TCF Bank - Dry Stadium

Donate To GopherHole
T

tjgopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
5,367
Reaction score
1,367
Points
113
Bruininks to ask Regents to make athletics venues "dry" as a result of new law


MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (06/11/2009) — University of Minnesota President Robert Bruininks will recommend that the Board of Regents make TCF Bank Stadium, Williams Arena and Mariucci Arena alcohol-free during athletic events as a result of recent legislation enacted by the Minnesota legislature and signed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Bruininks will present his recommendation to the Board of Regents on Friday.

"From the beginning of this project, we planned to sell alcohol only in controlled-access, premium seating areas of the stadium, consistent with the practice of the vast majority of college campuses," said Bruininks. "This was the plan we shared publicly and with the legislature three years ago, and the plan that our business model was based upon. Unfortunately, this new legislation leaves us with only two options: to become the only Big Ten campus in the country to sell alcohol throughout its football stadium, or to not sell alcohol at all. Our values do not change, even if our plans must. We have never sold alcohol at student-oriented events in the past, and I do not recommend we start now."

At Friday's Board of Regents meeting, Bruininks will present a resolution to make TCF Bank Stadium, Williams Arena and Mariucci Arena "dry" on game days. The board will review the item on Friday and is expected to take action at a meeting currently scheduled for June 24. The university plans to relinquish its liquor licenses to the state for those venues.

"There is no question this is not our preferred option," said Bruininks. "But it's the best choice for our students and our campus, and I trust that the Board of Regents will support it."

The university has not yet assessed the financial impact of the decision, but said it will definitely have some financial implications.

"While providing alcohol in controlled areas was part of our business plan, its absence does not diminish the excitement and pageantry of Big Ten football," Bruininks said. "We have great fans and strong supporters who have given so much to bring Gopher football back to campus, and we look forward with great anticipation to the opening of the new stadium in September."
 

Officially dry, at least. I'm sure there will be flasks and hot water bottles filled with alcohol on gameday.
 

The legislature wins. As they continue to reduce funding to the University, they have now cut a significant source of private revenue for Gopher athletics. A great day to be a Minnesotan.
 

Maximus said:
The legislature wins. As they continue to reduce funding to the University, they have now cut a significant source of private revenue for Gopher athletics. A great day to be a Minnesotan.
Click to expand...

This was a completely uninformed, nonsensical decision by the Legislature. After everything they disagreed on this year (the Legislature and the governor, anyway), which is mostly everything, I'm baffled as to why this is the issue they could all agree on.
 

Maximus said:
The legislature wins. As they continue to reduce funding to the University, they have now cut a significant source of private revenue for Gopher athletics. A great day to be a Minnesotan.
Click to expand...

Nobody "won", everybody lost.
 


where or where is upnorthgo4?! would really like to hear his perspective on this

:rolleyes:

way to put the U of M athletic dept "behind the eight ball" in terms of its finances relative to the rest of the conference who allows alcohol sales only in their premium/controlled seating areas. hope all of you who pushed your legislators to put the U of M into this unnecessary and unfortunate financial predicament are very happy with yourselves. nice work! :mad:
 

Hates Monikers said:
This was a completely uninformed, nonsensical decision by the Legislature. After everything they disagreed on this year (the Legislature and the governor, anyway), which is mostly everything, I'm baffled as to why this is the issue they could all agree on.
Click to expand...

well, because it allowed most of them (regardless of party) to do what piece of sh!t politicians do best: PANDER TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR IN PEOPLE!
 

What a bunch of total jerkoffs. Great way to continue to throw the middle finger to university. Thanks again.
 




When GopherHolers write or call their legislators to express their unhappiness about how the U was treated this year, don't forget to mention the $94.9 million that will be cut from overall state funding over the next two years, and the 1,200 employees who are going to lose their jobs. It goes without saying that you won't be taken seriously by anyone if the only thing you mention is that premium seat holders won't be able to drink beer at Gopher football games.

Be sure to mention the following priorites that the U uses in making decisions related to short and long term budget planning.

1. Advance and maintain the University’s quality, competitiveness, and momentum through prudent investment in its education, research and public mission.

2. Compensate, support, and retain talented faculty and staff.

3. Take substantial action to increase overall productivity by reducing costs and increasing revenues without sacrificing excellence, quality, and responsiveness.

4. Continue to support strategies that improve financial access and affordability for students at all levels.

5. Continue to make prudent and needed investments in capital infrastructure to advance the University’s quality and competitiveness.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
When GopherHolers write or call their legislators to express their unhappiness about how the U was treated this year, don't forget to mention the $94.9 million that will be cut from overall state funding over the next two years, and the 1,200 employees who are going to lose their jobs. It goes without saying that you won't be taken seriously by anyone if the only thing you mention is that premium seat holders won't be able to drink beer at Gopher football games.

Be sure to mention the following priorites that the U uses in making decisions related to short and long term budget planning.

1. Advance and maintain the University’s quality, competitiveness, and momentum through prudent investment in its education, research and public mission.

2. Compensate, support, and retain talented faculty and staff.

3. Take substantial action to increase overall productivity by reducing costs and increasing revenues without sacrificing excellence, quality, and responsiveness.

4. Continue to support strategies that improve financial access and affordability for students at all levels.

5. Continue to make prudent and needed investments in capital infrastructure to advance the University’s quality and competitiveness.
Click to expand...


Damn, this is ironic. You were leading the charge, you were the ring leader in this entire thing on this board. You were asking people to tell their lawmakers to PASS this legislation so everything could be "fair." This was your "cause." Remember, if not for people like you creating the stink to start with, these zealous lawmakers wouldn't have wasted their time on the booze law and would have actually put some time into the five things you've listed in this thread.

Now, at the end of the day, they still haven't addressed any of the issues you talked about in this post AND now NO ONE gets to drink, which is exactly what we told you would happen if the law passed. AND, the U gets even less revenue.

You win! Your law is on the books! Congratulations!!! A job well done!
 

No worries my fellow Gophers, as long as the tailgate lots aren't "dry", we'll be OK! Games starts at 11, I'll start tailgating at 6 AM!

Who's going to join me?!!
 

This is a big loss for the University of Minnesota and its fans. Losing the ability to sell/serve alcohol at Williams, Mariucci, and the Bank will hurt the bottom line. Corporations who buy premium seats and boxes want to entertain their guests and for many that includes alcohol. If the businesses that usually buy premium seating can't serve alcohol to their guests at the University of Minnesota, I assume they will take their dollars to the Vikings, Timberwolves, Twins, or Wild.

Personally, I could care less about drinking at a sporting event, but it should be clear to everyone that the "U" losing a revenue stream is not good for fans who actually want to see some championships in their lifetime.
 




UpnorthGo4 said:
When GopherHolers write or call their legislators to express their unhappiness about how the U was treated this year, don't forget to mention the $94.9 million that will be cut from overall state funding over the next two years, and the 1,200 employees who are going to lose their jobs. It goes without saying that you won't be taken seriously by anyone if the only thing you mention is that premium seat holders won't be able to drink beer at Gopher football games.
Click to expand...

The bolded above is precisely why no one took you and your single minded pursuit of beer seriously. You didn't start bringing up the other (completely unrelated) funding concerns until you'd tossed out every other flawed argument you could come up with.

However, it was refreshing that you you also took time to note that you were wrong. Wait, you didn't? How odd...it seems unlike you to ignore your errors. I mean, after taking time to gloat about how you are always right in your predictions it would only seem to be the fair thing to do (and we know you love fairness!). :rolleyes:
UpnorthGo4 said:
Quote: My sources at the U say Bruininks is leaning towards providing alcohol to the entire stadium. It's simple really...money talks. Without beer getting served to the unwashed masses, you can say "buh-bye" to men's gymnastics. The money to be made by serving alcohol at TCF Bank Stadium (and, in turn, at Mariucci, Williams, the Sports Pavilion, etc.) is just too significant (to the tune of about $2 million per year) to overlook for the athletic department.

If this happens I will keep my record intact of never having been WRONG in GopherHole (it's true, you can look it up). This is no surprise to me, but I can't resist reminding all of the GopherHole weenies (everyone knows who they are) who have campaigned to prevent the hardworking and taxpaying season ticketholders who helped pay for Gopher Stadium from enjoying a beer while watching their favorite football team.
Click to expand...
 

I wonder what they will do with those fancy bars located in the DQ room? I would suspect in a few years there will be many unsold suites/loge boxes.
 

GoldysArmy said:
I wonder what they will do with those fancy bars located in the DQ room? I would suspect in a few years there will be many unsold suites/loge boxes.
Click to expand...

Doubtful. Either we start winning and they remain a hot ticket or we don't and they start selling booze. The U will compromise its principles before it has too many empty suites on its hands. There is also the option raised by others but not discussed much that they could let suite members BYOB...I don't think that would be possible under the legislation, but I'm not sure.
 


From the State that gave us Volstead...

For all of you schmucks who where stupid enough to try to force the U's hand, I hope you are happy. I am alleged a bad fan for expecting more than 18% conference win rate from the HC, yet so many idiots on this board thought that the legislature would slake their gameday thirsts, and now you idiots, the "true fans", have cost this University untold millions in the life of this stadium.

I am happy that there will be less obliterated idiots vomiting all over my section. Drinking in the stands has no place in the stands of a Big Ten stadium. That being said I fully support those who have spent top dollar their right to imbibe in their PRIVATE skyboxes. For one, those who gave thousands a year to the university are generally far less likely to be complete vomiting brawling idiots or hand off their booze to 35 other underagers. Second, if you give 10K or 10million to the U you should have your favorite booze made available, especially if that is what it takes to get the checkbook out next year.

So many of you who could care less about funding schools, libraries, museums, theater, medicine for kids, transit or any other altruistic egalitarian goal somehow rallied the legislature to this, and it makes me want to puke.


Finally I hope that the University will reconsider a beer garden type solution. Make the plebes come and get their beer if it is more important than watching the game, and keep it confined where you can control it and it would be a solution to the legislation's meddling. Maybe put five seats in it to give a big f#k you to the legislature. "Sure you can have a beer, Mr Everyman, but you better be in line when the gates open". Or better yet, fly first class you cheap-ass me-too bastards, the price wasn't that high for loge seats!
 

GoldysArmy said:
I wonder what they will do with those fancy bars located in the DQ room? I would suspect in a few years there will be many unsold suites/loge boxes.
Click to expand...

doubtful, as GoAUpher mentioned. but, i do love how some of you immediately assume that the only people who would purchase premium seats, loge boxes, indoor/outdoor club seats and even some suites are all drunkards who can not go for 3 hours without a drink and that they will all dump their tickets in a year or two. perhaps that is the case for some, but my guess is it is a very small minority. will there be some impact....sure......and it will mainly be financial....but hopefully not too much. i have a feeling that a good percentage of those who opted for premium seating and even some of the local corporations who purchased a suite have very strong personal and family connections to the U of M (i.e. alumni, former athletes, sons & daughters are former students or athletes, etc.) and not being able to drink alcohol for 3 hours isn't going to change their desire to go to the football games each saturday.
 

Maximus said:
[email protected]
Click to expand...

Here is a letter I wrote to rukavina as well as pawlenty and several others

I'm very disappointed in the bill that you seem to have championed regarding alcohol sales at TCF. No, I'm not a raging alcoholic who can't go 3 hours without a beer, just a big gopher football fan who realizes that this bill will handicap the gopher's ability to generate revenue and compete with the other teams in the Big 10. It may make people feel better and feel that "fairness" won, but it really won't impact them in any other way. It's frustrating that the legislature would feel the need to get involved and at the last minute change this policy, when the U leaders 3 years ago informed the legislature of what the business model was for TCF. So, when I ask why this bill was even introduced, it seems to be a very clear case of populism. When people began to complain why only the 'beautiful' people get to drink, and the media ran with the unfairness, it seems that it became a politically convenient item, and a win for politicians, but a loss for EVERYONE else. Honestly, can you name who this bill benefits?
I'm sure you've made up your mind, so it's pointless to complain, but I really think you would have been better served to let the U make this decision, and deal with the consequences themselves. I hope it's not too late and that you can reconsider your position.
 

Blame it on those liberal commies who have to tell everyone how to live their lives and have to mandate behavior accept when it comes to their telling them how to live their life and their behavior! Sad day for Minnesota!!
 

Bronko Nagurski Gopher said:
doubtful, as GoAUpher mentioned. but, i do love how some of you immediately assume that the only people who would purchase premium seats, loge boxes, indoor/outdoor club seats and even some suites are all drunkards who can not go for 3 hours without a drink and that they will all dump their tickets in a year or two. perhaps that is the case for some, but my guess is it is a very small minority. will there be some impact....sure......and it will mainly be financial....but hopefully not too much. i have a feeling that a good percentage of those who opted for premium seating and even some of the local corporations who purchased a suite have very strong personal and family connections to the U of M (i.e. alumni, former athletes, sons & daughters are former students or athletes, etc.) and not being able to drink alcohol for 3 hours isn't going to change their desire to go to the football games each saturday.
Click to expand...
Well, you may be right, but why exactly would you pay $45k for a suite? What are you getting? The seats are the furthest from the field. Better bathrooms? Its really hard to justify the expense unless you are ENTERTAINING, and people in this country often do that with alcohol. They haven't even sold out the suites yet and you can bet they won't now.
 

Wait a second...how come certain patrons get padded, comfortable seats while I'm sitting on a bench? Sure I can buy one of those tiny portable chairbacks but where are the arm rests? While I'm on the topic, how come those same patrons have a better view of the action on the field than I do. You should see the angle I have!!! It's near the end zone! The end zone I say!!!Those bastards on the 50 yard line, 20 rows up, who do they think they are? I don't care if they paid $500 more per seat, I have the right to the same comfortable seat with same view as they do. Isn't this a publically funded stadium? What are they trying to do, pay for their bills? Come on!!! All I know is I'm glad those suckers who paid their good money to support the program by buying suites get stuck in the same position as I am concerning alcohol sales. Maybe next time they'll think twice before forking over the extra money. What the 'U' should have done is stick it to the NCAA and offer alcohol to everyone, including students attending the Halloween night game this year. Do people honestly think there are fewer alcohol-related problems in the suites filled by the 50 yo+ types than in the student section? If I know something about crowd control (which I do), it's just as easy to control 10k 18 to 22 yo college students as it is 500 gray haired executives. Common sense people. Common Sense!!!
 

Would anyone know how many in our Legislature actually have season tickets?
 

Golden Shower said:
Blame it on those liberal commies who have to tell everyone how to live their lives and have to mandate behavior accept when it comes to their telling them how to live their life and their behavior! Sad day for Minnesota!!
Click to expand...


Last time I checked there was an R by the Governors name, and several of the legislators who passed the bill...


Its all the liberal commies fault though....you just keep on thinking that and being a dumbass....:rolleyes:
 

The benefactors of this: Vikings, Wild, Twins and Wolves. Plain and simple. If I am the marketing director of a corporation and i want to obtain a suite to entertain clients, the U just lost my business. Not because my clients are booze fiends, but because an option and amenity available elsewhere isn't available at TCF.

The losers: 2 to 3 non revenue sports that will now go without funding... (men's gymnastics, women's golf, cc, etc...) AND-
facility improvements (tubby's practice palace, new basesball stadium for coach Anderson, etc...)

The sponsors of this bill blew it. If Rep. Rukavina is a U of M alumnus he certainly didn't do his school any service in this matter.
 

Just so you know........you don't get a drink cup holder either. I just wanted to make sure you are prepared for the worst!
 

In the end I have a feeling this will change. Someone with deep enough pockets will raise a stink and next year the legislators will once again spend time rescinding this rather than working to pass legislation that really matters.
 

Here's a question: would the U have the right to only serve people who are of a certain age or older? Let us say 25, or 30, which would limit most students access to the booze, but by-in-large make it available to the public? Would legislators make a big stink about this? I'm not certain how the law is written, but would lawmakers change the law if it did restrict this? It would target student drinking and allow fairly open access to the general public. Both sides would come away partial winners. And another question, would the U even consider this an option?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom