Go Gophers!!! Booze at The Bank?

Donate To GopherHole

"Let the University decide". It took the leg. 3 years to figure that out, what a bunch of morons.
 

It was just cheap - and bipartisan - political posturing. I thought it might take longer to restore it, but the longer we are away from the dome the less the fact that alcohol was served in the dome matters to people. The whole thing was based on the misunderstanding that the U was serving alcohol at the dome. The legislators should have known better, the Gophers were merely tenants, and didn't dictate what was served in the dome.
 

RodentRampage said:
It was just cheap - and bipartisan - political posturing. I thought it might take longer to restore it, but the longer we are away from the dome the less the fact that alcohol was served in the dome matters to people. The whole thing was based on the misunderstanding that the U was serving alcohol at the dome. The legislators should have known better, the Gophers were merely tenants, and didn't dictate what was served in the dome.
Click to expand...

Heaven forbid our elected leaders actually do research before making a law
 

Can some tell me why the UM can serve booze/beer across the street from TCF stadium at the Mac Center but not in the TCF suites? What is the Regents position on that?

Put the legislature in the corner and get booze flowing in the suites and generate some much needed revenue.
 


The Board of Regents is where the decision should have been made in the first place.

Bout damn time.
 

"This falls pretty low on everybody’s radar,” said Michel

Yeh, a mere million is peanuts to the legislatures in this country. But is an important revenue source for the UM. Thanks for making it possible for the UM to loose about $2M in revenue the past two years and then go ahead and cut funding to the UM in the meantime. What a bunch of bozos.
 

I don't think I've heard Iceland's stance on this topic. I wonder what it is.
 




pharmacygopher said:
Heaven forbid our elected leaders actually do research before making a law
Click to expand...

Why research when you can just listen to the one outraged loon (Rukavina in this case) and vote the way he tells you? It wouldn't be so ridiculous if they hadn't had this exact policy at The Barn and hockey arena for decades with nary a peep from a single legislator.
 

howeda7 said:
Why research when you can just listen to the one outraged loon (Rukavina in this case) and vote the way he tells you? It wouldn't be so ridiculous if they hadn't had this exact policy at The Barn and hockey arena for decades with nary a peep from a single legislator.
Click to expand...

One person? Nonsense. The bill to dictate the U's alcohol policy had bipartisan support. Were the Republicans who voted for it obeying Rukavina? He must be really powerful! It was a bad bill, and I'm glad the legislature may be undoing the overstepping of its power, but this wasn't a partisan issue.
 

Bayfieldgopher said:
Can some tell me why the UM can serve booze/beer across the street from TCF stadium at the Mac Center but not in the TCF suites? What is the Regents position on that?
Click to expand...

The McNamara Alumni Center is not operated by the U of M. It is owned by the Alumni Association and managed by NorthMarq. Presumably, they have their own liquor license.

:cool02::cool02:
 

when this was before the legislature originally, I e-mailed Rukavina. I pointed out that most of the schools in the Big 10 had similar policies to what the Gophs were proposing, and also pointed out that No school in the big 10 allowed alcohol sales in the general seating. He basically blew me off - just said something to the effect that, if the U wanted to make $ from alcohol sales, they should sell to everyone or no one. Kept referring to the U's policy as "elitist." I tried to point out that people who pay more for their seats have a right to expect additional perks - he dismissed that as well. I got the distinct sense that he was doing it to spite the 'fat cats' who can afford the more-expensive seats - kind of a class warfare thing. I was very disappointed with his response - and I'm a democrat, so this is not a partisan rant on my part.
 



short ornery norwegian said:
when this was before the legislature originally, I e-mailed Rukavina. I pointed out that most of the schools in the Big 10 had similar policies to what the Gophs were proposing, and also pointed out that No school in the big 10 allowed alcohol sales in the general seating. He basically blew me off - just said something to the effect that, if the U wanted to make $ from alcohol sales, they should sell to everyone or no one. Kept referring to the U's policy as "elitist." I tried to point out that people who pay more for their seats have a right to expect additional perks - he dismissed that as well. I got the distinct sense that he was doing it to spite the 'fat cats' who can afford the more-expensive seats - kind of a class warfare thing. I was very disappointed with his response - and I'm a democrat, so this is not a partisan rant on my part.
Click to expand...

Good post, and I agree with you in that this 'issue' never was a partisan issue.
 

RodentRampage said:
One person? Nonsense. The bill to dictate the U's alcohol policy had bipartisan support. Were the Republicans who voted for it obeying Rukavina? He must be really powerful! It was a bad bill, and I'm glad the legislature may be undoing the overstepping of its power, but this wasn't a partisan issue.
Click to expand...

If you actually watch the debate last year, it was a joke. Rukavina ranting, saying other Big 10 schools sell to everyone (not true) and getting confused about whether Michigan is in the Big 10 (thank goodness he's a season-ticket holder.) Kahn making jokes about how they can sell booze at Northrup because those crowds are more civilized than football fans. Then some jokes about Kahn sneaking flasks into Northup under her dress. Meanwhile, the other 130 members are half asleep. When the time comes to vote they all startle awake and press the button they're told.

I don't think the majority of Legislators care that much, or understand that it was this way at the other venues for years. They just hear "Booze for one, booze for all' think it sounds great and vote the way they are told.
 

The longer I live here, the more politics dumbfounds me. A state that elects Al Franken will do anything.
 

littlebigboy said:
The longer I live here, the more politics dumbfounds me. A state that elects Al Franken will do anything.
Click to expand...

Hey, don't forget Jesse "The Body" Ventura.

And to think, I used to like both prior to their political careers.. lol
 

littlebigboy said:
The longer I live here, the more politics dumbfounds me. A state that elects Al Franken will do anything.
Click to expand...

Al Franken is George Washington compared to Ventura, Pawlenty, and Bachmann who believes the Pope is the Anti-Christ.
 

I'll take Jesse Ventura as governor any day of the week over that greaseball Pawlenty.
 

I think they all suck.

Now, back to booze and football!
 



Formo said:
Hey, don't forget Jesse "The Body" Ventura.

And to think, I used to like both prior to their political careers.. lol
Click to expand...


And what does that have to say about Norm Coleman? The poor guy lost elections to BOTH the wrestler Jesse the Body and comedian Al Franken!
 

GopherJack said:
And what does that have to say about Norm Coleman? The poor guy lost elections to BOTH the wrestler Jesse the Body and comedian Al Franken!
Click to expand...

I think it has more to say about the pathetic Minnesota voter, and even more pathetic State voting standards.
 




Nothing "aristocratic" about it. You pay for more, you get more. why not turn all seats into luxury boxes, if it is aristocratic that paying for more gets you more? Is it aristocratic that the sideline seats are chairs, while the cheaper seats are bleachers?
 

RodentRampage said:
Nothing "aristocratic" about it. You pay for more, you get more. why not turn all seats into luxury boxes, if it is aristocratic that paying for more gets you more? Is it aristocratic that the sideline seats are chairs, while the cheaper seats are bleachers?
Click to expand...


We don't do that in a public college stadium financed with taxpayer dollars in Minnesota. We do things our own way in Minnesota. If you don't like it, then move someplace you like better. If you don't live here, then stay the hell out. We don't need you, or want you.
 

The Pope of Dinkytown said:
We don't do that in a public college stadium financed with taxpayer dollars in Minnesota. If you don't like it, then move someplace else you like better. We do things our own way in Minnesota. If you don't live here, then stay the hell out. We don't need you, or want you.
Click to expand...

No. You don't like it, you can get the hell out of my state. Who is this "we" you speak of? Since when has "public" ever meant that everyone gets the same thing? Do you object to those who pay more on the sidelines getting chairs while those who pay less get bleachers? Do you object the fancy accomodations in the luxury boxes? Or how about renting picnic shelters at public parks? Staying in a lodge at Itasca versus camping outside in a tent? Seems to be this one single area, somehow people have gotten the idea that "public" means "beer everywhere, or beer nowhere!", but they don't apply this reasoning to anything else.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom