What? Its up and its good!

Donate To GopherHole
UpnorthGo4 said:
Quote: "If I've said it once, I'm sure I've said it three or four times. Flasks are relatively inexpensive and if you take care of them (and don't leave them under your seat when you leave like I did last year) they'll last for years. You split a pint of Jack Daniels with your buddy, $4/person/game, split a large Coke, and for about the price of a single beer you're having a nice stiff mixer. Lawmakers time isn't wasted, and you're on your way to being just that."

You are correct and that is what makes the U's policy so idiotic. Not only will the U miss out on the revenue from selling $7.00 beers to everyone who wants one, they will have many more drunks to deal with who will sneak their flasks of hard liquor into the games.
Click to expand...

So by not allowing liquor in the regular seats "they will have many more drunks to deal with"????

How about just allowing the liquor and using a portion of the added revenue generated for increased security detail. Let's get to the heart of the problem for ya!
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
"So what you guys appear to be saying is that since you don't want a beer at Gopher Stadium, then nobody else should be able to enjoy a beer either unless they are in a suite."

No, what I'm saying is. ...

(A) I can take or leave alcohol sales at athletic events I attend, I don't need booze to enjoy a game; and


(B) I won't get all up in arms if some people in the crowd (suites) are allowed to consume and others (average Joes like me) aren't. I'm there to watch the game, not to whine (the Minnesota way), "Hey, why can he drink beer and I can't?"


I think I was right the first time. Since you don't want a beer at Gopher football games, you don't think I should want (or have) one either.
Click to expand...

If it weren't clear before, you just outed yourself as either a fool incapable of handling basic logic or someone who is so blinded by the "justness" of their own viewpoint that they can't see that most "anti-beer" posters are the same as they are...minus the part about being pissed about not getting beer at TCF.

You've now reached Wren/4star/lawrence21/NervousGopher level. You refuse to engage in a honest discussion. Instead, you already have your answer and are determined to beat us over the head with it until we agree. I'm done with it. You've switched your reasoning as to why the legislation is needed/a good idea so many times now its ridiculous. Congrats. Your bill passed and now the U will do what they were planning on anyway, which is to serve the alcohol in the premium areas only.
 

Tubtastic said:
Everyone needs to calm down a bit. Read the [proposed] law before you actually freak out.

Subd. 4a. State-owned recreation; entertainment facilities. Notwithstanding any other law, local ordinance, or charter provision, the commissioner may issue on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses:
. . . .
(3) to the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota for events at Northrop Auditorium, the intercollegiate football stadium, or at no more than seven other locations within the boundaries of the University of Minnesota, provided that the Board of Regents Department of Public Safety has approved an application for a license for the specified location and provided that the application for a stadium or arena location allows for the legal sale of intoxicating liquor throughout the stadium or arena and does not limit the sale of intoxicating liquor to premium seating areas or suites.

It says nothing about the actual sale of intoxicating liquor - just the application. Plus, the law itself is designed to encourage the sale of liquor outside of premium seating areas so this is a good thing. Now, if this passes and the U doesn't sell liquor outside premium areas, the U cannot simply claim that it has a limited permit -- the nonsale of liquor outside premium areas would be the U's choice and they alone would have to answer to their dissatisfied costumers.
Click to expand...

If the U was smart they were planning to file the application for the whole stadium anyway. That way they could choose to serve beer in the main levels in case TCF hosted a concert, outdoor NHL game, Vikings game (if the Dome is ever torn down), etc.

Seems to me that this legislation is even more pointless in that it "forces" the U to do what it would have done anyway while allowing the U to still serve the beer only in the premium areas. This is a stunt to make the "working man" happy. Lame.
 

dlw4gophers said:
At the dump I had a end seat in a large section. I want to sit and enjoy the game not pass beers one direction and money the other 15 to 20 times a game. And guess what. After the drunk fan drinks 5-10 beers, now he is off to the bathroom 5 times a games. I took a center seat at TCF, but I do hope they don't sever beer to the public in TCF.
Click to expand...

C'mon you can't be getting annoyed by stuff like this, and use it as an argument why they shouldn't serve alcohol to the general public at TCF. If these kind of things annoy you, you'd probably be better suited to watch the game at home where no one asks you to get up or be polite and pass something down. Are you as annoyed when you pass a hot dog, malt cup, soda or peanuts? If the drunk fan is drinking 10 beers it is most likely outside of the stadium anyways.
 

Look, I'm not upset if they decide to sell beer at the game but I was hoping it would be a dry stadium. I wish they could have just kept it in the suites and leave it at that. I don't believe the legislature has any right to interfere with the U's decision. Aren't there bigger fish to fry in our state?

You cannot get all pissed off because of some drunk fans buying beer at the game or not. News for you, they're going to get drunk anyway.

They either get amazingly hammered before the game (most of the students are under age anyway) and sneak the booze in or the U can profit a little from selling the watered down sh*tty Miller Lite beer. Either way there are going to be drunk fans, mostly the students.

I'm not pinning this on only students, as I have been plastered a couple of times at the Dome but then I realized I spent $30 on 4 beers and that sobered me up.:eek:
 


Quote: "This is a stunt to make the "working man" happy. Lame.""

It appears that you have a probem with people who work for a living. This pretty much explains everything concerning your views about everything.
 

Quote: "I don't believe the legislature has any right to interfere with the U's decision. Aren't there bigger fish to fry in our state?"

I have news for you. If the U is going to beg the Legislature for money every year to fund their operations, the Legislature is going to interfere with the U's decisions on everything. This is a fact of life. It is no different than General Motors asking the federal government to bail them out. As always, the lesson is "be careful what you ask for".
 

if they do sell alcohol i really dont think the fans that are going to be getting drunk will be the ones buying the beer, i think they will be the ones drinking out of flasks as it is 1000 times cheaper. i think the fans that would take advantage of it is just the casual fans. either way i will be bringing a flask for those cold days
 

GopherVotary said:
How nice of you. Perhaps you could also remind them of the thousands of more vital issues that they aren't going to get around to addressing this session.

This bill needs to die. As a common man ticket holder, I have absolutely no problem limiting alcohol sales to the premium seats. The premium seats sales are going to be the lifeblood of the athletic department. What's good for the athletic department is good for the university, which is good for the state. Eliminating alcohol sales from the premium seats will make them a much less attractive purchase.
Click to expand...

while i usually don't agree with gophervotary he has hit the nail on the proverbial "head". the fact upnorthgo4 and his ilk can't recognize this fact OR more likely refuse to recognize this fact is what annoys me.

because in the end with this issue it really appears to be all about what is good for upnorthgo4 and not at all about what is good for the U of M.
 



Bronko Nagurski Gopher said:
thanks! i just wrote an email to my state senator asking her to vote against this measure since all it will do is hurt the u of m and nothing more. the measure is pointless and misguided.
Click to expand...

Bronko: Why exactly are you so mad at the measure? Because you don't want any alcohol anywhere in the stadium? Because you do want alcohol everywhere in the stadium and you think this bill will mean that the U will choose to ban all alcohol sales if given an all or nothing ultimatum? What's your beef? - I can't tell by your past posts.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:
Quote: "This is a stunt to make the "working man" happy. Lame.""

It appears that you have a probem with people who work for a living. This pretty much explains everything concerning your views about everything.
Click to expand...

This is rich. I work for a living. Yes its IT and not construction. But ya know what? I still work my ass off. And I still have to worry about where my money goes each month. I'm not living off a trust fund or anything like that. You know what else? My mother in law works for Ford building transmissions. My cousins are electricians. My uncles are farmers. I have good friends in construction. I worry every day what is going to happen to my mother-in-law's job in this economy. I know and am friends/family with the "working man". So don't preach to me about me having a problem with people who work for a living. You are a jackass.

My point was that this is a populist political stunt. The whole point is to make the legislator look more in touch with the elusive "working voter" or "common man". I put working man in quotes because that's a BS abstract straw voter that gets used to cast a politician as being too elite or the guy you want to drink with. Its all about how you look when you vote Yes or No on the drinking issue. Are you supporting the rights of the elite wine drinking snobs in their suites? Or the Joe Schmo who wants a beer and a dog while he watches the Gophs on a cold metal bench. The legislation is a BS sideshow. Any legislator who thinks this will actually change anything is an idiot. Everyone else who knows it pointless and voted yes did so for the optics. Politics is perception. Maybe you don't get that. Maybe you don't care. But don't be complete tool and try to play your misguided rage on this issue off on me and tell me that I don't give a s**t about my friends and family.
 

Bronko Nagurski Gopher said:
while i usually don't agree with gophervotary he has hit the nail on the proverbial "head". the fact upnorthgo4 and his ilk can't recognize this fact OR more likely refuse to recognize this fact is what annoys me.

because in the end with this issue it really appears to be all about what is good for upnorthgo4 and not at all about what is good for the U of M.
Click to expand...

Exactly. On this issue he is Wren. He has his answer and doesn't care about discussing it. He hasn't responded to a single substansive point I've made the entire time he's been arguing for this legislation. He tried to pass this off as an equal protection issue for god's sake.

And before I get accused about being all pissy about people getting to drink let me reiterate. I DO NOT CARE if beer gets served in TCF. I'll drink some if it does. What I care about is legislators wasting their time passing laws that don't do anything or people like UpNorth trying to make this legal and valid decision by the U into an assault on our constitutional rights. We all know what the decision is. There are ways to go about trying to change it and I'm all for people making their voices heard on this stuff. But this pointless legislation is not it.
 

GoAUpher said:
This is rich. I work for a living. Yes its IT and not construction. But ya know what? I still work my ass off. And I still have to worry about where my money goes each month. I'm not living off a trust fund or anything like that. You know what else? My mother in law works for Ford building transmissions. My cousins are electricians. My uncles are farmers. I have good friends in construction. I worry every day what is going to happen to my mother-in-law's job in this economy. I know and am friends/family with the "working man". So don't preach to me about me having a problem with people who work for a living. You are a jackass.

My point was that this is a populist political stunt. The whole point is to make the legislator look more in touch with the elusive "working voter" or "common man". I put working man in quotes because that's a BS abstract straw voter that gets used to cast a politician as being too elite or the guy you want to drink with. Its all about how you look when you vote Yes or No on the drinking issue. Are you supporting the rights of the elite wine drinking snobs in their suites? Or the Joe Schmo who wants a beer and a dog while he watches the Gophs on a cold metal bench. The legislation is a BS sideshow. Any legislator who thinks this will actually change anything is an idiot. Everyone else who knows it pointless and voted yes did so for the optics. Politics is perception. Maybe you don't get that. Maybe you don't care. But don't be complete tool and try to play your misguided rage on this issue off on me and tell me that I don't give a s**t about my friends and family.
Click to expand...

careful you threw a few too many facts at upnorthgo4 regarding this issue. now his head might explode!
 



well I like beer. Given the choice, I would like to buy one. I'm for what ever makes that more likely.
 

Schnoodler said:
well I like beer. Given the choice, I would like to buy one. I'm for what ever makes that more likely.
Click to expand...

Anyone who is "for what ever makes that more likely" should donate $2,000 and get seats in the club level. Easy.
 



Goldmember said:
Anyone who is "for what ever makes that more likely" should donate $2,000 and get seats in the club level. Easy.
Click to expand...


there you have it, the real reason for the debate. Exclusive protectionism. the beer tastes sweeter if you can have it and others can't. nice.
 

Schnoodler said:
there you have it, the real reason for the debate. Exclusive protectionism. the beer tastes sweeter if you can have it and others can't. nice.
Click to expand...

You are arguing two different points. Point 1: Whatever will make the U more money. and Point 2: Whatever way I can buy beer to help the U make more money.

Pick one. It might help you get off your high horse.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom