U won't fight alcohol ban at TCF Stadium

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
62,243
Reaction score
18,906
Points
113
U won't fight alcohol ban at TCF Stadium
Board of Regents has more pressing legislative priorities, chairman says
Updated: 01/30/2010 12:39:58 AM CST


Don't expect to be poured a cold one anytime soon at a University of Minnesota football game.

A state law that prompted an alcohol ban at the new TCF Bank Stadium had U officials fuming last year, with some vowing to push for a redo in this year's Legislature.

But with the legislative session starting next week, the issue appears dead.

"We have no plans to do anything on that," Board of Regents Chairman Clyde Allen said of a push to revisit the law. "We're not interested in doing anything with that whatsoever."

The U has other priorities this session, he added.

Top among them are repairs to building infrastructure, a renovation of Folwell Hall, a new physics and nanotechnology building and other capital projects for which the U is asking the state for nearly $200 million.

Regents approved the sale of liquor in premium seating areas of the stadium in 2008, but they banned it the next year after the Legislature forbade selling alcohol in any part of the stadium unless it was sold throughout.

At the time, since they didn't want to make liquor generally available for sale at an on-campus stadium, some regents said they felt the law forced them into a ban they didn't want. The idea was to live with the law for a year and then ask lawmakers to rethink their position.

Regent Dean Johnson, a former majority leader of the state Senate, said in June that U officials needed to reach out to legislators and the governor to "try to renegotiate, if you will, this particular law." Johnson did not respond to requests for an interview for this story.

Regent David Larson said Friday that he still thinks lawmakers were wrong to intervene the way they did and that the move cost the university money. But he said he's not sure the time is right to revisit the issue.

"Frankly, we have not discussed that as a large group," he said.

The $288.5 million, 50,800-seat stadium opened last year, bringing football Saturdays back to campus. While alcohol was sold throughout the team's old home in the Metrodome, the idea was to make it available only in the premium seats at TCF Bank Stadium.

Regents were counting on luxury suites to generate significant revenue over and above what the university was making in the Metrodome, Larson said.

Access to alcohol was part of the sales pitch for those premium seats, and had regents known what the Legislature was going to do, they likely would have spent less on the suites, he said.

The decision whether to push lawmakers to reconsider the ban will depend in part on how much the no-alcohol policy hurt revenues in the first season, Larson said.

U officials said Friday that updated revenue numbers are not available, but the estimate they've been using for months is that the alcohol ban would cost about $1 million in premium-seat revenue. The ban applies to the university's nearby Williams and Mariucci arenas as well as TCF Bank Stadium.

The regents meet again next month, and Larson said he doesn't think the subject is settled yet.

"I suspect that it probably will come up," he said.

For the time being, asking the Legislature to reconsider its all-or-nothing sales rule "has not been on the agenda and is not," U spokesman Daniel Wolter said in an e-mail. "(U President Robert Bruininks) has said he considers it a closed matter and the Legislature has spoken."

http://www.twincities.com/ci_14299083?nclick_check=1

Go Gophers!!
 


Me neither. I think it was smart thing for the U to not allow itself to be bullied by some a$$hole legislator trying to get some publicity for himself.
 

the real story is

The University cannot challenge the law, it is not politically proper for the U to bring the issue up. There is a huge move that will get the law modified or repealed. The university needs booze in the suites to compete in the premium sports product business and there are plenty of legislators who acknowledge this and want to move forward to repeal this ridiculous law. look for beer in the suites and the DQ club next year and not in the stands. Their are plenty non University people who are pissed and will use their clout to get it straightened out.
 



yea my uncle and i were talking about this yesterday ,if you cant go to a football game for 4 hours and not live without having a beer maybe you should seek help !
 


gopherjay do you have some inside info into what's going on at the capital? I for one don't mind them not selling in the general area, there are plenty of ways to bring it in if you want to (you can bring in your own cans of beer if you try even a little). But the law is ridiculous and needs to be repealed.
 

The University cannot challenge the law, it is not politically proper for the U to bring the issue up. There is a huge move that will get the law modified or repealed. The university needs booze in the suites to compete in the premium sports product business and there are plenty of legislators who acknowledge this and want to move forward to repeal this ridiculous law. look for beer in the suites and the DQ club next year and not in the stands. Their are plenty non University people who are pissed and will use their clout to get it straightened out.

There were 8 suites left unsold at TCF because of the alcohol policy. At $45k apiece, that's $360k in lost rent alone. They are giving approximately $1.8MM back to Club Seat ticket holders as a refund for the new policy... The Blue Line Club at Mariucci is now half full... The unleased Barn Lofts are available at a significant discount for the balance of the season and will be for next season...

The lost revenue from this policy is devastating.

I hope you are right that non university people are going to bat to get the law repealed or changed. I don't have faith that the Regents or Athletic Department leaders have the nerve to pursue this on their own.
 



some info

I spoke to Tom Rukavina via phone a couple of weeks ago and Pat Garofalo, they were instrumental in getting the current law in place. Mr Garofalo was very interested in learning the negative reality of this law. He acknowledged that if it broken, it needs to be fixed. Mr Rukavina was not concerned with the negative results of the law. The bottom line is that the legislature felt the law was going to be no big deal and that the University would just sell beer to the public. I am guessing that there is just a handful of our legislators that have ever attended a collage sporting event. Because of beer sales at the dome for our games, it was for them the standard.
Educating your legislator will change this law. Find out who your district person is and call them. They will return the call but do it soon. E-mail is ok too but you must stay with it and be professional and adult like. Do not be an asshole. They want to hear what you have to say but won't listen to an idiot.
For those with the the question of why care when most of us can't afford a suite or premium tickets? Revenue is king, we need influential people at TCF.
The University will work hard on this issue but a grass roots effort will be more effective. maybe people like Lou Nanne will step up and get involved...the Dunkers, Hockey boosters, Goal line club need to get involved too.
Google Tom Rukavina and his history with alcohol legislation. Its interesting.
 

There were 8 suites left unsold at TCF because of the alcohol policy. At $45k apiece, that's $360k in lost rent alone. They are giving approximately $1.8MM back to Club Seat ticket holders as a refund for the new policy... The Blue Line Club at Mariucci is now half full... The unleased Barn Lofts are available at a significant discount for the balance of the season and will be for next season...

The lost revenue from this policy is devastating.

I hope you are right that non university people are going to bat to get the law repealed or changed. I don't have faith that the Regents or Athletic Department leaders have the nerve to pursue this on their own.

Exactly! I personally don't really care if there's liquor or not - actually saves me a lot of money - but it costs the U so much money. I find it ironic that he said this:

The U has other priorities this session, he added.

Top among them are repairs to building infrastructure, a renovation of Folwell Hall, a new physics and nanotechnology building and other capital projects for which the U is asking the state for nearly $200 million.

When the truth is - by getting alcohol in the stadium - how much money would it generate for initiatives like this?

Anyone have info on how much other stadiums make just by alcohol sales?
 

I'm glad the U doesn't sell beer to the regular folks. It should be available in the premium areas. This "everyone gets access or nobody does" b.s. gets me steamed. You get what you pay for.
 

I'm glad the U doesn't sell beer to the regular folks. It should be available in the premium areas. This "everyone gets access or nobody does" b.s. gets me steamed. You get what you pay for.

Your are right on the money, Play. In America we don't ever want the "regular folks" to get access to the same stuff as rich people do. Otherwise, it would not be be America.
 



What does it say about our priorities that some people won't purchase tickets / suites / lofts, etc. because no alcoholic beverages are allowed? Is it really that important to drink at college athletic events? Sad deal.
 

maxwellsmart,

The ability to have a beer or glass of wine might not be that important to the people purchasing the suites, but it is more about corporate entertainment.

There are probably more suites and premium seats in this town than we need when you add up all of the venues -- Metrodome, Target Field, Target Center, Xcel and three buildings on the U of M campus. Most companies with the exception of the really, really big ones aren't going to have suites everywhere. They have to make choices. And if the people doing the entertaining think booze is important, companies will spend their money elsewhere.

That's the reality.
 

Your are right on the money, Play. In America we don't ever want the "regular folks" to get access to the same stuff as rich people do. Otherwise, it would not be be America.
Seriously, we should all storm Hazeltine as soon as the snow melts and demand that they allow us to play the course. It's not fair that people who can afford to play the course are allowed access while the common slob has to play the the public courses.
 

I'm glad the U doesn't sell beer to the regular folks. It should be available in the premium areas. This "everyone gets access or nobody does" b.s. gets me steamed. You get what you pay for.

But that's the situation we're in. It's everyone, or no one. That's how the rules stands. For any other school that's never had alcohol before, I can see how this would be a bigger deal. Personally, I think they should sell it. We've had almost 30 years of beer at the Dome, and it really wasn't a big deal. Now we're on campus - so kids can walk home instead of having to drive or take the bus.

I really don't think it's a good idea to leave all of this money on the table, it's not like the U has an abundance of it.
 

Let's get one thing straight here. The legislature did not ban beer at The Brickhouse. President Bruininks did. The governor and legislature want beer for everybody. Who can be against that? I have had Gopher season tickets for 14 years and I have only witnessed one out of control person with too much to drink in that entire period of time. Anyone who is in favor of a no beer policy at The Brickhouse is a extremist right wing rush limbaugh conservative who wants to control everything people do with their lives. You are hypocrites of the first order.
 

Let's get one thing straight here. The legislature did not ban beer at The Brickhouse. President Bruininks did. The governor and legislature want beer for everybody. Who can be against that? I have had Gopher season tickets for 14 years and I have only witnessed one out of control person with too much to drink in that entire period of time. Anyone who is in favor of a no beer policy at The Brickhouse is a extremist right wing rush limbaugh conservative who wants to control everything people do with their lives. You are hypocrites of the first order.
Nice broad brush you're painting with. Anyone who thinks beer should be sold in the stands is an inbred hick who's incapable of thinking for themselves and can't face reality without mind-altering substances. See, I can throw out lies and pass them off as truth too.
 

President Bruininks should be fired his financial misfeasance. The U is losing at least $1,000,000 in annual revenue by not selling beer to every Gopher fan who wants one at The Brickhouse, Williams Arena, and The Barn. We can only hope that the next U of M president will understand that it is not their job to impose their moral standards on rest of us. Beer is a legal product. Who doesn't have a close relative or friend who doesn't enjoy drinking beer. It is Un-American to oppose people drinking beer at college sporting events.
 

your a dreamer

Let's get one thing straight here. The legislature did not ban beer at The Brickhouse. President Bruininks did. The governor and legislature want beer for everybody. Who can be against that? I have had Gopher season tickets for 14 years and I have only witnessed one out of control person with too much to drink in that entire period of time. Anyone who is in favor of a no beer policy at The Brickhouse is a extremist right wing rush limbaugh conservative who wants to control everything people do with their lives. You are hypocrites of the first order.
and a fool, and blind. I was at every single game in Minneapolis and 51 road games.
 

President Bruininks should be fired his financial misfeasance. The U is losing at least $1,000,000 in annual revenue by not selling beer to every Gopher fan who wants one at The Brickhouse, Williams Arena, and The Barn. We can only hope that the next U of M president will understand that it is not their job to impose their moral standards on rest of us. Beer is a legal product. Who doesn't have a close relative or friend who doesn't enjoy drinking beer. It is Un-American to oppose people drinking beer at college sporting events.

You don't get it. The University and it's sports are first and foremost for the students, staff and well being of the University itself. Most students are under age so alcohol of any kind should not be sold within any reasonable distance to them. The University, like most schools, does not allow sales of alcohol to students or the general public because they are trying to promote an atmosphere of higher learning for students, staff and their families.

I disagree with the law and the University should be able to sell alcohol however it deems proper for the goals of the institution. If you want to drink while at the game, there were to be the Club level, suites and loge boxes. Plenty of places for those so inclined.
 

Upnorth, don't start up with your drumbeating again.

Without re-hashing all the gory details, alcohol sales are an issue for the Regents to decide, not anyone on Capitol Hill.
 

Upnorth, don't start up with your drumbeating again.

Without re-hashing all the gory details, alcohol sales are an issue for the Regents to decide, not anyone on Capitol Hill.

Really? Isn't it government that sets the drinking age? Aren't they the ones that approved a 2am bar time? I wasn't aware that the Regents made those choices? ;)
 

Really? Isn't it government that sets the drinking age? Aren't they the ones that approved a 2am bar time? I wasn't aware that the Regents made those choices? ;)

:clap:

OK, allow me to clarify. Alcohol sales in University facilities is an issue for the Regents to decide, not anyone on Capitol Hill.
 


Ban is not working

I think it will be hard for the U to ask the capital for funding for different projects when the U is leaving $1 million on the table by not serving beer.

I support selling beer at TCF for both the money it will bring in and for the chance to drink a cold one at the game. I drank alcohol at every game at TCF and I saved about $200 this season because the U didn't want to serve me in the cheap seats.

The ban isn't stopping fans from drinking. Just go into the student section any game and you'll see lots of alcohol. The ban is stopping the casual drinker from having 1-2 beers per game but thousands are drinking just as much (if not more due to having hard liquor more often).

The U is losing money that is really needed right now. I don't want to see ticket prices increase to make up for the loss of suite income.
 

The University cannot challenge the law, it is not politically proper for the U to bring the issue up. There is a huge move that will get the law modified or repealed. The university needs booze in the suites to compete in the premium sports product business and there are plenty of legislators who acknowledge this and want to move forward to repeal this ridiculous law. look for beer in the suites and the DQ club next year and not in the stands. Their are plenty non University people who are pissed and will use their clout to get it straightened out.

They can challenge the law, it's aimed directly at the U, so the University is the entity in the strongest position to challenge the law. The law most likely violates the Minnesota Constitution, with the legislature overstepping their bounds.

That being said, the wisest thing may be to wait a couple years, and work to get a provision quietly inserted allowing alcohol sales in the suites.
 

This legislation wasn't liberal or conservative, it was bipartisian populism. If we hadn't served alcohol in general seating at the Metrodome, people wouldn't have been up in arms that we "took away" their alcohol. It's extremely unusual to serve alcohol in general seating at college games, but people are still used to it here.
 

The easiest solution is to open 1 area in each of the facilities to sell beer, only staff it with 2 people, require you to buy a wrist band before you purchase beer, locate this area as far away from the students as possible, and charge a nice fee for each beer. Only allow open containers in certain areas of the venues for the gen. populace, with limited views of the games. This would discourage go to a game to only get drunk folks...


For those who support the two layers of society, and use the student excuse, the question really is what is the purpose of college? Isn't learning social skills as important as learning what the square root of -1 is? If that is not the case, then why have liberal arts schools, if it is only to learn numbers, then wouldn't the states money be better spent on Tech schools instead of large universites with liberal arts schools? The real answer is the students need to learn how to drink responsibly, and by banning alcohol, you are not doing anyone any favors.
 




Top Bottom