will the MN House ever come to its senses regarding TCF Stadium and alcohol control?

[supadupafly]

i know this is one of those "like beating a dead horse" topics that has been discussed ad naseum on here. but i was wondering if anyone closer to the topic perhaps has any updates or gut feelings on where it stands and may go.

it just pisses my off to no end that since 2009 the MN Legislature (and some members of the MN House in particular) has cost and is continuing to cost the U of M millions of dollars in missed premium seating/suite sales and acompanying alcohol sales due to their foolish 2009 law that took away control of alcohol policy from the U of M regents. i am guessing they have cost the U of M athletic department between $4 to $6 million dollars already.

will new president kaler, the regents, the athletic department and U of M lobbyists at the capitol eventually be able to press some of the idiot stalworts in the MN House of Representatives to back down on their lame stance of micromanaging alcohol policy at U of M sports facilities. and realize just how much missed revenue they are costing the U of M by their meddling and mishandling of the issue?

if i am not mistaken in the last session, MN Senate Majority Leader Geoff Michel and the MN Senate passed a change to the stupid 2009 law and wanted to give full control of U of M alcohol sales policy back to the U of M regents. this cleared the full MN Senate and i believe Gov. Dayton was willing to sign a bill if it got to his desk. what happened with it on the MN House side of things? did it not get out of committee over there, was it defeated on the floor?

i know there are more idiots and idealogues typically on the "house" side of things on both a state and national level, so being level headed and reasonable over there often takes a lot more time than it does on the senate side of things. was it held back in the MN House by idiot socialist d-bags like Tom Rukavina and Leon Lillie and idiot conservatives like pat garofalo?

anyone know what tea leaves say as far as this issue eventually being resolved?

 

[gophervet]

Have them come watch the Nebraska game without booze and then have them vote. They will know that booze is needed to get through the next year or two!

 

[supadupafly]

ummm...okay. that said, any serious responses with actual information on the status of the issue?

 

[RodentRampage]

They aren't being stupid, there's just a lot of bipartisan populism going on. Politicians can score a lot of points with voters on the "beer for all!" angle. On the other hand, a politican who votes in favor of letting the U decide its own alcohol policy can be attacked as elitist.

 

[Catechol]

i am guessing they have cost the U of M athletic department between $4 to $6 million dollars already.

No B1G stadium (and almost no stadium NCAA-wide) allows alcohol sales in general seating. Four B1G stadiums (Iowa, Wisky, Illinois, Purdue) sell alcohol in suites/premium areas. And the number is not nearly as much as you estimate. According to this link, the biggest seller was Wisky (no surprise) at $160K over the year, so over 3 years you're looking at just under $500K. TCF would probably be more like Illinois who sold $88K in that year. Doesn't seem to be a huge economic impact there.

 

[supadupafly]

No B1G stadium (and almost no stadium NCAA-wide) allows alcohol sales in general seating. Four B1G stadiums (Iowa, Wisky, Illinois, Purdue) sell alcohol in suites/premium areas. And the number is not nearly as much as you estimate. According to this link, the biggest seller was Wisky (no surprise) at $160K over the year, so over 3 years you're looking at just under $500K. TCF would probably be more like Illinois who sold $88K in that year. Doesn't seem to be a huge economic impact there.

i understand the ncaa and big ten policies towards it and i understand which big ten schools do and don't sell it in their premium seating areas. i wasn't agruing against letting the U of M only be able to sell it in premium seating at mariucci, tcf stadium and williams. that is how it worked at williams and marucci for years and years befoe tcf stadium opened in 2009. i think they should be able to only sell it in premium (controlled and monitored) seating areas of on-campus U of M stadiums (like they always did in the past) if that is what the U of M regents want to do. THEY are supposed to be the ones who run the day-to-day business of the university. not some faux-populist, idiot, pandering politicians at the state capitol. i have no problem with it not being available in general admission seating, which is where our family sits.

also, your numbers and estimates are wrong. the U of M is not only losing revenue on just the sale of alcohol. you are completely misinterpreting how the math works. the U of M had virtually all of their premium seating and suites sold out and locked up under long-term contracts prior to the stadium opening. when the MN legislature went and f'ed everything up and stuck their nose in the U of M regent's business when it comes to managing on-campus alcohol sales policy. the MN legislature created a situation for the U of M where they had to allow some of those already signed, long-term premium seating contracts out of their commitments altogether (or in some cases significantly discount the already agreed to fee) because suddenly the U of M could not sell alcohol in those premium seats, which had been part of the sales pitch and contract offering when they were being sold prior to the stadium opening. and the legislature also went and made the premium seating beverage options at tcf stadium less desirable in comparison to the pro facilities in town because they can not offer alcohol sales. this is espeically important when trying to sell suites and premium seating to corporations and orgs.

it is the loss of some of those long term premium seating contracts, due to not being able to offer alcohol sales in them, that is costing the U of M athletic department $4-6 million dollars thus far. not just the alcohol sales revenue numbers that make up that total. the $4-6 million dollar total thus far is a pretty accurate number that have been published in media.

THERE is a huge economic impact there/here.

 

[station19]

No B1G stadium (and almost no stadium NCAA-wide) allows alcohol sales in general seating. Four B1G stadiums (Iowa, Wisky, Illinois, Purdue) sell alcohol in suites/premium areas. And the number is not nearly as much as you estimate. According to this link, the biggest seller was Wisky (no surprise) at $160K over the year, so over 3 years you're looking at just under $500K. TCF would probably be more like Illinois who sold $88K in that year. Doesn't seem to be a huge economic impact there.

You're leaving out the issue of unsold and discounted suites affected by this dumbass intervention. Also the fact that the U had to discontinue same sales at the Barn and Marriucci.

 

[Go4Broke]

What concerns GopherHolers more:

1. The Minnesota Legislature costing the U's Athletics Department $4 to $6 million through lost alcohol sales;

2. The Minnesota Legislature cutting state funding of the U by $176 million

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

Minnesota Daily
By James Nord
2011 / 03 / 30

The Minnesota House and Senate passed different versions of a higher education finance bill Tuesday that would cut $306 million from current state aid levels.

The Senate bill would cut $176 million from the University of Minnesota over the next budget cycle, about $16 million more than the House measure, but both include provisions that would prohibit state and federal funding for human cloning.

These cuts represent the largest reductions to higher education in Minnesota’s history and would roll state aid to the University back to 1998 levels.

 

[howeda7]

ummm...okay. that said, any serious responses with actual information on the status of the issue?

I had read someone indicate they thought they could get it repealed this year, but it got lost in the bickering. I think the U should twist some arms next year.

I think the 'Beer for one Beer for all' wave has passed and they realize they're never going to get the U to back down on selling booze in the general seating. So you either screw the U out of $2 million a year for the 'prinicple' of it, or you don't.

 

[zambam]

What concerns GopherHolers more:

1. The Minnesota Legislature costing the U's Athletics Department $4 to $6 million through lost alcohol sales;

2. The Minnesota Legislature cutting state funding of the U by $176 million

My guess would be 1

 

[akgopher]

They are going to have to get creative to get people in seats, especially the student section, so I'd open it up to everyone. Maybe .25 taps of Old Milwaukee and jello shots will be necessary and a better financial plan that giving the tickets away for free to have an appearance of a student section.

I paid for that stadium and I buy a ticket, I don't like two classes of fans.

 

[Okie]

If only they could realize how much drinking still goes on in the student section. Honestly, I don't know much about the situation, but if they don't sell alcohol because of students being there, that's ridiculous.

 

[GopherinPhilly]

The issue isn't elitism...its safety, having kids attend games, and appearances. I would be fine with alcohol being allowed in general seating areas that are non-student and designated as such. Just have separate lines upon entry that attach wristbands like most beer gardens/outdoor clubs and also card at the concession stand. If you want to get hard core...one person, one beer policies...so everyone has to go get there own. Wouldn't hurt the premium sections...they have the club house area and seat side service in club seats.

 

[gopheraschells]

If only they could realize how much drinking still goes on in the student section. Honestly, I don't know much about the situation, but if they don't sell alcohol because of students being there, that's ridiculous.

they would rather have students' sneak in and consume unregulated large amounts of hard liquor for fear of broke students spending 70 dollars to get (even more)drunk off of watered down crappy stadium beer.

 

[Okie]

they would rather have students' sneak in and consume unregulated large amounts of hard liquor for fear of broke students spending 70 dollars to get (even more)drunk off of watered down crappy stadium beer.

My point exactly. Honestly, if they let students get alcohol, they would actually be less drunk than they are now, since they would mainly be drinking beer instead of straight up hard liquor.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

My point exactly. Honestly, if they let students get alcohol, they would actually be less drunk than they are now, since they would mainly be drinking beer instead of straight up hard liquor.

I'd like to see the numbers behind this to prove that they'd be LESS drunk? Are hard liquor sales on campus far greater than beer sales? Probably not.. Is beer a much easier drink to tailgate with than mixed drinks? Yes - crack one open and drink it, people have cuzzies, etc. Is beer a much more popular tailgating drink? Yes - beer darts, beer pong, beer bongs, flip cup, etc all involve beer. Who is to say that if beer was allowed in the stadium that they wouldn't get just as drunk before the game as no TCF alcohol sales, then bolster the buzz with a few more (which they'd be inclined to purchase at a high price due to being drunk)?? The walk from a house in Dinkytown or tailgate lot plus no booze in the stadium sobers people up a decent amount and I know for a fact it's a bit more difficult to sneak booze (in large quantities) in to the new stadium than the Dome (having done it myself a few times). Also ask yourself if those same students love hard liquor so much what would stop them from bringing it in to the stadium even if beer was sold there??

It's complete BS that the legislature got in the U's business. They have cost the U tons of revenue, created a negative media frenzy around the stadium that otherwise wouldn't have been there (costing them possible casual fan ticket revenue due to negative perception), and refused to back down.

Am I a fan of the U being creative and relaxing the liquor rules on campus for gamedays to get a better atmosphere? Sure! But not on the state gov't's agenda...

 

[91 CLA Grad]

Most students will get their drink on before the game since, as other posters point out, they can't afford to try and get bombed of the over-priced swill sold at stadiums. It takes a lot of $7 Bud Light's to work up a decent buzz.

Maybe they should just limit alcohol sales to the second half of games, that way only the die-hards (who'll need something to watch the rest of the football being played here this season) will be in a position to take advantage of it. Make the beers $7 in the third quarter, $5 in the first 8 minutes of the 4th quarter, and $2 for the remainder of the game. It would increase the size of the bitter end club if nothing else.

 

[Bayfieldgopher]

A part of my email this Summer to Maturi and his response.

8. Get the Board of Regents approval to sell alcohol in the suites, as orginally planned, to increase revenues. The Minnesota legislature has no business in that matter.

I believe the Board is ready to allow alcohol in the Premium Areas once the Legislator allows us to do so without selling to the general public
********************************************

As I recall, the legislature was fully aware of the UM's plan to sell liquor in the suites as part of its marketing and passed the bill. The UM proceeded to install the equipment in the suites/etc. in the stadium as a part of the total cost.

Then all of a sudden, due to the brilliant move by the legislature, no liquor. less revenue and the UM paying for wasted equipment not used.

Dumb=stupid

If I read Maturi's response correctly, he said Premium Seating, not just the suites. I wonder how the UM hopes to implement that? IMO, that will pi$$ off a lot of fans outside of the Premiuim seating. Keep it to the suites and move on.

 

[station19]

A part of my email this Summer to Maturi and his response.

8. Get the Board of Regents approval to sell alcohol in the suites, as orginally planned, to increase revenues. The Minnesota legislature has no business in that matter.

I believe the Board is ready to allow alcohol in the Premium Areas once the Legislator allows us to do so without selling to the general public
********************************************

As I recall, the legislature was fully aware of the UM's plan to sell liquor in the suites as part of its marketing and passed the bill. The UM proceeded to install the equipment in the suites/etc. in the stadium as a part of the total cost.

Then all of a sudden, due to the brilliant move by the legislature, no liquor. less revenue and the UM paying for wasted equipment not used.

Dumb=stupid

If I read Maturi's response correctly, he said Premium Seating, not just the suites. I wonder how the UM hopes to implement that? IMO, that will pi$$ off a lot of fans outside of the Premiuim seating. Keep it to the suites and move on.[/QUOTE]

My guess would be he is referring to ticket holders in the Outdoor Club which have access to the DQ Club.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

My guess would be he is referring to ticket holders in the Outdoor Club which have access to the DQ Club.

That would be correct. The DQ club has those 2 bars in it with taps and everything ready to go.

If I worked for the U I would continue to push for a solution where the U has autonomy on the decision of alcohol in the stadium (as well as Mariucci and Williams), but also CONSIDER the idea of selling alcohol in the general areas in limited amounts. It doesn't look like the House is going to move any time soon. Others here have tossed around the idea of a beer garden in the open plaza area inside the gates. Possibly right below the scoreboard. This is on the far side from the students, can only serve so much (capacity low = long lines so only the people who REALLY want it will get it), and you could make the rule to only sell one per person with valid ID to keep the risk of giving to underagers down. This would allow the U to gain back some of that revenue in the meantime, add a little extra (drop in the bucket) with the beer garden sales, and improve its perception with some of the fans who are SCREAMING for alcohol. It also doesn't require the expensive task of installing permanent taps in all the concession stands that don't have them (and maybe don't even have room for them), saving the U money. Continue to push for autonomy so when the U wants to get rid of the beer garden for whatever reason, it can.

 

[Okie]

I'd like to see the numbers behind this to prove that they'd be LESS drunk? Are hard liquor sales on campus far greater than beer sales? Probably not.. Is beer a much easier drink to tailgate with than mixed drinks? Yes - crack one open and drink it, people have cuzzies, etc. Is beer a much more popular tailgating drink? Yes - beer darts, beer pong, beer bongs, flip cup, etc all involve beer. Who is to say that if beer was allowed in the stadium that they wouldn't get just as drunk before the game as no TCF alcohol sales, then bolster the buzz with a few more (which they'd be inclined to purchase at a high price due to being drunk)?? The walk from a house in Dinkytown or tailgate lot plus no booze in the stadium sobers people up a decent amount and I know for a fact it's a bit more difficult to sneak booze (in large quantities) in to the new stadium than the Dome (having done it myself a few times). Also ask yourself if those same students love hard liquor so much what would stop them from bringing it in to the stadium even if beer was sold there??

It's complete BS that the legislature got in the U's business. They have cost the U tons of revenue, created a negative media frenzy around the stadium that otherwise wouldn't have been there (costing them possible casual fan ticket revenue due to negative perception), and refused to back down.

Am I a fan of the U being creative and relaxing the liquor rules on campus for gamedays to get a better atmosphere? Sure! But not on the state gov't's agenda...

First off, for anyone that wants to smuggle alcohol into the stadium, it's much easier for them to hide their alcohol if they drink hard liquor (water bottles), rather than trying to hide five beers. Also, since you cannot buy alcohol in the stadium, students drink hard liquor before the game to get more drunk, since they know they won't be able to buy anything in the stadium. So yes, by not selling beer in the stadium, it is essentially making students more drunk than they would be by drinking beer.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

First off, for anyone that wants to smuggle alcohol into the stadium, it's much easier for them to hide their alcohol if they drink hard liquor (water bottles), rather than trying to hide five beers. Also, since you cannot buy alcohol in the stadium, students drink hard liquor before the game to get more drunk, since they know they won't be able to buy anything in the stadium. So yes, by not selling beer in the stadium, it is essentially making students more drunk than they would be by drinking beer.

You didn't prove your point, only reiterated it. Walk around campus - house parties, tailgate lots, etc. Beer is the drink of choice. You are assuming all kids going to the game want to get no only drunk, but only leave themselves maybe 25 minutes to do so. Simply not true. Most people don't enjoy chugging hard liquor straight and I'd find it very hard to believe that they'd consume much more alcohol per minute by drinking mixed drinks than beer if given time. Also, prove to me that they wouldn't drink exactly the same amount (the goal being to be smashed at kickoff) as if there WERE alcohol in the stadium?

Does TCF Bank stadium have a problem right now of turning away overly drunk students? Are there a lot of arrests in the stadium due to people being over-drunk to compensate for 3 hours without booze? Can you compare against Kinnick, Camp Randall, Michigan Stadium, etc to show that we are worse? Or compare against past numbers at the Dome or places like Syracuse who sell alcohol? I think this mindset of "all the kids are in more health danger because they can't buy booze at TCF" is total BS because no matter where it is, KIDS WILL DRINK, but not having alcohol at the stadium isn't increasing their chance of binge drinking. I've seen the "one for the road" or the "walk with a mixed drink in plastic bottle to share" but I guarantee this would happen even with $7 beer at TCF.

 

[tjgopher]

A student injuring themselves or someone else because of drinking alcohol they drank before or smuggled into the stadium is far different than a student injuring themselves or someone else because of drinking beer inside of the stadium that the University itself served to the student. Obviously, that would have to be large fear for the University...to serve alcohol to a student who ends up killing themselves or someone else. Goes against almost all aspects of the U's mission statement.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

A student injuring themselves or someone else because of drinking alcohol they drank before or smuggled into the stadium is far different than a student injuring themselves or someone else because of drinking beer inside of the stadium that the University itself served to the student. Obviously, that would have to be large fear for the University...to serve alcohol to a student who ends up killing themselves or someone else. Goes against almost all aspects of the U's mission statement.

In total agreement that the U has a mission statement and has certainly applied that (blocking sale of those Bud Light cans with maroon/gold so as to not promote underage drinking..???), but how many people have died at a Vikings game? Twins game? How many alcohol related deaths or injuries have there been at Target Center, the X, the Dome, and Target Field combined over the last 10 years? I'd be interested to see the numbers. I keep hearing a lot of fear tactics to ward people away from the idea.

I'm 100% behind the U's decision to no play along with the "all or none" thing the government forced on them. It's their business and that's what pissed me off about it. I personally don't see a problem with no liquor at TCF (general areas) since it's extremely commonplace. All I'm saying is if I were the U I'd explore some options to endear myself to fans, especially given the nature of the team right now.

Also the budget cut from the state is a far bigger problem than the total alcohol revenue problem. Yikes.

 

[tjgopher]

how many people have died at a Vikings game? Twins game? How many alcohol related deaths or injuries have there been at Target Center, the X, the Dome, and Target Field combined over the last 10 years?

Of course, the clear distinction is that the Vikings and Twins are a pure, for-profit business, no different than a bar or tavern. The University of Minnesota is an institution of higher education, who's mission statement goes far beyond serving alcohol (or at least should). There should be a higher standard.

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to throwing the baby out with the bathwater and selling beer to everyone. Throw it at the feet of the lawmakers if someone gets injured or killed. Tell them they wanted it, now they got it.

Plus, it would stand to earn the athletics program (which is trying to turn a profit) a substantial boost in revenue.

 

[GoAUpher]

No B1G stadium (and almost no stadium NCAA-wide) allows alcohol sales in general seating. Four B1G stadiums (Iowa, Wisky, Illinois, Purdue) sell alcohol in suites/premium areas. And the number is not nearly as much as you estimate. According to this link, the biggest seller was Wisky (no surprise) at $160K over the year, so over 3 years you're looking at just under $500K. TCF would probably be more like Illinois who sold $88K in that year. Doesn't seem to be a huge economic impact there.

As others have noted, the law means no sales in TCF, Mariucci, and The Barn. I believe the U's own estimates were that they were losing approx 1.5 million in revenue per year. Which means at the end of this year they'd be on the low end of the $4-$6 range supadupafly listed.

 

[GoAUpher]

What concerns GopherHolers more:

1. The Minnesota Legislature costing the U's Athletics Department $4 to $6 million through lost alcohol sales;

2. The Minnesota Legislature cutting state funding of the U by $176 million

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

Minnesota Daily
By James Nord
2011 / 03 / 30

The Minnesota House and Senate passed different versions of a higher education finance bill Tuesday that would cut $306 million from current state aid levels.

The Senate bill would cut $176 million from the University of Minnesota over the next budget cycle, about $16 million more than the House measure, but both include provisions that would prohibit state and federal funding for human cloning.

These cuts represent the largest reductions to higher education in Minnesota’s history and would roll state aid to the University back to 1998 levels.

Um, I'm more concerned about the $176 million. But one of these two problems should be much easier to solve. And it's not the $176 million dollar question.

 

[GoAUpher]

I paid for that stadium and I buy a ticket, I don't like two classes of fans.

Do you also dislike that they get nicer seats with their tickets? Do you hate airlines for having first class sections? Etc, etc, etc.

 

[GoAUpher]

As I recall, the legislature was fully aware of the UM's plan to sell liquor in the suites as part of its marketing and passed the bill. The UM proceeded to install the equipment in the suites/etc. in the stadium as a part of the total cost.

Then all of a sudden, due to the brilliant move by the legislature, no liquor. less revenue and the UM paying for wasted equipment not used.

Dumb=stupid

Correct. This only became a problem when it was noted in the Press and pols of both parties hopped on to the faux populist outrage bandwagon.

If I read Maturi's response correctly, he said Premium Seating, not just the suites. I wonder how the UM hopes to implement that? IMO, that will pi$$ off a lot of fans outside of the Premiuim seating. Keep it to the suites and move on.

RailBaron is right. All premium seating (meaning outdoor/indoor club, loge boxes, and suites) would have access to alcohol under the original (and I assume, future) plans. Suites could have it in them, indoor club has a bar in it, outdoor club seatholders could get it in the DQ club room, loge boxes could get it via DQ club room or via their dedicated waitstaff.

 

[RodentRampage]

If I drive up to Itasca State Park, I can camp in a tent, or I can stay in Douglas Lodge. Taxes pay for the part of the parks, but we don't blink at getting two tiers based on how much we pay for our lodging when we visit our state parks.

Some seats are bleachers, some are chairbacks. Where is the grumbling about that? If you hold the "beer for all or beer for none" position than you should oppose cabins at our state parks for those willing to pay for it. Cabins for all, or everyone has to use a tent! Chairbacks for all, or everone sits on bleachers!