TCF Stadium Revenue

Donate To GopherHole
GO4INLALALAND

GO4INLALALAND

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
2,586
Reaction score
488
Points
83
In a blurp in Sid's blog he mentioned that Gopher FB turned a profit of $1.9 million. From Sid:

"The University of Minnesota earned gross revenue of $17.9 million for the 2009 football season at the new TCF Bank Stadium compared with $10.5 million in 2008 at the Metrodome. Included in that $17.9 million figure is money generated from non-football events at the stadium.

The Gophers turned a profit of $1.9 million, which is near double what the Gophers athletic department earned from football during their last season at the Dome. I've heard that the $1.9 million was a disappointment and that it was expected earnings would be at least $3 million in the first year of the stadium."

It is nice to see a strong improvement for the fb program. I do think that they should have sold alcohol at the stadium, but what are you going to do?
 

Yeah, loss of alcohol was huge. Less-than-ideal parking arrangement didn't help either. And disappointing concessions probably hurt as well. Luckily, some of these things can improve.
 

Just think how much money they would have pulled in if they actually invested in cash registers for concessions!

Seriously though - this is nice to hear, but lets hope attendance doesn't start to drop over the next few years after the cachet of the stadium fades.
 

What possible motivation could that pinhead from the Iron Range have had in sponsoring the legislation that killed alcohol at the U? I'd really like to know. There was no public outcry demanding the change, from what I recall. Hope he's proud of the results.
 

strokemonster said:
What possible motivation could that pinhead from the Iron Range have had in sponsoring the legislation that killed alcohol at the U? I'd really like to know. There was no public outcry demanding the change, from what I recall. Hope he's proud of the results.
Click to expand...

I can see no alcohol in the seats, but to deny it in the suites puts Minnesota at a disadvantage to every other Big 10 school. The folks who put out the big $ for the suites aren't going to get blotto and become a disturbance and for what they paid, they should be able to entertain clients with alcohol.
 


Rukavina wants two things...

strokemonster said:
What possible motivation could that pinhead from the Iron Range have had in sponsoring the legislation that killed alcohol at the U? I'd really like to know. There was no public outcry demanding the change, from what I recall. Hope he's proud of the results.
Click to expand...

This is why-- In 2005, Tom Rukavina was busted for a DUI. 1) All must suffer for his mistake:

"Rep. Rukavina arrested for DUI

Rep. Tom Rukavina (DFL-Virginia) was arrested for driving under the influence over the weekend.

According to the St. Louis County Sheriff's Department, deputies observed a vehicle driving erraticly on Highway 169 in Mountain Iron at about 1:30 a.m. Saturday. Rukavina was the driver and lone occupant of the vehicle..."

http://stopthemaddness.org/cached1/20050298.html

His hypocrisy knows no end.

In a 2002 address--"I don't think there would be one person saved by a .08 law," said Tom Rukavina. "All we would have is more arrests. Almost every court case up here already involves drunk driving."

Rukavina estimates a 0.08 percent law would result in 6,000 additional criminal arrests costing the state about $60 million, outweighing the potential loss of federal highway funding.

I believe 2) if the U were to give the State, let's say, 50% of the alcohol revenues, Mr. Rukavina would perhaps wave his objections.

Not my idea or even a good one, but perhaps one that rattles around in TR's head. I'm just sayin'.
 

You're Being Far to Kind

strokemonster said:
What possible motivation could that pinhead from the Iron Range have had in sponsoring the legislation that killed alcohol at the U? I'd really like to know. There was no public outcry demanding the change, from what I recall. Hope he's proud of the results.
Click to expand...

You're being far to kind in singling out the Iron Ranger. While the Senate voted 41-20 to allow the University to decide where to sell alcohol the House went all out to kill it. A proposal that would have given the University sole discretion over sales without the one-third general seating was defeated 111-18:eek: on May 3.

The Governor also said he wanted it available everywhere or nowhere.

Maybe a new Governor and Legislature will come to their senses but that a whole lot
of votes to be reversed.
 

IMO, the bigger issue is why is the State Legislature getting involved in this? Could be a great reason - but I doubt it.
 

I just don't seem to remember any large public outcry at the time. These revenue figures should be a wake up call to all the legislators who were so short-sighted. In these days of extreme funding needs they should be ashamed. Of course not many legislators feel shame for any of their actions so I imagine that's asking too much.
 



Gopher Bandanna Guy said:
Just think how much money they would have pulled in if they actually invested in cash registers for concessions!

Seriously though - this is nice to hear, but lets hope attendance doesn't start to drop over the next few years after the cachet of the stadium fades.
Click to expand...

If they beat some good teams they wont have to worry about fans no showing up, IMO. A win vs USC and either Whisky, Iowa, or OSU would really generate interest...
 

There is always public outcry when elitism trumps the common man. As there should.
 

strokemonster said:
What possible motivation could that pinhead from the Iron Range have had in sponsoring the legislation that killed alcohol at the U? I'd really like to know. There was no public outcry demanding the change, from what I recall. Hope he's proud of the results.
Click to expand...

Populism. There may not have been a great outcry for this, but it is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Now we have people raving that the "elitists" what to take away their beer. The fact that only a tiny minority of schools allow alcohol in general seating escapes them. All they know is that they used to be able to have beer at the dome.

The U would have had an easy case if they had sued the state, under the State Constitution, the legislature doesn't have the authority to dictate the U's policies. They probably figured that fighting this would lead to hostility from the legislature for future projects.
 

With state legislatures cutting funds to public universities all over the U.S. it won't be long before schools will be turning over every rock looking for ways to increase their revenues. Selling a legal product (beer) to adults at college sporting events is going to happen sooner rather than later. The U should get the jump on everyone else by doing it now. There is zero logic for this ridiculous policy. A Democratic-controlled Minnesota Legislature and a Republican Governor recognize it. You guys will come to your senses soon enough.
 



Schnoodler said:
There is always public outcry when elitism trumps the common man. As there should.
Click to expand...

This is not elitism. You are dead wrong. You pay more, you get more.

My wife and I are not remotely wealthy, but we spend a lot of our income on Gopher football. I give to the stadium fund, I pay a seat license, I belong to the GLC.

Do I think that should get me a beer at TCFBS? No. Do I mind if someone else does? No. Do I want as many income streams to the FB program as possible? Yes.

I love most of your posts. Get off your high horse.
 


UpnorthGo4 said:
With state legislatures cutting funds to public universities all over the U.S. it won't be long before schools will be turning over every rock looking for ways to increase their revenues. Selling a legal product (beer) to adults at college sporting events is going to happen sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

Any evidence for this? Any indication whatsoever that colleges are moving toward selling beer at their games?

And you know full well that beer being legal is absolutely irrelevant. Just because something is legal doesn't mean that you can have it where ever you want.

The U should get the jump on everyone else by doing it now. There is zero logic for this ridiculous policy.
Click to expand...

Even if there was a trend toward colleges sellng beer in their stadiums, how would we be "getting a jump" on other schools by allowing it. There's plenty of logic. You just ignore logic because you want beer at the games. The U would become a national laughingstock by allowing alcohol at the games. (cue the trolls)


A Democratic-controlled Minnesota Legislature and a Republican Governor recognizes it.
Click to expand...

The legislature and the governor are just playing populist politics. The State Constitution doesn't give the legislature or the governor the power to regulate alcohol policy at the U. If it's so important to you, change the State Constitution to force the U to sell alcohol in stadiums.


You guys will come to your senses soon enough.
Click to expand...

When 100 people are marching, and one is out of step, would it make sense to say that 99 percent are out of step? That's what you're saying.
 

There is no reason to assume that wealthy people can handle their liquor better than less wealthy people. If it's a bad idea to sell beer and liquor to the general populace, than it is also a bad idea to sell it to wealthy as well. I assure you they get just as beligerant as normal folk, and I assure you their expensive vehicles kill just as easily as less expensive ones.

Any reason that beer should not be sold applies the same across the board.

It's not my high horse that is inconsistent and hypocritical. It's the Universities.

They need to be either for or against the sale of liquor. I don't care which. But whatever their stance they need to apply it to all Minnesotans equally regardless of income or social class. It is a public, not a private institution. Paid for and built by and for all citizens of the State.
 


God forbid that someone willing to shell out extra money would be afforded special privileges.
 

GopherVotary said:
God forbid that someone willing to shell out extra money would be afforded special privileges.
Click to expand...

Don't you know that that is discrimination against poor people and we can't have that. However, the same argument could be made about people willing to shell out extra money for better seats. I guess we can tolerate discrimination against poor people when it comes to seating choices, but not alcohol consumption.
 


Schnoodler said:
There is no reason to assume that wealthy people can handle their liquor better than less wealthy people. If it's a bad idea to sell beer and liquor to the general populace, than it is also a bad idea to sell it to wealthy as well. I assure you they get just as beligerant as normal folk, and I assure you their expensive vehicles kill just as easily as less expensive ones.

Any reason that beer should not be sold applies the same across the board.

It's not my high horse that is inconsistent and hypocritical. It's the Universities.

They need to be either for or against the sale of liquor. I don't care which. But whatever their stance they need to apply it to all Minnesotans equally regardless of income or social class. It is a public, not a private institution. Paid for and built by and for all citizens of the State.
Click to expand...


Yep, this. Exactly.

Count me among those who think it's the University, not the legislature, that comes out of this looking worse for it.
 

The people assume this is a black and white issue around elite vs. common man has grossly missed on the U's perspective on this. We aren't a power house football school, we won't be blazing any trails in regards to football. However, I know some of y'all want to "stay thirsty", so keep up the hope, I guess.
 

RedPoo said:
Yep, this. Exactly.

Count me among those who think it's the University, not the legislature, that comes out of this looking worse for it.
Click to expand...

What I don't understand about the 'liquor for all or none' crowd is that Williams and Mariucci had the same policy that was proposed for TCF for years and nobody said anything or did anything to change it. It was good enough for hockey and basketball, but is completely unacceptable for football.
 


The need to sell beer on campus escapes me. Liquor in the suites is just another perk or sales tool like staying cool or warm and "dry":)o); TV for replays, special parking etc.

You want the perks, pony-up the dough. If you don't have or don't want to spend the dough okay. Now who is going to bring in "The Rights of Man"?

"Schnoodler, you have some explaniin' to do!" :)
 

GO4INLALALAND said:
Don't you know that that is discrimination against poor people and we can't have that. However, the same argument could be made about people willing to shell out extra money for better seats. I guess we can tolerate discrimination against poor people when it comes to seating choices, but not alcohol consumption.
Click to expand...

Really think about what you are saying here.

People cannot chose to be male or female, race, often religion, age etc. But an individual can definitely influence his/her own financial standing by a lifetime of choices. That is exactly why it is not discrimination.

Now if you want to argue that everyone should have access to Beer, fine. Argue where it should or shouldn't be served. Go ahead. But if you want to make it a discrimination thing, that is idiotic. The possible access to alcohol starts with where you sit, which probably has a correlation to income, but it is not mutually exclusive.

At the same time the U of MN has no problem serving alcohol to everyone of age, but they cannot possibly do it in a responsible way that would shield them from being partially responsible for a possible student death.
 


anticallihan said:
At the same time the U of MN has no problem serving alcohol to everyone of age, but they cannot possibly do it in a responsible way that would shield them from being partially responsible for a possible student death.
Click to expand...

The is NOT the problem. A beer garden tucked in a remote corner of Gopher's Stadium would comply with the legislation. The legislature could not have made it easier for the U to comply. We can only hope that the next U president is more reasonable and flexible than Bruininks on this issue.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
The is NOT the problem. A beer garden tucked in a remote corner of Gopher's Stadium would comply with the legislation. The legislature could not have made it easier for the U to comply. We can only hope that the next U president is more reasonable and flexible than Bruininks on this issue.
Click to expand...

Part 1 -
Did the legislature work with the U on this for compliance? Or did they grand stand and come up with their own solution?

Then we talk about who is unreasonable.

Part 2-
Name all the Big Ten schools that allow Beer Gardens? Then name all the schools in the country that have Beer Gardens?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom