This is great for recruiting/the U

Donate To GopherHole
If Favre plays how cool would that be that he played in TCF stadium
 

Goldy00 said:
If Favre plays how cool would that be that he played in TCF stadium
Click to expand...

It will permanently taint the Gopher's Stadium forever. I will never be able to look at it with the same amount of affection that I have always had for it. It would be similar to finding out that your girl friend has been cheating on you with a jerk you have never liked.
 

Spurious

I'll stick to my spurious argument that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 sets the table for me to dine on any concourse of the stadium and that it grants me that right to consume whatever is offered and accepted on any concourse I am granted access. And, I will stick to my premise that the State of Minnesota had the right to compel the U to offer the same access to public offerings in all areas of the stadium. If something is for sale in one area, either access must be granted or accomodation must be offered that those items for sale publicly and be accessed by the public attending the game. Just because I am not handicapped, a minority, or choose to sit in the cheap seats, should not exclude me from buying the same beer as the fat cat in the 3rd tier.
 

Oneoldgopher said:
I'll stick to my spurious argument that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 sets the table for me to dine on any concourse of the stadium and that it grants me that right to consume whatever is offered and accepted on any concourse I am granted access. And, I will stick to my premise that the State of Minnesota had the right to compel the U to offer the same access to public offerings in all areas of the stadium. If something is for sale in one area, either access must be granted or accomodation must be offered that those items for sale publicly and be accessed by the public attending the game. Just because I am not handicapped, a minority, or choose to sit in the cheap seats, should not exclude me from buying the same beer as the fat cat in the 3rd tier.
Click to expand...

The Governor and the majority of the State Legislature agree with you. We can only assume that their actions are not unconstitutional if nobody challenges them in court.
 

Oneoldgopher said:
I'll stick to my spurious argument that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 sets the table for me to dine on any concourse of the stadium and that it grants me that right to consume whatever is offered and accepted on any concourse I am granted access. And, I will stick to my premise that the State of Minnesota had the right to compel the U to offer the same access to public offerings in all areas of the stadium. If something is for sale in one area, either access must be granted or accomodation must be offered that those items for sale publicly and be accessed by the public attending the game. Just because I am not handicapped, a minority, or choose to sit in the cheap seats, should not exclude me from buying the same beer as the fat cat in the 3rd tier.
Click to expand...

I look forward to your principled demand for equal access to padded seats like the suites, better food options in coach that equal the ones in the First Class sections on planes, and GPS navigation systems in a base model car just like in the super luxury package.

In the meantime, I certainly hope your view of tonight's game is just as good in the alternate reality you live in. :rolleyes:
 


NoelJenkeGo4 said:
The Governor and the majority of the State Legislature agree with you. We can only assume that their actions are not unconstitutional if nobody challenges them in court.
Click to expand...

Just because the U doesn't care enough to waste money on the challege (UpNorth seems to think, seemingly not without reason, that the Regents prefer the stadiums to be dry) doesn't mean logic takes a holiday. While it isn't technically unconstitutional until the courts rule on it that doesn't mean it takes much to see why it would likely be ruled so.
 


It was nice seeing the 'National Championships' wording over Ed Werder's shoulder. I'm sure 99% of America thinks we've never won one.
 




I love all the pot shots these announcers are taking at the guys complaining about the cold.
 

GoAUpher said:
I look forward to your principled demand for equal access to padded seats like the suites, better food options in coach that equal the ones in the First Class sections on planes, and GPS navigation systems in a base model car just like in the super luxury package.

In the meantime, I certainly hope your view of tonight's game is just as good in the alternate reality you live in. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Merry Christmas.
 

I also love that the stadium is dressed up for the U and not for the Vikings (maroon and gold endzone, Gophers logo at midfield, etc.). I imagine that was part of the U's deal to allow the Vikings to play here. It looks awesome.
 

Might of been but my guess is there was no time to change any logo at midfield or in the endzones.
Schlic Daddy said:
I also love that the stadium is dressed up for the U and not for the Vikings (maroon and gold endzone, Gophers logo at midfield, etc.). I imagine that was part of the U's deal to allow the Vikings to play here. It looks awesome.
Click to expand...
 



Schlic Daddy said:
I also love that the stadium is dressed up for the U and not for the Vikings (maroon and gold endzone, Gophers logo at midfield, etc.). I imagine that was part of the U's deal to allow the Vikings to play here. It looks awesome.
Click to expand...

Gopher colors and logo are stitched into the field. Covering them up/removing them was never an option.
 

Oneoldgopher said:
Lol. Guess you hate populism.
Click to expand...

When it is fake, stupid, pointless, and unconstitutional? Yep. Where were all the populists when the average joes were getting screwed at The Barn or Mariucci all these years? Where were they when the U told them the plan back when the stadium was being built? It's grandstanding.
 

jennyhurtfan said:
Might of been but my guess is there was no time to change any logo at midfield or in the endzones.​
Click to expand...

Last week they had a Vikings logo at Ford Field. Could be it had something to do with it being stitched into the field, but I am surprised they didn't paint over it. Good for the U if that was their doing (or not doing).
 

I think it would have been hard to paint over. You would have had to use a lot of paint to cover up the maroon.
 

LOL

Seriously guys?! They didn't have time to paint the field!!! It was just ONLY uncovered from snow on Friday.. Would have had to thaw it to room temperature before even CONSIDERING painting it. I bet that 'issue' never was even brought up in talks.
 

Schlic Daddy said:
Last week they had a Vikings logo at Ford Field. Could be it had something to do with it being stitched into the field, but I am surprised they didn't paint over it. Good for the U if that was their doing (or not doing).
Click to expand...

Everything you see on the field is actually apart of the field. Every color, logo, yard line, and letter are blades of turf. Nothing is painted. Everything is permanent. The only additions that were made were the NFL has marks.

Ford Field features either a blank field (like the dome). In which logos are painted on so they can be changed for whatever event is going on. Or like many new stadiums now (Cowboys Stadium, Meadow lands stadium), they have a removable field. The Cowboys field is actually in three sections that are rolled up like a carpet and put into storage for different events, such as an NCAA football game.

The U opted for a permanent field. Most universities would opt for a permanent field.
 

GoAUpher said:
When it is fake, stupid, pointless, and unconstitutional? Yep. Where were all the populists when the average joes were getting screwed at The Barn or Mariucci all these years? Where were they when the U told them the plan back when the stadium was being built? It's grandstanding.
Click to expand...

Sigh.

Hasn't this been beaten to death?

The reason that Minnesota was the ONLY Big Ten team to serve beer in general seating for years, was because they played off-campus, and didn't control the concessions. When they moved back, they more or less conformed to the way every other Big Ten team handles the issue. People had just been so used to it, for so long, that it resulted in this mess.

The NCAA strongly discourages teams from serving alcohol at games. This was also an issue with UND hockey. Because UND doesn't technically own the Ralph, beer is sold at games.

I would almost guarantee that if the Bank is a temporary home for the Vikings for a couple years, they will be allowed to sell beer, just as the Bears were when they played in Champaign.
 

discochris said:
Sigh.

Hasn't this been beaten to death?

The reason that Minnesota was the ONLY Big Ten team to serve beer in general seating for years, was because they played off-campus, and didn't control the concessions. When they moved back, they more or less conformed to the way every other Big Ten team handles the issue. People had just been so used to it, for so long, that it resulted in this mess.

The NCAA strongly discourages teams from serving alcohol at games. This was also an issue with UND hockey. Because UND doesn't technically own the Ralph, beer is sold at games.

I would almost guarantee that if the Bank is a temporary home for the Vikings for a couple years, they will be allowed to sell beer, just as the Bears were when they played in Champaign.
Click to expand...

I think GoAUpher was defending the U's original plan to sell beer only in suites and club area. I don't think he'd disagree with you.
 

Oneoldgopher said:
Still didn't read anything relevant to the "unconstitutional" issue. The state made no law that prohibited alcohol and stated clearly that if alcohol be served, it be served equally to all who could legally be served. Nothing in violation of the law there and would appear to support other acts and constitutional intent. Seems to satisfy most tests for the UCC and Human Rights amendments. The legistlature just reminded the U that a self imposed restraint of trade was not going to be allowed when segregating one ticket holder from the next when offering adult beverage. The U was going to create classes of buyers offering a deal to buy booze for one economic class of ticket holder and restraining that trade to a lesser level of ticket holder, even if both classes had the same ability to purchase the product. I am sure that with the new law, a protected class could show harm when only one economic level of ticket holder gets to participate in a sale when the other is denied. The test would be simple, a valid proof of age, such as a state issued drivers license. The subsequent demand for a certain level of economic participation could then be shown by the plaintiff as the unfair hurdle and the U would be found in the wrong. The legislature demonstrated some foresight and set up a simple test for the courts to determine if a human right, trade, was being denied by forming unfair economic hurdles. I hope I put it in the easiest to understand language. I didn't want to put in too much legaleze for the lawyers out there that somehow passed their bar and failed to grasp the most basic performance of the law.
Click to expand...

You have to be kidding me. Offering a choice of purchase options is not a restraint of trade. By that reasoning anyone who bought tickets in the end zone should be able to sit at mid field or in a suite. I didn't see the FTC going after Ford when they offered the choice of a Pinto vs a Continental. Don't look for the Uniform Commericial Code to be applied any time soon.
 

The Pope of Dinkytown
Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7



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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldy00
If Favre plays how cool would that be that he played in TCF stadium

It will permanently taint the Gopher's Stadium forever. I will never be able to look at it with the same amount of affection that I have always had for it. It would be similar to finding out that your girl friend has been cheating on you with a jerk you have never liked.

How's your girlfriend doing these days.;)
 

station19 said:
You have to be kidding me. Offering a choice of purchase options is not a restraint of trade. By that reasoning anyone who bought tickets in the end zone should be able to sit at mid field or in a suite. I didn't see the FTC going after Ford when they offered the choice of a Pinto vs a Continental. Don't look for the Uniform Commericial Code to be applied any time soon.
Click to expand...


The restraint is the location of where the beer would be sold and who would therefore be allowed to buy the product (access restriction), all at a location that is common (TCF) and the distribution possible for all and the demand self evident (multiple vendor locations). If I were a vendor, I would be totally pissed off that I could not be able to sell when other vendors were able to sell. Therefore, there is a restraint of trade. The ticket has less to do with the restraint, but is part of the evidence that a restraint was being applied to the potential buyers that the vendors would want to sell to. This is absolutely a restraint of trade issue, a human rights issue, and clearly very poor marketing and policy from the U, that is if they ever tried to carry out there plan and actually sold beer only in the tier 3 seating area concessions.

The restraint is two way. The buyers are being restricted beyond legal requirements of age; and, the sellers would be restricted beyond what an effective plan distribution system would normally constrain (such as, only 1 vendor for pizza, but the pizza vendor can sell the same cola beverages as every other vendor [by single bid] and every tier would have a pizza vendor.) The beer vendor would not be given the same kind of access rights as the pizza or pop vendors under the U distribution plan. That is the restraint. It is location. Why would the beer vendor get access only to 1/5 of their potential customer base? The human rights aspect is a demonstration that 4/5 of potential customers would be denied access to the vendor. The vendor would be the plaintiff and the U the unfortunate defendant. So, any comparisons to car models and moving up to a higher ticket price to buy beer is impossible for all 4/5 of potential buyers. There simply are not enough seats for potential demand. The idiots that say the bill to serve beer in the entire stadium to every potential patron is unconstitutional are legal idiots. It is constitutionally defensible because it defends access to all buyers and sellers. The UCC is paramount to any potential lawsuits, and the public could enjoin the plaintiff with human rights. This is a slam dunk, no brainer. The U was wrong from the start and really ought to think through the problem the next time it wants to distribute beer at TCF. If I were a beer seller, I would be the one bringing the lawsuit to federal court. I would be the one stating that other vendors are able to sell their goods to all patrons and my product was unfairly restricted from co-marketing at other vendor locations.
 

If the U challenged this in court, it would be a slam-dunk victory for the U.
 



Oneoldgopher said:
How?
Click to expand...

The U has constitutional autonomy from the state. While subject to some state laws, legislature is constitutionally barred from directly managing the affairs of the University as the Regents are the governing body. Remember, the U of M has been around longer than the State of Minnesota has.

This is, by the way, the way it should be. When the U gets roughly 20% of its funding from the state, the legislature should have a limited say in what happens on campus.
 


year of the gopher said:
The U has constitutional autonomy from the state. While subject to some state laws, legislature is constitutionally barred from directly managing the affairs of the University as the Regents are the governing body. Remember, the U of M has been around longer than the State of Minnesota has.

This is, by the way, the way it should be. When the U gets roughly 20% of its funding from the state, the legislature should have a limited say in what happens on campus.
Click to expand...

17% to be precise.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom