No tailgating lots for GLC members next year.

Donate To GopherHole
G

GoldysArmy

Active member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
1,671
Reaction score
0
Points
36
I received an email from the GLC yesterday saying that they will have not have any lots to offer to members as the U of M wants all sales from the lots. Lots within 1/2 mile of TCF will have annual giving of $2,500/$1,000 plus annual parking fees.

p.s.- I am not faulting the GLC in any way. I know they have tried hard to get some spaces for members. I am upset at the U of M for treating a great football booster club this way.
 

The U of M wants the revenue, but what arm of the U. Is this to revenue going to The Football program, stadium funding, stadium improvements, stadium operating costs, or...............a general fund that takes money from a Revenue producing enterprise and piecemeals it back to football in equal portions as the Women's Studies Program? If this is the case, be open about it. I do not fault the GLC, they have the interests of the team at heart, the U of M I am suspicious.
 

General fund

I was told that all parking revenue from basketball and hockey went into the general fund and NOT to hockey and basketball revenue. My guess is its the same but we shall see...
 

GoldysArmy said:
I received an email from the GLC yesterday saying that they will have not have any lots to offer to members as the U of M wants all sales from the lots. Lots within 1/2 mile of TCF will have annual giving of $2,500/$1,000 plus annual parking fees.

p.s.- I am not faulting the GLC in any way. I know they have tried hard to get some spaces for members. I am upset at the U of M for treating a great football booster club this way.
Click to expand...

Not surprising really... if they didn't shaft the GLC, it would in effect become a loophole for those who want to tailgate but cannot pony up $2,500 just to get invited to the party.

Getting within 1/2 mile of the stadium will cost $1,000 and that doesn't even include the cost of parking... just the oppurtunity to purchase parking. Wow. Even the Oak Street ramp will be a grand.

I can't say I didn't see this coming. I'd rather they gouge a select few for parking than raise ticket prices another $100 for everyone (which is what I thought they would do). I just hope the campus bars step up to replace tailgating.
 

GoldysArmy said:
I received an email from the GLC yesterday saying that they will have not have any lots to offer to members as the U of M wants all sales from the lots. Lots within 1/2 mile of TCF will have annual giving of $2,500/$1,000 plus annual parking fees.

p.s.- I am not faulting the GLC in any way. I know they have tried hard to get some spaces for members. I am upset at the U of M for treating a great football booster club this way.
Click to expand...

There's no doubt that this is bad news for all of us tailgators, but this is REALLY bad news for GLC. I know most of the people I know, were GLC members because of the parking benefits. Take that away, and I think membership will fall off drastically. This is too bad, as they are a very dedicated, hard-working group - that has done a lot for the football program.
 


They do it everywhere...

I think a great idea is to get a group together. You can have one car park in the best lot, meet and pack it with all the supplies and have everyone else park elsewhere and meet at the main spot.

We were hosted at Penn State by some big PSU fans that had a huge grassy spot (probably 5 or more spots) that they pay huge money for every year. They had a band, massive chow line, etc but had about 100 or more people together.

Get a huge group together, pitch in and enjoy.

OR, Sallys and the other bars should have great outdroor venues set up.
 

First of of all Nine, that is an amazing idea for alot of people here.

If the GLC really wants spots there are ways to do it. To me the best idea is not say we will not donate to the football team until we get parking area/tailgate space. I have a feeling Brewster would talk with Maturi and that would change pretty quickly. Now if the AD doesn't give in it wouldn't be far to the football team or your bluff gets called. If the GLC really wants spots they should just use the leverage that they have to get what they want. People use their leverage all the time to get what they want why not the GLC.

In other TCF news does anyone have any pictures or exicting updates from the stadium. It's been awhile.
 

It is pretty simple

The reason for the priority parking is to direct funds to the athletic department, so I believe that it is the athletic department that will benefit directly from the "parking License Fees". Hockey and Basketball could offer a similar parking program if it wanted to, but with about on third the demand . . . It might not be worth doing.

The actual game day parking money goes to Parking Services, which is responsible for building maintaining, securing and otherwise operating the ramps. They make the basic investment, they get the funds that result. I expect that there will be a gameday premium for parking on campus. I'm also sure that there will be some restrictions on parking near the hospital, how they will enforce this I don't know.

Will the amount of money earned on gameday benefit those that pay during the week? Probably not in terms of the amount of money paid to park. But the Benefit that will most likely be seen, and fairly soon I would think will be the construction of a (possibly more than one) fairly large parking structure near the new stadium.

It is kind of like churches in Northern MN, the Christmas and Easter collections for all the occasional goers, help put in the air conditioning for the summer visitors who attend 8 to 9 services shoulder to shoulder.

Of course the atheletic department will benefit from the new ramp that is built close because it can charge the premiums. The Atheletic department might want to invest some in the ramps for that reason.


mnboiler said:
First of of all Nine, that is an amazing idea for alot of people here.

If the GLC really wants spots there are ways to do it. To me the best idea is not say we will not donate to the football team until we get parking area/tailgate space. I have a feeling Brewster would talk with Maturi and that would change pretty quickly. Now if the AD doesn't give in it wouldn't be far to the football team or your bluff gets called. If the GLC really wants spots they should just use the leverage that they have to get what they want. People use their leverage all the time to get what they want why not the GLC.

In other TCF news does anyone have any pictures or exicting updates from the stadium. It's been awhile.
Click to expand...
 




I really wonder how many people are willing to plunk down $2,500.00 plus parking fees ($250+) just to park right next to the stadium for 7 games per year. Will tailgating be allowed? Will alcohol be allowed if there is tailgating? I think the U of M is really dropping the ball here. GLC membership will take a severe hit because of this and that is a shame.
 

Maximus said:
Here's a pdf of the latest construction update....pictures including a cool new aerial.

Construction update
Click to expand...

Thanks alot Maximus. The stadium looks amazing. I hope I can make the trip up to the U next fall to see the the Gopher and Boilers play. And for those of you who are wondering I will be wearing Maroon and Gold mainly for my own safty, although I will be wear Old Gold and Black under it. Because you never know when you will run into some huge drunk guy thats wants to beat the crap out of you.
 

Question about this - how is the $2500 fee defined? Does this mean the U is telling current people that might donate $10,000/yr already, that if they want to park near the stadium, they need to make it $12,500? Or, are they saying those spots closest to the stadium will be reserved for those who are currently donating a minimum of $2500?

For example, most schools dole out parking based on level of donation, they do not sell the spots as an addition to a donation. So, I'm not sure calling this a $2500 fee is correct labeling. And, frankly, while the GLC does great work, I do think the primo spots should be reserved to high donors anyway, like at every other school in the country.

There is a price to join the ranks of "big time" football and new stadiums, etc. This is one of them. Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc., reserve their spots closest to the stadium for people who donate a minimum of $10,000/year, not $2500/yr, so we need some perspective.

Could the GLC try to reserve a lot through the U that isn't so close? Or, how about reserving a private lot for GLC members?
 

St. Paul

Will they have free parking and shuttles from St. Paul? I would use it.

I like the idea of getting one spot for tailgating and then busing in from St. Paul to meet up with friends.
 



Keo'kola, my friend, you are right when you question

what amenities may be available to the "tailgater" before they plunk down $1000+ for a piece of 9' x 18' asphalt to be used 7 times a year. The U better have a documenation from the city of Mpls allowing alcohol consumption on the premises. I still stand by my vow not to tailgate in Ramsey County.
 

It's not necessarily new money

As I understand it, the donation requirement includes all of you football donations so, if you have four seats and are paying to be in the $250/seat preferred seating area, that $1,000 qualifies you to purchase a pass in a Tier 2 lot. If you wanted to be in Tier 1, you'd have to come up with an additional donation of $1,500 of some kind.

I agree that trying to sell this stuff without telling people what the parking charges are going to be, where the lots are, what will/won't be allowed, etc. is problematic, at best. Also, just because you meet the required donation level, does not guarantee you a spot. It will still be subject to availability based on your Gopher Point level.
 

2nd Degree Gopher said:
As I understand it, the donation requirement includes all of you football donations so, if you have four seats and are paying to be in the $250/seat preferred seating area, that $1,000 qualifies you to purchase a pass in a Tier 2 lot. If you wanted to be in Tier 1, you'd have to come up with an additional donation of $1,500 of some kind.
Click to expand...

Thanks for answering. That's what I thought. I think this is actually the smart way to do this. It isn't like someone who is giving $25,000/yr all of the sudden has to come up with $2500 in additional charity. Their initial annual contribution qualifies them for a spot near the stadium. That makes sense. While there will be a parking fee, calling the minimum levels of $2500/$1000 a fee, is incorrect.
 

best idea is not say we will not donate to the football team

Brilliant idea...idiot. If a booster club's foundation is to supply parking, its a parking club. The Goal line club's mission is to support Gopher football via fund raising and awareness. If parking is the only value option for fund raising, the club is a failure. I have reviewed 12 booster clubs including Wisconsin and there is no parking offered without a significant donations. If you want to be a Goal line club member and you are a dedicated fan, you should get some value indeed, but really it is not the fundamental reason to join. You join because you want to belong Golden gopher football and know your part of the program. The University for once is going to get in line with the rest of the country and actually get revenue for their product. All I read on this board is why can't we be like other successful programs? Because we could not attract the needed revenue from being at the dome. MONEY TALKS PEOPLE, it is the very foundation for ultimate success...reality.

Join the Goal line club and be a part of something that is fundamentally good, big deal if you don't get anything to put in the basement let alone a parking spot.
 

Since I don't drive to games, my membership in the GLC is to support the program.

I enjoy the press guide, and the discount at the bookstore.
 

There are many layers to this issue... (warning long)

This is an issue I've been thinking about lately. Looking at the responses here has been interesting to say the least. There are many layers of importance to this issue that I think that the "U" is overlooking.

I don't think that anyone is objecting per se to the concept that the large donors get the best parking spots at the stadium. The University needs to generate as much revenue as possible out of this and everyone understands that, money is the grease that will make the wheel go. Still, I think its absurd to rip the average fan who is concerned about the level of service they receive deteriorating. Further, it is small minded and simplistic to suggest that if you want parking privledges of some sort, you only want membership in a "parking club". There needs to be a balance in what the "U" is doing, and frankly it pisses me off to see that they aren't doing it. I would suggest that the University find a way to provide a points system to the secondary parking areas around campus. This would allow the very best spots at TCF to be awarded to the large donors, while providing optionality for those who have supported this program over time. The GLC would fall into this secondary catagory in my plan (I'll get into the GLC membership in a moment). The present plan is not a good one. There are several reasons why... 1) It's great for immediate funding, but will it work long term? Maybe, but in the interim, if it PO's the long time fans who have supported this program when it was a loser, is that worthwhile? I'd suggest not, since the new fans and corpies have no demonstrated loyalty to long term investment (emotional of otherwise) in this program. The "U" and several here seem to be willing to believe its a given that these folks will be here for the long haul. I'm not so sure that is true. If the team slips again, you get Dome redux with a full complement of Badger and Hawk fans filling the suites and parking lots. Which leads to item 2) What does this mean to Gameday atmosphere? As a VP level employee of a corporation, I can tell you that the users of our seats in the pro facilities are not filled with fans who are looking to sit outside with a beer on a cold day. They don't want to go to Sally's either. They want a martini or glass of Pinot with a steak at Manny's. They certainly don't want to spend their time cheering for a team that loses, or a team that they don't regularily follow. Yet, we're willing to give them the top spots? Why alienate those who will create the gameday atmosphere you claim to want to build? Maybe we could provide parking in the Coffman ramp with limo service to them and let the close lots go to tailgaters? We're dangerously close to creating a Mariucci atmosphere. 3) Comparing our situation to UW or Iowa's and applying the standards that they use to our own situation is wrongheaded. Our historical and competitive situation is so different. Much as I hate those schools, they have had better attendance and support than we have for DECADES.

As a GLC member, I've enjoyed parking at the dome. For me, as for many others I suspect, parking does NOT determine whether I'm a member of the GLC, but it DOES determine my membership level. I still plan to join the GLC for 2009, but I may drop from the Gold Level I've been in recently. Is suspect that in the current economy that many will do the same regardless of what level they are at. Further, I don't think its unfair to say those who do are justified in doing so. When I spend money or join a club, I look at the benefits of membership and my willingness to join it is based on several factors. My primary goal at the GLC is to support the football program that I am a lifelong fan of at my alma mater. That said, if the University wants to tell me that my long time support is not appreciated as compared to that of others, that will impact how I handle my support back. Again a fair trade off IMO. Unfortunately, this fair trade off will hurt the GLC at some level.

I think the University is making a large mistake in handling the GLC like they have. This organization has been there in their service through good and bad and its membership makes up the very best of GopherNation. Why make them question the value of their loyalty? If the U loses members of this organization at the expense of a short term gain, I really believe it will be a long-term negative to the program and U as a whole. The most frustrating part of this is the seeming lack of concern over the handling of the GLC parking issue and also the handling of parking in general. The silence in general on tailgating leads me to believe the U either knows its a no go anywhere and is waiting to separate our money from us before telling us or that there is no plan or forethought in place which is simply unacceptable. The bottom line is that the school has an opportunity to foster both short term and long term support and loyalty from big donors and small ones alike and is pissing it away to chase some immediate large dollars. But hey, that long term planning and sustainability is overrated anyways. The whorish pursuit of the immediate big gain has done wonders for our humming economy. Sorry for the length. End Rant.
 

vinko bogataj said:
This is an issue I've been thinking about lately. Looking at the responses here has been interesting to say the least. There are many layers of importance to this issue that I think that the "U" is overlooking.

I don't think that anyone is objecting per se to the concept that the large donors get the best parking spots at the stadium. The University needs to generate as much revenue as possible out of this and everyone understands that, money is the grease that will make the wheel go. Still, I think its absurd to rip the average fan who is concerned about the level of service they receive deteriorating. Further, it is small minded and simplistic to suggest that if you want parking privledges of some sort, you only want membership in a "parking club". There needs to be a balance in what the "U" is doing, and frankly it pisses me off to see that they aren't doing it. I would suggest that the University find a way to provide a points system to the secondary parking areas around campus. This would allow the very best spots at TCF to be awarded to the large donors, while providing optionality for those who have supported this program over time. The GLC would fall into this secondary catagory in my plan (I'll get into the GLC membership in a moment). The present plan is not a good one. There are several reasons why... 1) It's great for immediate funding, but will it work long term? Maybe, but in the interim, if it PO's the long time fans who have supported this program when it was a loser, is that worthwhile? I'd suggest not, since the new fans and corpies have no demonstrated loyalty to long term investment (emotional of otherwise) in this program. The "U" and several here seem to be willing to believe its a given that these folks will be here for the long haul. I'm not so sure that is true. If the team slips again, you get Dome redux with a full complement of Badger and Hawk fans filling the suites and parking lots. Which leads to item 2) What does this mean to Gameday atmosphere? As a VP level employee of a corporation, I can tell you that the users of our seats in the pro facilities are not filled with fans who are looking to sit outside with a beer on a cold day. They don't want to go to Sally's either. They want a martini or glass of Pinot with a steak at Manny's. They certainly don't want to spend their time cheering for a team that loses, or a team that they don't regularily follow. Yet, we're willing to give them the top spots? Why alienate those who will create the gameday atmosphere you claim to want to build? Maybe we could provide parking in the Coffman ramp with limo service to them and let the close lots go to tailgaters? We're dangerously close to creating a Mariucci atmosphere. 3) Comparing our situation to UW or Iowa's and applying the standards that they use to our own situation is wrongheaded. Our historical and competitive situation is so different. Much as I hate those schools, they have had better attendance and support than we have for DECADES.

As a GLC member, I've enjoyed parking at the dome. For me, as for many others I suspect, parking does NOT determine whether I'm a member of the GLC, but it DOES determine my membership level. I still plan to join the GLC for 2009, but I may drop from the Gold Level I've been in recently. Is suspect that in the current economy that many will do the same regardless of what level they are at. Further, I don't think its unfair to say those who do are justified in doing so. When I spend money or join a club, I look at the benefits of membership and my willingness to join it is based on several factors. My primary goal at the GLC is to support the football program that I am a lifelong fan of at my alma mater. That said, if the University wants to tell me that my long time support is not appreciated as compared to that of others, that will impact how I handle my support back. Again a fair trade off IMO. Unfortunately, this fair trade off will hurt the GLC at some level.

I think the University is making a large mistake in handling the GLC like they have. This organization has been there in their service through good and bad and its membership makes up the very best of GopherNation. Why make them question the value of their loyalty? If the U loses members of this organization at the expense of a short term gain, I really believe it will be a long-term negative to the program and U as a whole. The most frustrating part of this is the seeming lack of concern over the handling of the GLC parking issue and also the handling of parking in general. The silence in general on tailgating leads me to believe the U either knows its a no go anywhere and is waiting to separate our money from us before telling us or that there is no plan or forethought in place which is simply unacceptable. The bottom line is that the school has an opportunity to foster both short term and long term support and loyalty from big donors and small ones alike and is pissing it away to chase some immediate large dollars. But hey, that long term planning and sustainability is overrated anyways. The whorish pursuit of the immediate big gain has done wonders for our humming economy. Sorry for the length. End Rant.
Click to expand...

I would actually argue that your thinking is exactly the opposite of what it should be. You ask is the short term gain worth the long term pain? I think that is exactly backwards. There is actually going to be short-term pain (ie. GLC parking) in exchange for long-term gain (ie. joining the ranks of running a program like a big time football program).

Look, everyone was pleased when we got the new stadium. What I was trying to tell people way back then was that while we all should be happy, the U needs to brace itself for some big-time growing pains as a result of moving into the new building. There would be a lot of collateral damage. Ticket location, parking location, donation levels, GLC role, control over suite sales, alcohol situation, tailgating situation, total parking spots, gameday law enforcement, and so many more. Changing facilities means changing the way things are done. We need to understand the U is now an "owner" of a stadium. It is the U's responsibility to take control of things they haven't had control over in the past. In doing so, there is short term pain, for long-term gain. So, I view it in just the opposite opinion that you do.

I believe you have made some wrong assumptions.

1) You ask will the parking situation work long term....as long as the U has donors it will work. My prediction is not only will it work long term, but you'll see the close-in parking levels rise. Again, the parking tiers are based on donation level (that is confirmed now). This isn't an additional fee donors are asked to give. If you have been giving $5000/year, you'll have a Tier 1 parking pass at no additional cost (outside of the cost of the spot itself). If you have been giving $1000/yr, you'll have a Tier 2 parking pass at no additional cost. So, how can you insinuate that long-time donors will be put out? They are actually rewarded more in the new setup than in the previous one. Also, if you buy 4 season tickets in the $250/seat preferred seating area, that gives you a $1000 donation level and you automatically qualify for a Tier 2 parking pass if you don't do anything else. How can't that work long term?? If anything, the donation levels will be forced to increase, which is the hope.

2) It seems you're making the assumption that since the GLC isn't giving out parking, that GLC members will have no place to park. That is untrue. I think many GLC members donate money to the school. That will give them a parking spot. In fact, many GLC members might be surprised at how good their location will be. It isn't like GLC members will be asked to park in Burnsville and bus in. If you donate $1000/yr, you'll get a prime spot. Many GLC members are at least at that level, so they'll get their spots.

3) You have assumed that all of these parking spots will go to "new" customers. I would hazard a guess that at least 90% of the parking spots will go to current season ticket holders and long time boosters and supporters. Where are all these "new" people you're talking about? There's a waiting list of 1000 people for season tickets, so everyone else is already an existing season ticket holder. Where are the new ones coming from?

4) You proclaim the U is chasing down "new" donors while forgetting the old ones. That is just patently false. What they are doing is asking long-time donors to give a little more, if possible. New donors are obviously welcome and needed. There is no one forgetting about the long-time donor. As mentioned, if anything, they will be the ones most rewarded by this new stadium.

5) You have assumed that all the high end seats will go to sushi-eating, martini-drinking fans. Where's your evidence?

6) You don't want to compare our situation to the Iowa and Wisconsin situation...that's fine, because we're not close to it. $2500 level donation is Tier 1 parking at Minnesota. $10,000 level donation is Teir 1 at Iowa. So, eventually, if we want to be competitive (budget-wise) with those folks, we'll need to slowly crawl towards that. And, I predict we will.

7) The GLC is a great group. But, let's not get too carried away. The entire club donated $130,000 last year. While that is nice, it doesn't (IMO) rise to the level of just handing 50-100 parking spots. $130,000 is a nice chunk of change, but it is less revenue than what 3 suites will generate in the new stadium. Those three suites will get a total of 12 parking spots. The GLC is currently re-defining its role in how to support Gopher football. Parking is no longer a way they can help. There are ways, though. Other schools have football and athletic booster clubs that don't do parking, so I'm guessing the GLC will figure it out. If the GLC members truly value the Gophers then they will see that they will have a long-term role with the helping the team, it will just have to be in a different niche than providing a parking spot. I hope they do.

Sorry I went so long, too. Rant over:)
 

I remember earing awhile ago that the majority of parking will be at the state fair then busing people over. Is this still true? I think the parking lots could be fun. like one gigantic party.
 

ilovethebarn said:
I remember earing awhile ago that the majority of parking will be at the state fair then busing people over. Is this still true? I think the parking lots could be fun. like one gigantic party.
Click to expand...

I don't think it will be a majority of the fans, but that will definitely be an option.
 

where are most people thinking of parking? I have one lot in mind, it is the one over by the ronald mcdonald house. it is technically .6 miles away from the stadium so it would be outside of the half mile radius. Basically i want to find a lot I can tailgate in without shelling out tons of money. Anyone have ideas?
 

tjgopher said:
I would actually argue that your thinking is exactly the opposite of what it should be. You ask is the short term gain worth the long term pain? I think that is exactly backwards. There is actually going to be short-term pain (ie. GLC parking) in exchange for long-term gain (ie. joining the ranks of running a program like a big time football program).

Look, everyone was pleased when we got the new stadium. What I was trying to tell people way back then was that while we all should be happy, the U needs to brace itself for some big-time growing pains as a result of moving into the new building. There would be a lot of collateral damage. Ticket location, parking location, donation levels, GLC role, control over suite sales, alcohol situation, tailgating situation, total parking spots, gameday law enforcement, and so many more. Changing facilities means changing the way things are done. We need to understand the U is now an "owner" of a stadium. It is the U's responsibility to take control of things they haven't had control over in the past. In doing so, there is short term pain, for long-term gain. So, I view it in just the opposite opinion that you do.

I believe you have made some wrong assumptions.

1) You ask will the parking situation work long term....as long as the U has donors it will work. My prediction is not only will it work long term, but you'll see the close-in parking levels rise. Again, the parking tiers are based on donation level (that is confirmed now). This isn't an additional fee donors are asked to give. If you have been giving $5000/year, you'll have a Tier 1 parking pass at no additional cost (outside of the cost of the spot itself). If you have been giving $1000/yr, you'll have a Tier 2 parking pass at no additional cost. So, how can you insinuate that long-time donors will be put out? They are actually rewarded more in the new setup than in the previous one. Also, if you buy 4 season tickets in the $250/seat preferred seating area, that gives you a $1000 donation level and you automatically qualify for a Tier 2 parking pass if you don't do anything else. How can't that work long term?? If anything, the donation levels will be forced to increase, which is the hope.

2) It seems you're making the assumption that since the GLC isn't giving out parking, that GLC members will have no place to park. That is untrue. I think many GLC members donate money to the school. That will give them a parking spot. In fact, many GLC members might be surprised at how good their location will be. It isn't like GLC members will be asked to park in Burnsville and bus in. If you donate $1000/yr, you'll get a prime spot. Many GLC members are at least at that level, so they'll get their spots.

3) You have assumed that all of these parking spots will go to "new" customers. I would hazard a guess that at least 90% of the parking spots will go to current season ticket holders and long time boosters and supporters. Where are all these "new" people you're talking about? There's a waiting list of 1000 people for season tickets, so everyone else is already an existing season ticket holder. Where are the new ones coming from?

4) You proclaim the U is chasing down "new" donors while forgetting the old ones. That is just patently false. What they are doing is asking long-time donors to give a little more, if possible. New donors are obviously welcome and needed. There is no one forgetting about the long-time donor. As mentioned, if anything, they will be the ones most rewarded by this new stadium.

5) You have assumed that all the high end seats will go to sushi-eating, martini-drinking fans. Where's your evidence?

6) You don't want to compare our situation to the Iowa and Wisconsin situation...that's fine, because we're not close to it. $2500 level donation is Tier 1 parking at Minnesota. $10,000 level donation is Teir 1 at Iowa. So, eventually, if we want to be competitive (budget-wise) with those folks, we'll need to slowly crawl towards that. And, I predict we will.

7) The GLC is a great group. But, let's not get too carried away. The entire club donated $130,000 last year. While that is nice, it doesn't (IMO) rise to the level of just handing 50-100 parking spots. $130,000 is a nice chunk of change, but it is less revenue than what 3 suites will generate in the new stadium. Those three suites will get a total of 12 parking spots. The GLC is currently re-defining its role in how to support Gopher football. Parking is no longer a way they can help. There are ways, though. Other schools have football and athletic booster clubs that don't do parking, so I'm guessing the GLC will figure it out. If the GLC members truly value the Gophers then they will see that they will have a long-term role with the helping the team, it will just have to be in a different niche than providing a parking spot. I hope they do.

Sorry I went so long, too. Rant over:)
Click to expand...

tj- You make some good points. I don't necessarily agree but your argument is well presented all the same. I should probably clarify some of my thoughts so they aren't misconstrued. Regarding your points:

1. On the donations being an aggregate of giving, do you have any link that you can provide. The information I received (via discussion with a "U" rep) was that it would be completely separate from any other donation, including those directly to athletics and be a stand alone donation like your premium seats. If my information is incorrect and yours is correct, I would concede this point.
2. The clarification issue in item 1 would help this. Nice bit of hyperbole by the way. I would of suggested they want the GLC to park in Owatonna to make a larger Churchill-esqe dig. :p
3. Disagree, anyone who parked at the dome can tell you stories about the A-hat corpie showing up in his Jag (not you Joel M) 30 minutes before kickoff and was PO'd that he had to maneuver through the great unwashed masses tailgating in the lot. Maybe I should have stated more on the corporate side, and big donor versus "new" large donors. That said, there are lots of businesses that bought seats (we haven't had 47,000 season ticketholders for the last 20 years so the sell out has to be coming from folks who bought seats in the last year) exclusively for entertaining at the new stadium.
4. No one denies the need to bring in new money, as I mentioned in my initial post, its what greases the wheel. That said, I don't think its a stretch to say that the cost structure of the parking deteriorates the gameday experience for some fans, particularily those who have been loyal to the program through some tough times.
5. I have in no way assumed all good seats will go to "sushi eating, martini drinkers" (of which I am both, Oragami is the best sushi between Chicago and Cali BTW). Asking for my evidence is a straw man question. There is no evidence either you or I can provide at this point. What I can point to is the University's prior history and actions in a similar scenario. While I was a student, the new Mariucci was being built, many of the same promises were made. If you go today, you see a "sold out" arena with empty seats, Sioux fans and a generally sterile atmosphere. Further, we heard many similar promises made when we moved to the dome. We were told that would make us "Big Time" at that time. How's that worked out? My larger point is that the dumbest thing we can do is blindly trust the University that they're doing the right thing for the right reasons.
6. Think we largely agree here. That said, I never suggested doing away with donations, I simply suggested other factors play into the allocation. No one disputes the end goal of generating more revenue, I'm merely suggesting rather than copying what is done elsewhere, we look to be innovative in finding solutions.
7. Your argument here is curious. You state that the GLC contribution to the football program of $130,000 last year, while nice, doesn't justify handing over 100 spaces at $1000/donation. Doing the math on this tells me that that works out to the GLC paying around $1300 per spot for a $300/spot premium. Of course, one could argue that the GLC will make a donation regardless (although I would bet the GLC revenues will decrease with the loss of the parking pass), but I could also argue that Target Corp would still donate, as would large individual donors if they had parking provided elsewhere. So that argument could go either way.

In the end, what I am most concerned about is that if say in 3 years, Brew gets fired because the team drops back to 3-8 or 4-7, will the donors and corpies still come around with their checkbooks open? Not sure, but I hesitate to alienate, even minorly those who've supported the team through good and bad. Not saying it will happen, but it could. And certainly, no one can dispute the University's history in F'ing up these sorts of decisions. One only needs to look back at what were leaving to see that. Regardless, I'll be there, but I'd sure like to see the U prove that they get the fact that in down times, you need the loyal people to stick with you and you get there by taking care of them. End of Rant 2. Peace. :)
 

vinko bogataj said:
tj- You make some good points. I don't necessarily agree but your argument is well presented all the same. I should probably clarify some of my thoughts so they aren't misconstrued. Regarding your points:

1. On the donations being an aggregate of giving, do you have any link that you can provide. The information I received (via discussion with a "U" rep) was that it would be completely separate from any other donation, including those directly to athletics and be a stand alone donation like your premium seats. If my information is incorrect and yours is correct, I would concede this point.
2. The clarification issue in item 1 would help this. Nice bit of hyperbole by the way. I would of suggested they want the GLC to park in Owatonna to make a larger Churchill-esqe dig. :p
3. Disagree, anyone who parked at the dome can tell you stories about the A-hat corpie showing up in his Jag (not you Joel M) 30 minutes before kickoff and was PO'd that he had to maneuver through the great unwashed masses tailgating in the lot. Maybe I should have stated more on the corporate side, and big donor versus "new" large donors. That said, there are lots of businesses that bought seats (we haven't had 47,000 season ticketholders for the last 20 years so the sell out has to be coming from folks who bought seats in the last year) exclusively for entertaining at the new stadium.
4. No one denies the need to bring in new money, as I mentioned in my initial post, its what greases the wheel. That said, I don't think its a stretch to say that the cost structure of the parking deteriorates the gameday experience for some fans, particularily those who have been loyal to the program through some tough times.
5. I have in no way assumed all good seats will go to "sushi eating, martini drinkers" (of which I am both, Oragami is the best sushi between Chicago and Cali BTW). Asking for my evidence is a straw man question. There is no evidence either you or I can provide at this point. What I can point to is the University's prior history and actions in a similar scenario. While I was a student, the new Mariucci was being built, many of the same promises were made. If you go today, you see a "sold out" arena with empty seats, Sioux fans and a generally sterile atmosphere. Further, we heard many similar promises made when we moved to the dome. We were told that would make us "Big Time" at that time. How's that worked out? My larger point is that the dumbest thing we can do is blindly trust the University that they're doing the right thing for the right reasons.
6. Think we largely agree here. That said, I never suggested doing away with donations, I simply suggested other factors play into the allocation. No one disputes the end goal of generating more revenue, I'm merely suggesting rather than copying what is done elsewhere, we look to be innovative in finding solutions.
7. Your argument here is curious. You state that the GLC contribution to the football program of $130,000 last year, while nice, doesn't justify handing over 100 spaces at $1000/donation. Doing the math on this tells me that that works out to the GLC paying around $1300 per spot for a $300/spot premium. Of course, one could argue that the GLC will make a donation regardless (although I would bet the GLC revenues will decrease with the loss of the parking pass), but I could also argue that Target Corp would still donate, as would large individual donors if they had parking provided elsewhere. So that argument could go either way.

In the end, what I am most concerned about is that if say in 3 years, Brew gets fired because the team drops back to 3-8 or 4-7, will the donors and corpies still come around with their checkbooks open? Not sure, but I hesitate to alienate, even minorly those who've supported the team through good and bad. Not saying it will happen, but it could. And certainly, no one can dispute the University's history in F'ing up these sorts of decisions. One only needs to look back at what were leaving to see that. Regardless, I'll be there, but I'd sure like to see the U prove that they get the fact that in down times, you need the loyal people to stick with you and you get there by taking care of them. End of Rant 2. Peace. :)
Click to expand...

I appreciate the civil discourse here. A few responses.

1) Don't have a link, but it is fact that the parking will be determined by level of giving, not an additional donation.

2) My point stands, whether Burnsville (hyperbole) or not.

3) The A-hat in the Jag is by the far the minority fan. By far.

4) As I said earlier, my prediction is that long time fans will be getting a better overall experience - parking included - than at the dome. Period. Most will be able to park as close or closer than they were parking at the Dome. But, people will still complain.

5) We'll just have to disagree about Mariucci being sterile. I'm not sure how you can make that statement, but I completely disagree. Are there empties? A few, but not that many. I suppose we'll see similar empties at the new football stadium, too, but by and large, you'll see a full house.

7) My argument on the GLC and its $130,000 donation is that it is nice, but is not a 100-spot donation. For example, if you donate $130,000/yr as an individual, you will still get ONE parking spot, not 130. That's my point. Hope that clarifies it. And, as I mentioned, most GLC members will likely still get decent to premium parking based on their personal donations as well as their preferred seating fees/suite buys/club seat purchases, etc. All of those things gets you good parking.
 

handling the GLC like they have.

Maybe the GLC has handled the University poorly.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom