seatbacks. I'm actually paying less for better seats, both in location and quality of the seats themselves. I've been thinking, though - I should probably refuse this upgrade on principle. After all, how can I possibly enjoy my new seats in 208 when those poor, disenfranchised souls in 232 have to sit on aluminum benches? Permanent chairbacks for all, or permanent chairbacks for none!!!!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom