Vikings Message Board.Com

off topic but i find the liquor store sales talk interesting. i operate the number one liquor store in the entire state here and we are open from 8am until 2am every day of the week.

i simply cannot imagine that by allowing liquor sales on sundays it wouldn't raise a substantial amount of money.

my situation here is a little different however. we are not a "state" store so we don't have to go by the same rules other than our baseline pricing. so many stores in the state DO have to be closed on sundays and i believe 8 or 9 at night. this certainly helps our business being open when others can't.

but if there is one thing i have learned in this business....is people NEVER, EVER stop drinking! doesn't matter if it's a friday night, or a tuesday morning at 9:30. i just cannot see a scenario where a LOT of money couldn't be raised this way.

dead_poet wrote: ESPN Blogs NFC North @espn_nfcnblog on Twitter

I don't really understand why they haven't changed this law yet. Especially since, you know, alcohol is consumed immensely.

Gee, I wonder why?

vikeinmontana wrote:i simply cannot imagine that by allowing liquor sales on sundays it wouldn't raise a substantial amount of money.
...
but if there is one thing i have learned in this business....is people NEVER, EVER stop drinking! doesn't matter if it's a friday night, or a tuesday morning at 9:30. i just cannot see a scenario where a LOT of money couldn't be raised this way.

Sunday liquor sales here in Colorado began only a few years ago. When they were talking about changing the law, many existing liquor stores were strongly _against_ it and it was argued that sales would increase only slightly. People don't change their drinking habits substantially. They used to make sure they had liquor on hand for things like Sunday football games, while now they can run out at the last minute. Overall, they don't buy much more than before. For the most part it just becomes an added expense for liquor stores, as now they're forced to be open on Sunday to stay competitive, with little benefit in added sales.

Turns out there was a small increase in tax revenue the first year it was enacted (6%, IIRC), but the difference was no more or less than the usual year to year fluctuation due to economic pressures like recession.

Demi wrote:Gee, I wonder why?

Well... I understand that...


I guess... Nevermind.

Appears RamseyCo has a new #Vikings stadium plan to present to Dayton Friday. Among RamseyCo's #Vikings stadium revenue sources: Parking Lot naming rights. Ramsey County #Vikings proposal includes parking fees, ticket surcharges, capturing growth in taxes collected on stuff sold at stadium. RamseyCo also wants to capture taxes from ancillary biz dev at Arden Hills #vikings stadium site.

Rochelle Olson on Twitter

Gov. Dayton says 7 Minneapolis city council members are content to sit on sidelines and carp, lack proper perspective. Dayton repeatedly criticizes Minneapolis city council, says they can explain it when #Vikings leave.

Dayton says "nothing's too late" for a #Vikings bill, won't predict chances. Says he hasn't seen Ramseyco #Vikings proposal yet. Declines to comment on it.

Rochelle Olson on Twitter

---
Sit on the sidelines and "carp?" Is that right? Should that be "crap?" I guess I've never heard the "carp" expression before. Is this a Minnesota thing?

Googled "carp" and it apparently means to complain endlessly about something.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 744AAREAoC

Found another definition. As a verb it means to "raise trivial objections".

Seems to make more sense with that definition.

Ramsey's latest doesn't work for the Vikings, team VP says

http://www.startribune.com/politics/blo ... 00284.html

Vikings stadium deal losing urgency at State Capitol
http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 93234.html

dead_poet wrote:Vikings stadium deal losing urgency at State Capitol
http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikin ... 93234.html

Not surprising. Seems the NFL took a lot of the leverage away from the teams when they said no team would re-locate to LA, it would be an expansion team. Id be shocked if this isnt put off at least another season. Add to that, the Vikings have to inform by this Wednesday if they plan on playing elsewhere next season. Thats not even an option, so the way Wilfs handled this, he has no choice but to sign a one year lease on the Dome and hope something happens next year. What a #### show, neither side has a clue.

purple guy wrote:
Not surprising. Seems the NFL took a lot of the leverage away from the teams when they said no team would re-locate to LA, it would be an expansion team. Id be shocked if this isnt put off at least another season. Add to that, the Vikings have to inform by this Wednesday if they plan on playing elsewhere next season. Thats not even an option, so the way Wilfs handled this, he has no choice but to sign a one year lease on the Dome and hope something happens next year. What a #### show, neither side has a clue.

Or not sign a new lease - the Vikings could just accept the "one more year because of the roof collapse" argument and limp by for another season.

PsyDanny wrote: Or not sign a new lease - the Vikings could just accept the "one more year because of the roof collapse" argument and limp by for another season.

Which is what they would do, all I meant was they are stuck in the Dome with no resolution in sight. But I am sure they will use the roof collapse excuse just to ensure that doesnt potentially come into play again after next season. If I was the Wilfs, I would ask the NFL for permission to move. Asking permission doesnt mean they have to move, but it MIGHT wake someone up.

Which is what they would do, all I meant was they are stuck in the Dome with no resolution in sight. But I am sure they will use the roof collapse excuse just to ensure that doesnt potentially come into play again after next season. If I was the Wilfs, I would ask the NFL for permission to move. Asking permission doesnt mean they have to move, but it MIGHT wake someone up.


Honestly if it was my team I would move it. Minnesota has been dragging its heals for years on this. I hope that
does not happen, but I couldn't blame the Wilfs if they did move at this point.

jackal wrote:Which is what they would do, all I meant was they are stuck in the Dome with no resolution in sight. But I am sure they will use the roof collapse excuse just to ensure that doesnt potentially come into play again after next season. If I was the Wilfs, I would ask the NFL for permission to move. Asking permission doesnt mean they have to move, but it MIGHT wake someone up.


Honestly if it was my team I would move it. Minnesota has been dragging its heals for years on this. I hope that
does not happen, but I couldn't blame the Wilfs if they did move at this point.

If it were my team I would certainly ask the NFL for permission to talk to other cities, it is the ONLY leverage the Wilfs have, not to do so would be foolish, IMO.