What would happen?

Donate To GopherHole
R

Rog

Active member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
1,017
Reaction score
1
Points
38
If State money would be used for a new or remodeled Viking Stadium.

Would they be allowed to sell beer and other drinks?

Would they cancel the U's order not to sell?

Or would they play favorites with the Vikings and allow them but not the Gophers?

Interesting question.
 

They would allow them to sell beer to all fans over 21 years of age. Just like the legislature would have allowed the Gophers to sell beer to all fans over 21. The difference is the Gophers were planning to have alcohol available only in the suites.
 

are you kidding?

The State legislature would never do anything to restrict legal business opportunities for anyone! Any dope knows restricting business is bad for the community as a whole, jobs, services, quality of life, more jobs, tax revenue... unless it applies to the University. Its good to restrict the University so they can keep those suites empty, don't want to attract any fat cats to the venues. The poor bastard in row one is way better off if the fat cats up in the suites can't have a beer.
 

The Difference

The difference is that the TCF Bank stadium on on campus. The U makes the rules regarding the availability of alcohol on campus. It has nothing to do with the city or state.
 

I'm going to bite my tongue and just answer the question without giving my opinion of the question.

Nothing would change if the Vikings received state money for a stadium. They would still be allowed to serve beer. And because TCF Bank Stadium is still a college football stadium on a college campus, alcohol could not be served non-suite ticketholders. They would not be playing favorites because there are no on-campus stadiums that serve beer to everyone that walks through the gates.
 


Rog said:
If State money would be used for a new or remodeled Viking Stadium.

Would they be allowed to sell beer and other drinks?

Would they cancel the U's order not to sell?

Or would they play favorites with the Vikings and allow them but not the Gophers?

Interesting question.
Click to expand...

This question is a moot point. State Money WON'T be use to fund a new stadium for the Vikings.
It's a simple equation. Since the advent of the current recession (read: depression), the Democratic Legislature has already irritated their voters by cutting social welfare programs and funding to places like HCMC. They aren't going to back the Vikes selfish desires given the circumstances. On the other side of the aisle Tim Pawlenty is doing everything he can to bolster his image as a fiscal conservative (including his unconstitutional unallotment). Because of this there is no way Pawlenty is going to back public funding of a new stadium.

Therefore, barring a huge economic turnaround, there will be no new Vikings stadium.
 

AhliBobwa said:
This question is a moot point. State Money WON'T be use to fund a new stadium for the Vikings.
It's a simple equation. Since the advent of the current recession (read: depression), the Democratic Legislature has already irritated their voters by cutting social welfare programs and funding to places like HCMC. They aren't going to back the Vikes selfish desires given the circumstances. On the other side of the aisle Tim Pawlenty is doing everything he can to bolster his image as a fiscal conservative (including his unconstitutional unallotment). Because of this there is no way Pawlenty is going to back public funding of a new stadium.

Therefore, barring a huge economic turnaround, there will be no new Vikings stadium.
Click to expand...

Sure, let's blame this all on the Democrats. Maybe you missed Senator Senjem and Representative Zellars, the leaders of their respective caucuses, both say on public radio last week that they thought funding for a new Vikings' stadium was inappropriate given the current budget circumstances. It will be discussed at the Legislature in 2010, but I have doubts that it will get significant traction. If anything, you will probably see more DFLers support it due to union backing for construction jobs.
 

Ok you two, get your politics out of the football and let's get back to the astoundingly stupid question.
 

50PoundHead said:
Sure, let's blame this all on the Democrats. Maybe you missed Senator Senjem and Representative Zellars, the leaders of their respective caucuses, both say on public radio last week that they thought funding for a new Vikings' stadium was inappropriate given the current budget circumstances. It will be discussed at the Legislature in 2010, but I have doubts that it will get significant traction. If anything, you will probably see more DFLers support it due to union backing for construction jobs.
Click to expand...

I wasn't blaming anyone. I think it would be irresponsible to fund a new Vikings stadium with public money. I was just illustrating the fact that neither the Republicans or the Democrats are going to support a stadium given the current economic situation.

In the future 50poundHead, it would behoove you to read what is written before becoming combative and defensive. :pig:
 



AhliBobwa said:
This question is a moot point. State Money WON'T be use to fund a new stadium for the Vikings.
It's a simple equation. Since the advent of the current recession (read: depression), the Democratic Legislature has already irritated their voters by cutting social welfare programs and funding to places like HCMC. They aren't going to back the Vikes selfish desires given the circumstances. On the other side of the aisle Tim Pawlenty is doing everything he can to bolster his image as a fiscal conservative (including his unconstitutional unallotment). Because of this there is no way Pawlenty is going to back public funding of a new stadium.

Therefore, barring a huge economic turnaround, there will be no new Vikings stadium.
Click to expand...

If the Vikings win the Super Bowl, the pressure on the Legislature not to let them leave town will be tremendous (to use a Brew-ism). Certainly, they can't fork over a bunch of general fund money in any case. But that's not saying they can't use slot machine revenue or allow Anoka county to fund it if they want to.

The reality is that any funding mechanism used will occur over 30 years. In that time there will be economic booms and recessions. To refuse to discuss it just because year 0 is during a recession is not entirely logical. Is the building of Target Field somehow less acceptable now then it was in 2006? And a certain % of the reason this is still unsolved is because the Legislature refused to deal with it for the last decade since 2011 was 'so far away' and they had other priorities.

To build a stadium for the Twins and Gophers, but let the state's most popular team walk away would be asinine. Especially when the Vikings stadium stands to benefit the state more then the others in the way of Super Bowls and Final Fours, etc. (If it has a roof. Building one without a roof would be a terrible mistake.)
 

howeda7 said:
If the Vikings win the Super Bowl, the pressure on the Legislature not to let them leave town will be tremendous (to use a Brew-ism). Certainly, they can't fork over a bunch of general fund money in any case. But that's not saying they can't use slot machine revenue or allow Anoka county to fund it if they want to.

To build a stadium for the Twins and Gophers, but let the state's most popular team walk away would be asinine. Especially when the Vikings stadium stands to benefit the state more then the others in the way of Super Bowls and Final Fours, etc. (If it has a roof. Building one without a roof would be a terrible mistake.)
Click to expand...

If the Gopher football team is ever going to win the Big 10 Championship and go to the Rose Bowl the Vikings need to leave town - the sooner the better. GopherHolers need to band together to do whatever it takes to prevent a new Vikings Stadium from being built. Who is with me?
 

UpnorthGo4 said:


If the Gopher football team is ever going to win the Big 10 Championship and go to the Rose Bowl the Vikings need to leave town - the sooner the better. GopherHolers need to band together to do whatever it takes to prevent a new Vikings Stadium from being built. Who is with me?
Click to expand...

Convenient to try and blame Minnesota's struggles on the Vikings but they are not responsible for keeping the gophers from the Rose Bowl.
 

UpnorthGo4 said:


If the Gopher football team is ever going to win the Big 10 Championship and go to the Rose Bowl the Vikings need to leave town - the sooner the better. GopherHolers need to band together to do whatever it takes to prevent a new Vikings Stadium from being built. Who is with me?
Click to expand...
With your voices united you make the tiniest of squeaks.

This misdirection is flat out embarrassing. Look within for the problems with the program.

Of course you realize that and are making the most transparent of trolls. A feeble, empty old man clawing at the world in a vain attempt to inflict some measure of wound upon it to salve his own.
 



GopherGod said:
Convenient to try and blame Minnesota's struggles on the Vikings but they are not responsible for keeping the gophers from the Rose Bowl.
Click to expand...

The ignore function doesn't work when you quote him, but it did help remind me why I ignored him in the first place. Those who want to blame the Gophers struggles on the Vikings are truly sad. Even sadder is if you believe that the Vikings leaving will somehow transform everything back to the 'good old days.' You could not be more wrong. It might mean the difference between averaging 50,000 versus 48,000 5 years from now. It will have zero impact in how many games they win. The fact that he'd drive the Vikings out of town, upsetting millions so that the Gophers could get some insignificant gain such as this is beyond selfish.
 

Refresher course --- the legislature DID NOT ban alcohol sales at TCF Bank Stadium. If the U wants to, they can sell as much beer as they like at any game they host. The legislature passed a measure that said if you sell beer to the premium seat holders then you have to sell to the people in the general seats. The U balked at that idea of selling to the general stadium population and put a self-imposed ban on alcohol sales. The mistake the legislature made was not knowing this would be the action the U took. The idiots in St. Paul figured they'd pressure the U into selling alcohol to the populous when anyone with half a brain knew the U would not do that. But, if the U wants to, they could sell beer right now at games at any of the venues.

So, yes, if the same law is in place, the Vikings will undoubtedly sell beer at any type of stadium - state-funded or not.
 

tjgesquire said:
The difference is that the TCF Bank stadium on on campus. The U makes the rules regarding the availability of alcohol on campus. It has nothing to do with the city or state.
Click to expand...

It did involve the state. The U wanted to sell booze to the premium seat holders. The geniuses at the state capitol passed a measure that said you have to sell to everyone or no one. The U chose to implement no one.

But, rest assured, if the state pols stayed out of it, the U would have sold booze in the suites.

So, the state absolutely had a say in the alcohol policy at the stadium. The state basically passed a law leading to a U-imposed alcohol ban.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom