STrib: Beer, maybe wine, foreseen at TCF Bank Stadium

[GoAUpher]

OK - so the question is - the elitism thing. What did people say about it and what are they saying now? I ask because now the legislature is both allowing, and the U is moving forward with, the "elitism" in various facilities including Williams Arena and Mariucci. Wonder if it's a serve vs sell argument some are using (if it even exists) or the legislature is just changing its tune... trying to reconcile why it's OK to only have beer in premium seats in some venues, but not OK at TCF Bank Stadium. What is/are the guiding principles here?

Elitism in this context was likely one of two things:
- A nonsense argument designed to allow a politician to take a populist stand and get easy accolades. Some folks might have believed their own rhetoric, but it was still a specious argument.
- A cover for legislators who have been trying to expand the Legislature's control over the U in recent years via small actions. The Daily had a nice summary of some of these attempts in a larger piece about the U's constitutional autonomy.

The topic isn't anywhere near done.. if the above doesn't happen, then the next discussion will probably be selling beer in more locations throughout the stadium. It's a worthwhile discussion to be had. Ultimately one person is going to be checking someone's ID and one person is going to be handing a person a beer or two. Whether that happens at only the two locations that are planned to be available to begin this year, or at 15 locations throughout the stadium.. that isn't going to change. If there's something so terrible that you're afraid of such that you feel you must limit the sales points to only two spots, then why sell at all? One could probably argue that the current plan isn't in accordance with the law... definition of "convenient" comes into play.

Anyway, I think there will be beer & wine flowing (sold) throughout the stadium in the next couple of years. Also think the debate(s) is far from over.

This all sounds about right to me. In the end, the rhetoric from both the U and the Legislature in this fight often represented arguments that were weak or illogical. In the end I think this boils down to a power struggle where the U changed its stance to get what it wanted...more revenue.

 

[Deleted_User]

Elitism in this context was likely one of two things:
- A nonsense argument designed to allow a politician to take a populist stand and get easy accolades. Some folks might have believed their own rhetoric, but it was still a specious argument.
- A cover for legislators who have been trying to expand the Legislature's control over the U in recent years via small actions. The Daily had a nice summary of some of these attempts in a larger piece about the U's constitutional autonomy.


This all sounds about right to me. In the end, the rhetoric from both the U and the Legislature in this fight often represented arguments that were weak or illogical. In the end I think this boils down to a power struggle where the U changed its stance to get what it wanted...more revenue.

Define where the argument is specious. That is a charge dangling and unsubstantiated by you in your post. This isn't a rhetoric or logic class. It is a board with people who hang on your comments and write long responses only to have you label the argument "specious". You can do better than that. I know you can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt if you put it down in words not filled with fluff like the dangling charge with no evidence to support it.

 

[GoAUpher]

Define where the argument is specious. That is a charge dangling and unsubstantiated by you in your post. This isn't a rhetoric or logic class. It is a board with people who hang on your comments and write long responses only to have you label the argument "specious". You can do better than that. I know you can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt if you put it down in words not filled with fluff like the dangling charge with no evidence to support it.

The elitism argument was specious because beer is no different than several other common products offered only to premium seat holders at TCF. Those seat holders also have access to better/different food choices not offered in GA. They have wider seats with padding. Some have HDTV's right next to them. Some have waiters. But there were no complaints about those things. Beer is simply one of many products that the U chose to offer as a perk to people who paid more for their seats. This is the sort of scenario that exists throughout society at large (first class perks on airplanes for example) and even within the wider sporting world but in this specific instance it was suddenly elitist? That's just silly.

Not to mention this horrid "elitist" situation existed for YEARS in both Mariucci and The Barn without anyone saying a word. When the issue was being debated no one ever suggested that beer be served in the GA for those venues, only at TCF. That's not a very logical thing if this were truly elitist.

 

[AO54]

Who honestly thinks that the U didn't serve Beer to the general areas because they wanted to offer an extra otherwise unavailable perk to the premium seat holders? It has everything to do with controlling the masses to create the type of atmosphere they want.

 

[GoAUpher]

Who honestly thinks that the U didn't serve Beer to the general areas because they wanted to offer an extra otherwise unavailable perk to the premium seat holders? It has everything to do with controlling the masses to create the type of atmosphere they want.

What are you talking about? Their intent doesn't factor into it. Once they decided to only offer it in one place it became a perk. A perk, by definition, is a special privilege. A type of beverage only available in the premium seats obviously qualifies.

As for the "control the masses" stuff. Ok, that's your opinion. I don't think it's right but I also don't care what their intent was. I care that the plan they originally offered was a legitimate use of their power and that the arguments against it were baseless and illogical.

 

[AO54]

What are you talking about? Their intent doesn't factor into it. Once they decided to only offer it in one place it became a perk. A perk, by definition, is a special privilege. A type of beverage only available in the premium seats obviously qualifies.

As for the "control the masses" stuff. Ok, that's your opinion. I don't think it's right but I also don't care what their intent was. I care that the plan they originally offered was a legitimate use of their power and that the arguments against it were baseless and illogical.

So their decision could be elitist initially, but after the rule is in place, it's no longer elitist, it's a perk?

 

[GoAUpher]

So their decision could be elitist initially, but after the rule is in place, it's no longer elitist, it's a perk?

No, I'm saying beer was always a perk because it was something that you got access to if you paid more money. The U's intent, whatever it was, didn't make it a perk. The limited access in return for money did. It's not elitist to offer perks in exchange for getting more money. If you think it is then you'd better start bitching about all the other perks too. You'd still be wrong, but at least you'd be intellectually consistent.

If you can prove that they intended the move to "control the masses" then I'll agree that the U's intent was elitist. Good luck with that though.

 

[Deleted_User]

The elitism argument was specious because beer is no different than several other common products offered only to premium seat holders at TCF. Those seat holders also have access to better/different food choices not offered in GA. They have wider seats with padding. Some have HDTV's right next to them. Some have waiters. But there were no complaints about those things. Beer is simply one of many products that the U chose to offer as a perk to people who paid more for their seats. This is the sort of scenario that exists throughout society at large (first class perks on airplanes for example) and even within the wider sporting world but in this specific instance it was suddenly elitist? That's just silly.

Not to mention this horrid "elitist" situation existed for YEARS in both Mariucci and The Barn without anyone saying a word. When the issue was being debated no one ever suggested that beer be served in the GA for those venues, only at TCF. That's not a very logical thing if this were truly elitist.

I was able to buy beer in the Barn for the last 40 years when I sat in the cheap seats. I must have sat down in the wrong section by mistake.

 

[GoAUpher]

I was able to buy beer in the Barn for the last 40 years when I sat in the cheap seats.

Interesting. I don't recall that. Where did you buy it from?

 

[Gopher Warrior]

In 2009, some Regents talked about "principles" and "doing the right thing" - that is, they believed not selling beer to the masses was the right choice based on the University's "principles". Have the principles of the University changed?

At the same time, in 2009 the Regents also acknowledged having beer available only in the suites & other premium seating areas was helpful to sell those areas out.

I think there's some of both at play here - most would prefer to not have alcohol available to the masses, but bringing in money is more important to them. "Principle shift".

One Regent in 2009, I believe it was Baraga... said that he believed alcohol ruins the game day perception of some. He noted, and I thought it was an excellent point, that there are Big Ten schools which do not serve alcohol anywhere in their stadiums. "Ohio State and Michigan seem to do very, very well without liquor."

That third party ticket agency the U has contracted with has to be pleased. Their people are probably on the horn calling people today.. "hey, buy some tickets! You can totally get wasted bro!"

 

[GoAUpher]

In 2009, some Regents talked about "principles" and "doing the right thing" - that is, they believed not selling beer to the masses was the right choice based on the University's "principles". Have the principles of the University changed?

I'd have to see the quotes, but as I recall it, "doing the right thing" as an overall thought process was always about keeping it away from the students. The rest of GA was a casualty in that effort.

I think there's some of both at play here - most would prefer to not have alcohol available to the masses, but bringing in money is more important to them. "Principle shift".

I'd suggest that keeping it from the students lost out to money.

One Regent in 2009, I believe it was Baraga... said that he believed alcohol ruins the game day perception of some. He noted, and I thought it was an excellent point, that there are Big Ten schools which do not serve alcohol anywhere in their stadiums. "Ohio State and Michigan seem to do very, very well without liquor."

This doesn't mean he thought that "the masses" couldn't handle beer.

That third party ticket agency the U has contracted with has to be pleased. Their people are probably on the horn calling people today.. "hey, buy some tickets! You can totally get wasted bro!"

Yes, I'm guessing the Aspire salespeople are quite pleased.

 

[Deleted_User]

I can't wait for my second recycling bin because I have one of the highest taxed properties in my neighborhood. Oops. No.

I can't wait for quicker fire response to my... oops. No.

The argument of benefit purchased only applies to private goods. What makes the TCF Bank Stadium experience a private good. Anybody?

 

[GoAUpher]

What makes the TCF Bank Stadium experience a private good. Anybody?

Are you actually trying to argue that college athletics, specifically attendance at a college football game by being a ticketholder, is a public service like the fire department?

 

[AO54]

No, I'm saying beer was always a perk because it was something that you got access to if you paid more money. The U's intent, whatever it was, didn't make it a perk. The limited access in return for money did. It's not elitist to offer perks in exchange for getting more money. If you think it is then you'd better start bitching about all the other perks too. You'd still be wrong, but at least you'd be intellectually consistent.

If you can prove that they intended the move to "control the masses" then I'll agree that the U's intent was elitist. Good luck with that though.

Thought you didn't care about their intent in determining elitism. GopherWarrior already pointed out the specific examples, but it's always been true that administrators at the U have been concerned about alcohol as their underage students have had historical trouble with binge drinking.

In any case, any perk is "elitist". It's not necessarily derogatory to offer caviar only in the premium seating as it probably wouldn't sell well in the general areas, but beer doesn't quite fit that definition.

 

[Deleted_User]

Some have pointed out that the excess ticket cost is tax deductible. That is interesting. Doesn't it say in the code that you can not get a quid pro quo, this for that setup to a charitable organization, especially one that gets deducted from your taxes. So, what the non elite crowd are saying, even confessing, because they exclusively get beer for donations, they are in violation of federal tax code on charitable donations for receiving special consideration that the non "donor" seats can receive. Hmmm. Very interesting. Do you think the IRS will now allow those seats as charitable donations as I whistle blow the whole crowd in the premium seats. I wonder how much I can get for that?

Interesting.

 

[GoAUpher]

Thought you didn't care about their intent in determining elitism.

On a personal level no I really don't care. My life will go on regardless. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be willing to acknowledge that the U saying GA folks can't handle beer was elitist if you could prove it to me.

GopherWarrior already pointed out the specific examples, but it's always been true that administrators at the U have been concerned about alcohol as their underage students have had historical trouble with binge drinking.

No, he gave his interpretation of what the goal was and a single quote from one Regent that could be interpreted different ways. Even if that one Regent had the intent you assert, he isn't the entire BoR. So that's a single quote from one regent against a repeated message over time from both board members and other U leaders that they were opposed to serving in GA because of the students.

In any case, any perk is "elitist". It's not necessarily derogatory to offer caviar only in the premium seating as it probably wouldn't sell well in the general areas, but beer doesn't quite fit that definition.

Demand for something not offered to you doesn't make not offering the item elitist. You could easily argue it'd be bad business though. A bunch of people wanting to buy beer really bad doesn't make not selling it derogatory.

 

[GoAUpher]

Some have pointed out that the excess ticket cost is tax deductible. That is interesting. Doesn't it say in the code that you can not get a quid pro quo, this for that setup to a charitable organization, especially one that gets deducted from your taxes. So, what the non elite crowd are saying, even confessing, because they exclusively get beer for donations, they are in violation of federal tax code on charitable donations for receiving special consideration that the non "donor" seats can receive. Hmmm. Very interesting. Do you think the IRS will now allow those seats as charitable donations as I whistle blow the whole crowd in the premium seats. I wonder how much I can get for that?

Interesting.

You can't get something for a charitable donation? Doing so would be very illegal? Someone alert the feds! Big Bird and PBS are breaking the law by handing out special tote-bags in return for tax deductible donations!

In the meantime, access to items that you purchase is not the same as a gift in return for a tax deductible donation. They'd have to give the beer away for free for it to qualify as a gift. And even then you'd simply be required to subtract the fair market value of the beer from the total you were deducting on your taxes.

BTW, I see you jumped to this nonsense after not responding to the questions about your silly fire dept comparison. Can I assume you'll do the same after reading this response? What new ridiculous argument would you like to try on for size?

 

[Deleted_User]

You can't get something for a charitable donation? Doing so would be very illegal? Someone alert the feds! Big Bird and PBS are breaking the law by handing out special tote-bags in return for tax deductible donations!

In the meantime, access to items that you purchase is not the same as a gift in return for a tax deductible donation. They'd have to give the beer away for free for it to qualify as a gift. And even then you'd simply be required to subtract the fair market value of the beer from the total you were deducting on your taxes.

BTW, I see you jumped to this nonsense after not responding to the questions about your silly fire dept comparison. Can I assume you'll do the same after reading this response? What new ridiculous argument would you like to try on for size?

I'm all for changing the subject when I am getting my ass whooped. I am trying to come up with even sillier arguments. But, then again, you are all in...

 

[Killjoy]

That is exactly what the tax code says.

You can't get something for a charitable donation? Doing so would be very illegal? Someone alert the feds! Big Bird and PBS are breaking the law by handing out special tote-bags in return for tax deductible donations!

It seem as usual on this board people really haven't taken the time to understand the facts. The IRS code clearly states that you must deduct the value of any gift or service you receive from a charity from your contribution in order to determine how much of your contribution you can deduct for tax purposes. That is why if you go to a fund raising dinner they will tell you what portion of ticket is tax deductible. As far as premium seats donations being tax deductible and what the value, if any, you receive for your contribution, it is something I am sure the IRS is struggling with. The more schools use this “donation” concept in selling tickets the more likely it is that the IRS will move towards limiting this deduction as a tax deduction.

 

[GoAUpher]

It seem as usual on this board people really haven't taken the time to understand the facts. The IRS code clearly states that you must deduct the value of any gift or service you receive from a charity from your contribution in order to determine how much of your contribution you can deduct for tax purposes. That is why if you go to a fund raising dinner they will tell you what portion of ticket is tax deductible.

I'm not sure if you're quoting me to correct me, but if you are it's probably worth noting that I already called out the need to deduct the cost of gifts in the paragraph that follows the one you've quoted:

In the meantime, access to items that you purchase is not the same as a gift in return for a tax deductible donation. They'd have to give the beer away for free for it to qualify as a gift. And even then you'd simply be required to subtract the fair market value of the beer from the total you were deducting on your taxes.

As far as premium seats donations being tax deductible and what the value, if any, you receive for your contribution, it is something I am sure the IRS is struggling with. The more schools use this “donation” concept in selling tickets the more likely it is that the IRS will move towards limiting this deduction as a tax deduction.

I wouldn't doubt it. It is a pretty BS exemption if you think about what the donation really does.

 

[Gopher Warrior]

It seem as usual on this board people really haven't taken the time to understand the facts. The IRS code clearly states that you must deduct the value of any gift or service you receive from a charity from your contribution in order to determine how much of your contribution you can deduct for tax purposes. That is why if you go to a fund raising dinner they will tell you what portion of ticket is tax deductible. As far as premium seats donations being tax deductible and what the value, if any, you receive for your contribution, it is something I am sure the IRS is struggling with. The more schools use this “donation” concept in selling tickets the more likely it is that the IRS will move towards limiting this deduction as a tax deduction.

Killjoy, with all due respect, you were the one on the first page of this thread that said I was crazy to believe that beer would be available to all those of age and people could walk around with beers, go to their seats, etc.

Really! Do you have a clue what the politics of the issue are? It isn't going to happen!

Do you realize what the consequences would be if you happened to be right? The University of Minnesota would never risk its credibility with the legislature over this issue.

It appears you may not be familiar with the tax code. Not to get too into my views on this particular deduction (although I will say it's b.s. in many respects), but the IRS specifically addressed the situation where someone makes a charitable contribution and in return receives the right to buy a ticket. Remember, many institutions have had "forced donations" for many years.

About 25 years ago the IRS said, "take an 80% deduction". While the spirit of the deduction may seek to represent the excess of a cash donation less fair value of goods/services received, it's 80% no matter what you get. Conversely, let's say you go to some dinner event at a church and the organizer estimates the fair value to be $30, but tickets are $100. Your deduction is $70. Oh, now they're going to give you a $20 bottle of wine at the end of the night as gift as well? Deduction drops to $50. Not the case at athletic events. It's 80% - beer sales or not.

 

[Killjoy]

Gopher Warrior

LOL - I hope your head doesn't explode from the swelling of your ego. Before it does just a couple points of clarification:

First you were absolutely correct about the changes in the alcohol polices at TCF. Unfortunately I thought the article at the beginning of the string was an old article about what was originally planned for TCF. Once I realized that I admitted I was wrong.

Second, I never said that the way donations for tickets were be handled by the U of M or season tickets holders incorrectly under IRS rules. I did suggest though that rules for ticket donations deductions from the IRS could very likely change as the more dollars fall in this category.

Lastly, be careful that you don’t hurt yourself too much by all the patting your doing on your back.

 

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

Any donation to a University in connection with the purchase of tickets to a sporting event, the deduction is 80% of the donation. This comes from IRS Publication 526, page 3.

 

[Gopher Warrior]

I made it through the Board of Regents discussion on beer and wine at TCF Bank stadium. Some information and comments are below... what do you think?

The beer will be flowing. If something really bad happens, they could shut it down. But more likely I think the sale locations will expand in the general areas from the two that they'll start off with to all over the place.

As fully expected, the U appears ready to expand beer sales from two locations to all over the stadium.

It was always a flip flop. The "beer garden" talk was all show. The "oh dear, we are going to sell alcohol but we are keeping the sales far away from our kids!" was to appease. It was only a short matter of time.

2 years and now beer sales will likely be expanded. 2 years max from NOW and there will be other big changes.

 

[station19]

As fully expected, the U appears ready to expand beer sales from two locations to all over the stadium.

It was always a flip flop. The "beer garden" talk was all show. The "oh dear, we are going to sell alcohol but we are keeping the sales far away from our kids!" was to appease. It was only a short matter of time.

2 years and now beer sales will likely be expanded. 2 years max from NOW and there will be other big changes.

You're really quoting yourself(and bumping a thread) from 19 month ago to pat yourself on the back?

You have issues.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

You're really quoting yourself(and bumping a thread) from 19 month ago to pat yourself on the back?

You have issues.

I see nothing wrong with it and I am glad he did it. What is GopherHole if it is not a 24/7 debating society? And when you have debates you also have winners and losers. We all know who the primary losers are in this debate. That said, I want my recognition as the first and most persistent advocate for beer for everyone in the new stadium. I was doing it long before Gopher Warrior. He was a Johnny-Come-Lately to this issue.