BOOZE AT THE BANK PASSES, GOV NEXT STOP.

Donate To GopherHole
howeda7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree, it is a silly argument that was brought up by the state. The unique thing about college sports and alcohol, is most schools prevent sales to GA. There is no question that the U should stay consistent with the Big 10. The other interesting part of this whole situation, is that TCF was funded publicly. This makes politicians feel that they need to step in. You can argue all you want about the rest of the Big 10, but how were their stadiums built? Was it privately funded or publicly? If there was a precedent to this issue than it would be easy to resolve. But I think this might be one of the first publicly funded college stadiums in a long time. Thus the state thinks it has to do something. Which is stupid.

The U should use as many resources they have and find a loop hole in the legislation. For example, if the bill says alcohol cannot be SOLD then don't sell it. Provide it free of charge in the premium seats. Prices can return to their original rate last year before all of this happened. State government can't prevent the U from raising ticket prices of any kind, at any time.

All the suites and indoor club seats sell out, problem solved.

As for your earlier post, if you punch the numbers you might be able to find an appropriate price to charge for wristbands etc. But that seems like too much of a hassle for fans. The U would be better off selling the suite, and just having beer vendors walking up and down the aisles in the chairbacks. But even that seems like it would be too "elitist" to the legislature's standards.
 

Gopherdrummer said:
The U should use as many resources they have and find a loop hole in the legislation. For example, if the bill says alcohol cannot be SOLD then don't sell it. Provide it free of charge in the premium seats. Prices can return to their original rate last year before all of this happened. State government can't prevent the U from raising ticket prices of any kind, at any time.
Click to expand...

I'm almost positive there is something written into the bill that requires you to offer it in GA to offer it in the premium seats. The original bill was written with the "sell" language but was updated to exclude the "give it away" loophole. I suspect this loophole remains closed in the ammended "1/3" bill.
 

As far as I'm concerned, it passed last year. It's called a flask.
 


dpodoll68 said:
Way to completely and utterly miss the point. The Strib comments section called - it wants you back.
Click to expand...


Title of thread was:

"BOOZE AT THE BANK PASSES, GOV NEXT STOP."

And that's what I responded to, didn't click the strib link.

Not the first or last time I'll miss the point though.
 


Perhaps the U can make the booze available to everyone. The only stipulation is that Rep. Rukavina must procure each drink and take it personally the patron he cares so deeply about. Now, getting a drink to 50,000 people is not practical, but I'm sure can manage to get one 1/3 of them. It is a reasonable compromise afterall.
 

Isn't this new bill almost as elitist as the University's original plan? If the U decides to sell alcohol in a third of the general admission seating, those sections are probably going to be the sections that require an annual donation. Not exactly booze for the cheap seats.
 

Ok, here's an easy fix

1 Beer in the Premium seats = $10

1 Beer in the General seats = $50 (for the first 1/3 of the stadium's customers)

I believe that the law says nothing about charging the same amount in the premium and general seating. Plus the U can defend this measure by claiming that it takes 5 times the amount of police, security, and insurance cost to sell beer in the general seating as the premium seats. And this way everyone has ACCESS to beer. Hardly no one will cough up $50 for a beer, so problem solved.
 

You know, with all these issues with cash surrounding the UMN athletic programs with the downturn in the economy. seeling alcohol at the stadium would generate a *&^!#*&^!#*&^!#*&^!# ton of cash that i frankly have no idea why they didnt tap into already. the whole no alcohol thing is ridiculous, yes its on a college campus but seriously?
 



chap0132 said:
Isn't this new bill almost as elitist as the University's original plan? If the U decides to sell alcohol in a third of the general admission seating, those sections are probably going to be the sections that require an annual donation. Not exactly booze for the cheap seats.
Click to expand...

Ding ding. This is how you know the whole thing is fake pandering populism.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom