The stadium is a restricted access area. Only ticket buyers may enjoy the fruits of the game live. If I am the very last ticket buyer and the last seat available to me is not located in the premium/ beer available area, then under the U's original plan to distribute beer sales, I am SOL. What the Minnesota TCF beer act states is that all ticket holders should be allowed to gain access to this area. The U, of course did not want this to occur, because it wanted the extra revenue that the cheap seats didn't provide. What you ignorant intelligentcia fail to recognize is that there is a remedy that fulfills access and allows the locative restriction that the U wants. It is called an upgrade. You can attach an upgrade to any ticket-holder in the stadium, that allows them access to the 3rd tier areas where beer must be sold and consumed. The U was told this under the State statute. The U refused. The State can regulate how a product is distributed and why restrictions can or cannot be made to public offers. That is the nature of the UCC, of which the state and its citizens have a clear interest. Beer for sale by the U cannot restrict the sale to only one class of ticket holder, and aw shucks, the U is not the State and must comply with the legal definition for what is a market and what is not. As I have clearly demonstrated, the U can abide by the new law and apply the restrictions it wants in terms of premiums and consumption and distribution locations. But, the previous plan failed to include the entire market the opportunity to access the product -- beer. I have also demonstrated other options as applied by a more inclusive principle of the law. So, I have demonstrated two courses of action, one a more populist approach: don't charge extra, just have it available to all. I have also demonstrated where harm is occurring and how it occurs (last ticket buyer, limited tickets, limited locations, access restrictions, etc.) I have demonstrated what level of harm is done (Premium guy laughs and drinks his beer; cheapo cries and has no opportunity to gain the chance to buy the beer). The second approach, the one where the U keeps its restrictions, I have demonstrated that the U can comply with its original plan and restrict access, location, and keep its ticket premium. What the U has failed to offer is a ticket upgrade to allow access for all ticket holders to the beer. That is where the U has failed to accommodate all its guests. By failing to make available that upgrade universally, is where the U has denied the sale of the item, discriminated against 4/5ths of its patrons, and has been rather stupid about what it can do and shows how elitist its intent really is. And once again, no matter how unpopular many may perceive my past remarks as being incorrect, interpreted various laws, etc., well, case law moves in mysterious ways when presented with new avenues. I did not base my argument on existing case law regarding CRA1866, I was presenting it in how I would apply it to TCF, and not just CRA 1866! And, in offering how I would pursue it if asked by a patron, a vendor, a supplier, etc. All three of these would get screwed by the U under their first plan -- the plan made illegal under the special law requiring beer sales be made available to all the ticket holders. I don't deny the U had rights to make limitations to its control of sales. What I argued is that it was artificially, deliberately discriminating against the interests of its patrons, its vendors and its suppliers -- and how embarrassing is that! The U had policy remedies and chose to bury its head in the sand that there were not remedies available to it, that still offered control, and would allow 100% of the eligible buyers a chance to be accommodated.
And by showing the remedies to you, I have demonstrated how the law is not only constitutional because it harms nobody. The U can not claim harm if the remedy clearly complies with their original access restriction, which remedy 2 shows. In fact, remedy 2 seems a clear winner for everybody except the premium section ticket holders who might have to share a space they thought would always be restricted to just their ticket class. Well, too f-ing bad for them.
The real argument against access is the tier 3 folks don't want to see the dirty masses invading their space. Well, the U can fix that too. Move the beer to the general concourse and have the premium seat holders access the beer there.
Why the U decided to pull the plug on beer sales for all is beyond me. They were frozen in their thinking, decided their were no remedies (like all posters against me on GH did), and declared the ban on beer because no accommodation could be made. Well, folks, the U failed to think through the problem, got caught with their undies in a bunch, and makes the U look less than serious about how it thinks through problems with their own policies.
My last word on this is the U looks foolish to most people outside this state, including recruits, because it becomes intolerant of those who object to their short sightedness.
My recommendation to the U is that they revisit the beer issue. They keep their desire to restrict where and how it is sold, but that it comply with the statute and use a policy of ticket upgrades to allow access to the product so that all might enjoy the beverage of their choice. My recommendation to GH is to collectively pull your heads back into the sunshine and have one with me. I know I will enjoy a good brew with just about any ignoramus. I drink maybe twice a year, if that, but I do drink. And frankly, I want to do so at the Bank.
