SIAP - Booze Free at the Bank

Donate To GopherHole
M

Maximus

Active member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
5,236
Reaction score
0
Points
36
No surprise....

University of Minnesota decides football, alcohol don't mix

"We appreciate that a number of legislators worked to find a middle ground on this issue," U President Robert Bruininks said in a statement. "But the university did not seek out this legislative change and has been very clear that it was never our intent to provide alcohol in the general seating areas of our athletic venues."
 

Personally, I couldn't be more proud of the decision by the university. They said all along they weren't going to serve alcohol in the general seating areas, and, when given a chance to compromise their beliefs for the sake of raising money, they didn't budge.

I'm all for freeing the university's hands and allowing them to sell booze in the premium areas, but I, for one, didn't miss beer in the stadium one bit. Our group has been to several different collegiate stadiums, and it's a complete non-issue everywhere else.

Frankly, for better or worse, I go to the games to watch the team play, not to drink. When we can all reach a consensus on that, then we can move forward on this. Those who can't get off of the subject clearly are trying to justify going (or not going) to Gopher football games...those are the people that will continue to rail on the subject. It's an ancillary piece of the event, rather than the event itself, and it's unfortunate we all haven't been able to get past it, whether it's the legislature (who should have stayed out of it in the first place), or the fans.
 

I don't mind not being able to drink at the stadium at all. But it does bother me that the U is missing out on this revenue stream. I still don't get why they're making a big deal about selling alcohol to gen. admin.
 

I don't either, is there an insurance liability or something?

I don't get the issue with carding people before you sell them beer.

Go get the cash, who cares what most B10 stadiums do.
 

If St. John's and St. Ben's can sell beer to their students in on-campus pubs then there is no reason why beer can't be sold at a college football games everywhere. The entire concept is an exercise in hypocrisy. It is puritanism and conservatism run amok. The very same people who wouldn't be caught dead voting for a Democrat because they don't believe in big government somehow think it is perfectly reasonable for government to control our lives in this way. Beer is a legal product that is consumed in every country in the world. And the large majority of people who drink it regularly do not allow it to impact their life in any way.

During these difficult financial times, it is highly irresponsible bordering on malfeasance for President Bruininks and the Board of Regents to refuse to go along with the Governor and State Legislature on this. Let's hope that the next U president and future Regents appointees are little more rational on this issue. One thing that we do know for sure, the legislature is not going to change it's position on this.
 


[QUOTE=walleyedude;226682]I don't either, is there an insurance liability or something?

I don't get the issue with carding people before you sell them beer.

Go get the cash, who cares what most B10 stadiums do.[/QUOTE]\


Yes a very large one, especially in general admission. It's called dram shop insurance.
 

alltimetwinsfan said:
Personally, I couldn't be more proud of the decision by the university. They said all along they weren't going to serve alcohol in the general seating areas, and, when given a chance to compromise their beliefs for the sake of raising money, they didn't budge.

I'm all for freeing the university's hands and allowing them to sell booze in the premium areas, but I, for one, didn't miss beer in the stadium one bit. Our group has been to several different collegiate stadiums, and it's a complete non-issue everywhere else.

Frankly, for better or worse, I go to the games to watch the team play, not to drink. When we can all reach a consensus on that, then we can move forward on this. Those who can't get off of the subject clearly are trying to justify going (or not going) to Gopher football games...those are the people that will continue to rail on the subject. It's an ancillary piece of the event, rather than the event itself, and it's unfortunate we all haven't been able to get past it, whether it's the legislature (who should have stayed out of it in the first place), or the fans.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 

When I first read the thread title, I got really excited because I thought there was a policy change by the U to give away free booze at TCF (A la: booze = free at the bank). Funny thing is, the booze will still be free regardless because everyone will continue to bring their own :D
 

The administration is not going to let the U of M to become the only on-campus stadium in the Big Ten (maybe even the country) to sell alcohol to general seating. If there were 1 other school doing this it would be a non-issue...there isn't and the Gophers will not be the first.

The legislature is pathetic. They create the legislation last year to pander for votes, they change it this year to pander for more votes, yet they still have the wrong law on the books. Maybe next year they will change the law again to gain more votes.
 



station19 said:
[QUOTE=walleyedude;226682]I don't either, is there an insurance liability or something?

I don't get the issue with carding people before you sell them beer.

Go get the cash, who cares what most B10 stadiums do.
Click to expand...


Yes a very large one, especially in general admission. It's called dram shop insurance.[/QUOTE]

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

This is an idiotic post - but we are used to it from Station 19. Apparently, St. John's and St. Ben's have figured out a way to pay for the insurance premiums while selling beer to their students. Millions of businesses all over the country sell beer to their customers, pay the required insurance premiums, and manage to stay in business and make a profit.

The liability issue is not affecting the U's decision in any way. Bruininks and the Board of Regents have NEVER mentioned it once during all of the interviews they have done. The only reason they have given is that they don't want the U to be the only Big 10 school to do this. We are paying these people a lot of money to run the U and this is the kind of reasoning they come up with? We are not getting our money's worth. That is the kind of thinking I get from seven year old.
 


UpnorthGo4 said:
Yes a very large one, especially in general admission. It's called dram shop insurance.
Click to expand...
[/I]

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

This is an idiotic post - but we are used to it from Station 19. Apparently, St. John's and St. Ben's have figured out a way to pay for the insurance premiums while selling beer to their students. Millions of businesses all over the country sell beer to their customers, pay the required insurance premiums, and manage to stay in business and make a profit.

The liability issue is not affecting the U's decision in any way. Bruininks and the Board of Regents have NEVER mentioned it once during all of the interviews they have done. The only reason they have given is that they don't want the U to be the only Big 10 school to do this. We are paying these people a lot of money to run the U and this is the kind of reasoning they come up with? We are not getting our money's worth. That is the kind of thinking I get from seven year old.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you should listen to a seven year old. They make more sense than you.
 

I love how the legislature came to this great "compromise" without even dealing with the U.

This whole thing has been a mess. It's like your sixteen and your parents just told you to save up and get a car, so you say "great, I'm going to get a camaro", and they say "fine". But then after working hard and saving up, you're just about to go to the dealer's lot, they say "whoa, you can't get a camaro, you have to get a minivan or nothing." And you say "I'd rather walk than that". So you walk to school for a while until you parents tell you "WE'VE 'compromised' and you can get a oldsmobile 88". "How was this a 'compromise'?" You would surely ask.
 





UpnorthGo4 said:
If St. John's and St. Ben's can sell beer to their students in on-campus pubs then there is no reason why beer can't be sold at a college football games everywhere. The entire concept is an exercise in hypocrisy. It is puritanism and conservatism run amok. The very same people who wouldn't be caught dead voting for a Democrat because they don't believe in big government somehow think it is perfectly reasonable for government to control our lives in this way. Beer is a legal product that is consumed in every country in the world. And the large majority of people who drink it regularly do not allow it to impact their life in any way.

During these difficult financial times, it is highly irresponsible bordering on malfeasance for President Bruininks and the Board of Regents to refuse to go along with the Governor and State Legislature on this. Let's hope that the next U president and future Regents appointees are little more rational on this issue. One thing that we do know for sure, the legislature is not going to change it's position on this.
Click to expand...

The only malfeasance in all of this is by the Legislature, not President Bruininks or the Regents. How many times do you need to be reminded that this is a matter for the Regents to decide on, NOT the Legislature? FarmGopher's analogy is perfect.

Selling beer at a pub and selling beer at a football game are two completely different arguments.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
If St. John's and St. Ben's can sell beer to their students in on-campus pubs then there is no reason why beer can't be sold at a college football games everywhere. The entire concept is an exercise in hypocrisy.

One thing that we do know for sure, the legislature is not going to change it's position on this.
Click to expand...

As far as I know St. John's and St. Ben's do not sell alcohol in the football stadium, that's a huge difference.

Wisconsin allows students to buy beer at the Union, but not the stadium. Same as St. John's and St. Ben's. Allowing a couple hundred of people to be served is very different then allowing 50,000-80,000 to be served.

The legislature has already changed their mind once and will, and should, change it again. The U will never allow alcohol to be sold in general admission seats. I expect our brilliant legislatures to make a push to sell alcohol at high school, middle school and elementary school games to help provide more revenue for those schools they aren't funding anymore.
 

the only thing that bugs me about this is that the U"s reasoning for it is they dont want booze available to students because they are trying to curb binge drinking when in reality this ban is increasing it
 


gopheraschells said:
the only thing that bugs me about this is that the U"s reasoning for it is they dont want booze available to students because they are trying to curb binge drinking when in reality this ban is increasing it
Click to expand...

Binge drinking is going to happen either way. The U prefers that they not be associated with providing the alcohol that is part of the binge.
 

GoAUpher said:
Binge drinking is going to happen either way. The U prefers that they not be associated with providing the alcohol that is part of the binge.
Click to expand...

As a season ticket holder that sat near the students in the dome and TCF, binge drinking and drinking during the game by students is much worse at TCF.
 

FarmGopher said:
I love how the legislature came to this great "compromise" without even dealing with the U.

This whole thing has been a mess. It's like your sixteen and your parents just told you to save up and get a car, so you say "great, I'm going to get a camaro", and they say "fine". But then after working hard and saving up, you're just about to go to the dealer's lot, they say "whoa, you can't get a camaro, you have to get a minivan or nothing." And you say "I'd rather walk than that". So you walk to school for a while until you parents tell you "WE'VE 'compromised' and you can get a oldsmobile 88". "How was this a 'compromise'?" You would surely ask.
Click to expand...

This is a good analogy. As aggrivating as I find the legislature's actions, if they'd taken this stance in 2006 as part of the original bill, I could live with it. 'Hey, we're going to be 'populist' and not allow you to sell booze in the suites like every other school, costing you millions. But if you want state funding that's one of the costs. Most schools don't ask for state funds for thier football stadiums either. Get something, give something up.' OK. That sucks, but at least I know it upfront.

But no one cared about it then. Only when one Legislator found out he couldn't have his beer did it blow up into this load of foux-populism BS.
 

at the bar said:
As a season ticket holder that sat near the students in the dome and TCF, binge drinking and drinking during the game by students is much worse at TCF.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure the proximity of the stadium to house/frat parties and student housing has absolutely nothing to do with this. Even if the lack of beer is the sole cause of things being worse it doesn't change the fact that binge drinking would happen either way. Worse or better doesn't factor into it. The U cares about making sure their hands are clean when it comes to supplying the alcohol at an on campus stadium.
 

howeda7 said:
This is a good analogy. As aggrivating as I find the legislature's actions, if they'd taken this stance in 2006 as part of the original bill, I could live with it. 'Hey, we're going to be 'populist' and not allow you to sell booze in the suites like every other school, costing you millions. But if you want state funding that's one of the costs. Most schools don't ask for state funds for thier football stadiums either. Get something, give something up.' OK. That sucks, but at least I know it upfront.

But no one cared about it then. Only when one Legislator found out he couldn't have his beer did it blow up into this load of foux-populism BS.
Click to expand...

+1000
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom