State house doesn't vote for alcohol change

[monk10]

We have been debating this topic for more than a year and you GopherHolers with the double digit IQs are still not getting it. Let me spell it out for you:

You continue to provide perfect media responses. I appreciate it!

Similarities between the Suites and Cheap Seats at Gophers Stadium

o Suites have a great view of the field ::: Cheap Seats have a good view of the field
----- No problem because there are no bad seats at The Brickhouse.

o Suites have Chairback Seats ::: Cheap Seats have Bench Seats
----- No problem because you can sit down unless some prick is standing in front of you.

o Suites have Great Food ::: Cheap Seats have Crummy Food
----- No problem because stale hotdogs and chips are standard sports fare at football games everywhere.

o Suites have Blow Jobs ::: Cheap Seats have Hand Jobs
----- No problem because life is good.

o Suites have Beer ::: Cheap Seats have Pop
----- No problem because you can still drink some liquids.

fxt.

 

[FreakyDeke]

We have been debating this topic for more than a year and you GopherHolers with the double digit IQs are still not getting it. Let me spell it out for you:

Similarities between the Suites and Cheap Seats at Gophers Stadium

o Suites have a great view of the field ::: Cheap Seats have a good view of the field
----- No problem because there are no bad seats at The Brickhouse.

o Suites have Chairback Seats ::: Cheap Seats have Bench Seats
----- No problem because you can sit down unless some prick is standing in front of you.

o Suites have Great Food ::: Cheap Seats have Crummy Food
----- No problem because stale hotdogs and chips are standard fare at football games everywhere.

o Suites have Blow Jobs ::: Cheap Seats have Hand Jobs
----- No problem because life is good.


Differences between the Suites and Cheap Seats at Gophers Stadium

o Suites have Beer ::: Cheap Seats have Pop
----- No fu*king way because Gophers Stadium is a PUBLIC STADIUM built with PUBLIC DOLLARS and the Board of Regents and Administration are PUBLIC EMPLOYEES who are responsible for promoting PUBLIC POLICIES in favor of the PUBLIC GOOD and providing EQUAL ACCESS to PUBLIC FACILITIES and PUBLIC SERVICES.

And you, with your single digit IQ, don't realize (even after reading 180 posts in this thread) that you do have EQUAL ACCESS to every seat in the stadium.

 

[RodentRampage]

We have been debating this topic for more than a year and you GopherHolers with the double digit IQs are still not getting it. Let me spell it out for you:

And we've been making mincemeat of your feeble arguments. Of course, that's a pretty easy thing to do.

o Suites have a great view of the field ::: Cheap Seats have a good view of the field
----- No problem because there are no bad seats at The Brickhouse.

But those who pay more get a better view than those who do not.

o Suites have Chairback Seats ::: Cheap Seats have Bench Seats
----- No problem because you can sit down unless some prick is standing in front of you.

Still, those who pay more get a chairback, those who do not do not get one. You may say its no a problem, but then you're just picking and choose which is objectionable.

o Suites have Great Food ::: Cheap Seats have Crummy Food
----- No problem because stale hotdogs and chips are standard sports fare at football games everywhere.

And not having beer in general seating has always been standard at college football games.

o Suites have Beer ::: Cheap Seats have Pop
----- No fu*king way because Gophers Stadium is a PUBLIC STADIUM built with PUBLIC DOLLARS and the Board of Regents and University Administration are PUBLIC EMPLOYEES who are responsible for promoting PUBLIC POLICIES in favor of the PUBLIC GOOD and PROVIDING EQUAL ACCESS TO PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES.

You keep saying this, and it still makes no sense. Why does "built with public dollars" = "I should be able to have a beer"? And since when is a "public good".

 

[Maroon]

The solution, from the University's perspective, seems a rather obvious one. Wouldn't it be within the law for them to provide alcohol free of charge as a perk to those in suites while at the same time offering beer for sale to others - for $200 a bottle? Seems to me that would be within the law and would also achieve the U's objective of restricting alcohol sales to minors.

I obviously think that would be very *&^!#*&^!#*&^!#*&^!#*&^!#*&^!#baggery of the U to do, but what's stopping them from doing that?

I know you guys would rather just stay in your cages and throw poop at each other all day, but does anyone know why this wouldn't work under the current law?

 

[ruralgopher]

I know you guys would rather just stay in your cages and throw poop at each other all day, but does anyone know why this wouldn't work under the current law?

I think that it would work legally, but it would be a far greater PR headache than it would be worth. Although in 10 yrs Target Field beer may be $200, so who knows.

 

[monk10]

Why do you think the U isn't selling beer? And does your suggestion help alleviate their concern.

 

[Maroon]

I think that it would work legally, but it would be a far greater PR headache than it would be worth. Although in 10 yrs Target Field beer may be $200, so who knows.

But they already have a PR headache and they're not getting what they want. So wouldn't you rather have the same PR headache but at least get what you want in the process?

 

[Maroon]

Why do you think the U isn't selling beer? And does your suggestion help alleviate their concern.

Because they don't want students, especially minors, to get drunk at the game, and even worse, to get hurt and then sue them. At $200 a bottle, I don't think any students would be buying any at the game.

 

[ruralgopher]

But they already have a PR headache and they're not getting what they want. So wouldn't you rather have the same PR headache but at least get what you want in the process?

No, I don't think that they have a PR headache right now. I think that by not selling alcohol at all, and losing the revenue with it, they have public opinion on their side. Manipulating the law in said fashion would change that.

 

[monk10]

If I was that afraid of a potential incident, I wouldn't see a $200 problem in the way. Given the history of debt kids come out with on their credit card bills, I don't see money as a deterrent.

So you are still in a situation where the fear of being sued.

 

[RodentRampage]

But they already have a PR headache and they're not getting what they want. So wouldn't you rather have the same PR headache but at least get what you want in the process?

If the U offered beer for $200 per bottle, the legislature would take about 5 minutes to mandate beer price at TCF. They have already exceeded their constitutional authority in dictating alcohol policy at TCF, they can exceed it some more in dictating beer price.

And the PR headache of being a allowing alcohol in general seating would be a whole lot worse than not having alcohol at all.

 

[Maroon]

No, I don't think that they have a PR headache right now. I think that by not selling alcohol at all, and losing the revenue with it, they have public opinion on their side. Manipulating the law in said fashion would change that.

What public opinion? The majority in those little informal Star-Trib polls think the U should be selling beer to everyone above age in the stadium. I don't know if that's reflective of the whole state or not, but I don't know what other numbers to go by.

 

[Maroon]

If the U offered beer for $200 per bottle, the legislature would take about 5 minutes to mandate beer price at TCF. They have already exceeded their constitutional authority in dictating alcohol policy at TCF, they can exceed it some more in dictating beer price.

And the PR headache of being a allowing alcohol in general seating would be a whole lot worse than not having alcohol at all.

I don't know that the legislature could or would do that. I think that would be very different than what they've done so far.

 

[howeda7]

Regarding the $200 beer idea. It would work in theory. It would never work in reality. First, it would indeed be a PR nightmare. Second, the Legislature would indeed step in and outlaw it as price gouging (which it would be). Third, whether a student can afford it or not, when they sneak thier booze in, get hammered and then get in an accident, there will exist the possiblility that the U served them whether they actually did or not. So it doesn't solve the basic problem of why they don't sell booze in the cheap seats to begin with.

 

[Ski U Mah 55]

I didn't miss beer at all last season, and I won't this season. If you really need to addle your mind at a football game just buy a flask for 12 bucks at Target and bring your crappy beer in yourself.