coppercanuck Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 http://web.mlsnet.com/news/team_news.jsp?ymd=20090713&content_id=5862544&vkey=news_t280&fext=.jsp&team=t280 I couldn't believe my eyes when I read this. I've heard rumours of 200+ kegs gone at halftime at BMO Field. What kind of financial hit is this? Is there a special loop hole for the refs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 quote:The suspension, issued by Ontario's Alcohol and Gaming Commission (AGCO), results from a violation of Section 30(4) of the Liquor Licence Act, which makes it an offence to permit a person appearing to be under 19 years of age to consume or possess alcohol on the premises. According to this, it's an offense for someone who's 20 and looks 17 to have alcohol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juby Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 good god, I remember being denied booze there a couple years ago (my drivers license is expired) and apparently it's also offensive for a 22 year old who probably looked 20 to have alcohol. edit: the whole thing is offensive really, you can't really make rules on appearances, because those people who don't fit have all there rights too for gods sakes. God forbid a little person who looked like a child wanted to have a beer at a soccer match, sure alot of people think what they want to think but when you find out your wrong you shut your damn mouth and leave the person to their rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 If you cannot produce valid ID to prove your age the law puts the responsibility on the vendor to make a judgement call or simply refuse no matter how loud the protest. Same applies in BC when it comes to the sale of cigarettes. If the vendor makes a mistake the vendor is liable (not the minor) and in BC the consequences can be quite severe (folks have lost their jobs). Not sure what else can be done save eliminate all age limits and let it be a free-for-all which some people would prefer I'm sure. It is also an offence to even give alcohol or cigarettes to a minor. If you don't like the law lobby your MLA for it to be changed, much lower risk than ignoring the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Guys, have your IDs with you and you won't have problem even if you are Benjamin Button... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 The problem with soccer is that there is only one opportunity to go for beer so everyone goes at the same time. Now most games this year, i could do without. But the last TFC game was played on a very nice mid week evening. The first nice day of the year for a soccer game. It was humid that night and there was no way I could resist. Even if it is twelve bucks. Problem is, you will spend the entire half time ( and more) at the line ups. Can you imagine if they slow things down at the line even more becuase they have to be extra anal about checking for id? dont have this probalem at other event, you have two intermissions in hockey, 18 opportunities (9 innings)in baseball, and a gazillion time outs and stoppages in football and basketball. They check at the entrance for any anything including bottled water. So what are we to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 If selling beers is as lucrative as they say, hire a few more people to check the ID's of those who appear to be U-19 in the lineups, that could help. It will cost a few more $$$ but they will avoid losing more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 "They check at the entrance for any anything including bottled water. So what are we to do?" Drink water from the tap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Rollins1555362254 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 The real problem is that the LCBO is punishing MLSE for not having eyes everywhere. If I'm 19 and I go to the game with my 18 year old buddy and let him have a sip out of my beer (in a crowd of 20,000) MLSE is supposed to somehow stop me. It's damn near impossible to do. And, to make it worse, when MLSE fails in this impossible task, the LCBO punishes all of us by taking away the right to consume beer in the stadium. How nanny state of them. All that's going to happen here is that people are going to show up HAMMERED. I fail to see how that helps things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Giving your legally underage buddy alcohol is a contravention of the liquor laws whether you like it or not. If you don't like it write to your MLA, that's how the system works. If you didn't before, at least now you know the consequences if you deliberately do it at BMO Field. Why is it necessary to get drunk and make an asshole of yourself in the process, it really isn't a very smart thing to do? Being drunk in public is an offence too, whether you think the law is dumb or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyola Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy The real problem is that the LCBO is punishing MLSE for not having eyes everywhere. If I'm 19 and I go to the game with my 18 year old buddy and let him have a sip out of my beer (in a crowd of 20,000) MLSE is supposed to somehow stop me. It's damn near impossible to do. And, to make it worse, when MLSE fails in this impossible task, the LCBO punishes all of us by taking away the right to consume beer in the stadium. How nanny state of them. All that's going to happen here is that people are going to show up HAMMERED. I fail to see how that helps things. If the example you are giving is what happened and the reason why MLSE can't sell alcohol at the game I would agree with you about this rule being too strict. But if MLSE sold alcohol to a minor without checking his ID's then it's a different story. MLSE has to ensure they respect the law and have to hire a few more people to make sure it doesn't happen again. The fact they are accepting the ruling (and to my knowledge didn't appeal) indicates that they probably know they messed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squizz1402635577 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Richard Why is it necessary to get drunk and make an asshole of yourself in the process, it really isn't a very smart thing to do? "Marge, this ticket doesn't just give me a seat. It gives me the right - no, the duty - to make a complete ass of myself." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy The real problem is that the LCBO is punishing MLSE for not having eyes everywhere. If I'm 19 and I go to the game with my 18 year old buddy and let him have a sip out of my beer (in a crowd of 20,000) MLSE is supposed to somehow stop me. It's damn near impossible to do. And, to make it worse, when MLSE fails in this impossible task, the LCBO punishes all of us by taking away the right to consume beer in the stadium. How nanny state of them. .... Do you really think that is why the venue (BMO Field) is being penalized by the LCBO? You think MLSE would stand taking a profit hit of $100K (because I'm sure that's the minimum hit this move is costing MLSE) if that were the case? Not bloody likely. There were complaints, LCBO sent in their spy squad and the beer vendors got caught on numerous occasions (and likely on tape) selling alcohol to minors. LCBO got all their ducks in a row before they went to bat with this. Sure as **** they did. They left MLSE zero room for appeal. It happens. If you're going to cheap out on vendor staff, your most profitable concession, and get lazy on enforcing your legal requirements you play with fire. And MLSE got caught being lazy and will take a punch in the financial nuts for it. Serves them right. See if there isn't a "spotter" in the beer line checking IDs before the customers get to the servers next home match. Ahem..All that being said, however. My sympathies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juby Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I just get pissed off with the whole ID situation, I walk around with an expired drivers license, a sin card and a birth certificate, my health card is the old red and white kind. I'm not a driver, technically I don't need a new health card, so why in hell would I go pay for things I don't need, and why am I being punished for being a non driver and not having to get a new health card. it's ridiculous that I have to go out and pay for damn ID to prove I deserve my rights but no more id then my sin card was ever necessary for them to tax me. If they want to limit my rights based on a photo ID they damn well better provide me with a photo ID because it's absolutely absurd that I should have to give the LCBO 50 bucks for an age of majority card, they could all be forged almost as easily as any non photo ID card. The idea that you actually lose your rights to live within the law if you lose your ID is stupid, where in the constitution does it say these rights are null and void if you don't buy an ID from the government. I'm going on and on now but the fact remains, if you are going to demand people to have photo id's you damn well better provide them for free because otherwise your telling people their rights are alienable if their too broke. I can't go out and get drunk even though I'm a 24 year old who has never left the country because I don't necessarily have 50 bucks to give the government. I already pay taxes (and I don't really care or mind) so theirs no way in hell I should have to give 50 bucks to have permission to get drunk for gods sake. edit: that said, despite the angry wording, It's not like I consider this a most heinous denial of freedom nor want to compare it with more serious matters but unfortunately it still is a (albeit a minor) denial of freedom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ag futbol Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 LCBO probably found an idiot or two that slipped through the cracks. By no means does that mean MLSE is negligent about the way they are doing business and have zero room for appeal. Their job is to have properly trained staff and have a good system in place to prevent serving to minors, monitor and make corrections as necessary. If the system is flawed they deserve discipline, if the staff isn’t properly trained they deserve discipline, but for somebody simply getting around the rules, well **** happens. I can tell you with relative certainty that if that's the standard you're going to hold people to who serve alcohol, half the bars in the city would be dry 10 months of the year, as there is no way they’d hold up to the level of scrutiny the staff at BMO is subject to. The people working there are already pretty rigorous about asking for ID, to the point where people who are 30+ shake their head in disbelief. I’ll be happy to keep this one dry though, as the prices are more than enough to make you cringe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 quote:Originally posted by squizz "Marge, this ticket doesn't just give me a seat. It gives me the right - no, the duty - to make a complete ass of myself." Heh heh, yup and some people actually believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Juby I just get pissed off with the whole ID situation, I walk around with an expired drivers license, a sin card and a birth certificate, my health card is the old red and white kind. I'm not a driver, technically I don't need a new health card, so why in hell would I go pay for things I don't need, and why am I being punished for being a non driver and not having to get a new health card. it's ridiculous that I have to go out and pay for damn ID to prove I deserve my rights but no more id then my sin card was ever necessary for them to tax me. If they want to limit my rights based on a photo ID they damn well better provide me with a photo ID because it's absolutely absurd that I should have to give the LCBO 50 bucks for an age of majority card, they could all be forged almost as easily as any non photo ID card. The idea that you actually lose your rights to live within the law if you lose your ID is stupid, where in the constitution does it say these rights are null and void if you don't buy an ID from the government. I'm going on and on now but the fact remains, if you are going to demand people to have photo id's you damn well better provide them for free because otherwise your telling people their rights are alienable if their too broke. I can't go out and get drunk even though I'm a 24 year old who has never left the country because I don't necessarily have 50 bucks to give the government. I already pay taxes (and I don't really care or mind) so theirs no way in hell I should have to give 50 bucks to have permission to get drunk for gods sake. edit: that said, despite the angry wording, It's not like I consider this a most heinous denial of freedom nor want to compare it with more serious matters but unfortunately it still is a (albeit a minor) denial of freedom Little bit too much emphasis on rights and not enough on responsibility there, the two go hand in hand. We have a civil society in Canada that works only if the majority play by the rules we make together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 As for asking for ID, my local supermarket has been hit so many times for selling tobacco to minors they require their staff to demand ID from anybody asking for tobacco products that the staff member thinks may be under 40 years of age, yes 40, or they are simply refused! The penalty for contravening the tobacco laws is dismissal of the staff member. I have no problem with this, smoking and underage drinking is a curse in our society and costs us all a fortune in healthcare and otherwise, never mind any other substances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juby Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Richard Little bit too much emphasis on rights and not enough on responsibility there, the two go hand in hand. We have a civil society in Canada that works only if the majority play by the rules we make together. I'll fully admit it's super whiny to talk about constitution stuff for this but I think this quote shows I basically still agree. I live within the law, I'm 24, I shouldn't have to pay the government special side monies to get drunk, I'm all for security but I'm generally saying if ID's are mandatory for fulfilling your rights, then they have to be issued mandatorally (if you lose it pay but the when it expires, I shouldn't have to spend money I may not have just to be treated as an equal citizen), I pretty much feel like I'm fulfilling my part of the bargain but the idea of paying for my rights, no matter how little just pisses me off edit: I misspelled constitution [:I], I've literally taken classes with the word constitution in the title [:I] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SthMelbRed Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 ^before more of you start going faux-Anarchist on us, there is no right to be served beer. You can buy beer from a licensed vendor but you are subject to certain conditions. If you cannot provide the required proof that you are of legal age to purchase alcohol, that's tough **** for you. The vendor can choose not to comply with their legal obligations by serving you even though you cannot prove you're of legal age, but they take the risk of losing their liquor license. MLSE now knows this, not that they shouldn't have already known this, since they've been in the beer selling business for decades before TFC came along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juby Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I also can't get packages from the post office or vote [] edit: faux anarchist? really? I'm saying issue universal ID's if your going to make laws requiring ID's, don't add fees for me to be able to do things everyone else my age can. edit, sorry: I don't drive, my health card doesn't require renewal, why should I have to pay the government to get drunk, the government says it's legal for someone my age to get drunk, and then it says to get drunk I have to make sure I get the government a fee, bull****, call it what it is, a tax and take it from my pay (really, how much does it actually cost to make a damn ID and mail it?). Right now I could probably afford it but it's the principal of the damn matter, a year or so ago, when I could have used 50 bucks more for food then for ID and I couldn't vote, let alone blow my money on booze and as pathetic as the fees are, their apparently necessary to live the same life as anyone else your age. hell if someone wanted to be a drunk, that's not illegal (alot of things around it are), but you gotta give the goverment a side payment to do it if your 20-30ish? sorry, my bad, it just rubs me the wrong way to think that I have to pay side fees to do what everyone else can, if these things need to be taxed then tax them for gods sake don't channel through some other bureacracy to make another cash grab, If I wanted to live off the damn land I shouldn't have to pay a damn thing to vote or access the government (maybe that dude will have to pick up his ID but it's just the idea that their inalienable, if I find a way to alienate them then theres a problem) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmynow Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Cheeta Do you really think that is why the venue (BMO Field) is being penalized by the LCBO? You think MLSE would stand taking a profit hit of $100K (because I'm sure that's the minimum hit this move is costing MLSE) if that were the case? Not bloody likely. There were complaints, LCBO sent in their spy squad and the beer vendors got caught on numerous occasions (and likely on tape) selling alcohol to minors. LCBO got all their ducks in a row before they went to bat with this. Sure as **** they did. They left MLSE zero room for appeal. It happens. If you're going to cheap out on vendor staff, your most profitable concession, and get lazy on enforcing your legal requirements you play with fire. And MLSE got caught being lazy and will take a punch in the financial nuts for it. Serves them right. See if there isn't a "spotter" in the beer line checking IDs before the customers get to the servers next home match. Ahem..All that being said, however. My sympathies. what's your source for the above information regarding the multiple complaints/numerous occasions. Do you work for either MLSE or the LCBO? just wondering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tintin Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Richard Giving your legally underage buddy alcohol is a contravention of the liquor laws whether you like it or not. If you don't like it write to your MLA, that's how the system works. If you didn't before, at least now you know the consequences if you deliberately do it at BMO Field. Why is it necessary to get drunk and make an asshole of yourself in the process, it really isn't a very smart thing to do? Being drunk in public is an offence too, whether you think the law is dumb or not. Is it a smart thing to go on a soccer forum and make an ass of yourself? The point he was making was defending MLSE, not himself. How is MLSE supposed to keep an eye on every single person in BMO? He never mentioned getting drunk in the first place. The only person making an ass of himself is you. You said "making an asshole" of yourself, but the expression is "making an ass of oneself". I could have used your expression, but I'd rather not look like a donkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tintin Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 quote:Originally posted by Juby I just get pissed off with the whole ID situation, I walk around with an expired drivers license, a sin card and a birth certificate, my health card is the old red and white kind. I'm not a driver, technically I don't need a new health card, so why in hell would I go pay for things I don't need, and why am I being punished for being a non driver and not having to get a new health card. it's ridiculous that I have to go out and pay for damn ID to prove I deserve my rights but no more id then my sin card was ever necessary for them to tax me. If they want to limit my rights based on a photo ID they damn well better provide me with a photo ID because it's absolutely absurd that I should have to give the LCBO 50 bucks for an age of majority card, they could all be forged almost as easily as any non photo ID card. The idea that you actually lose your rights to live within the law if you lose your ID is stupid, where in the constitution does it say these rights are null and void if you don't buy an ID from the government. I'm going on and on now but the fact remains, if you are going to demand people to have photo id's you damn well better provide them for free because otherwise your telling people their rights are alienable if their too broke. I can't go out and get drunk even though I'm a 24 year old who has never left the country because I don't necessarily have 50 bucks to give the government. I already pay taxes (and I don't really care or mind) so theirs no way in hell I should have to give 50 bucks to have permission to get drunk for gods sake. edit: that said, despite the angry wording, It's not like I consider this a most heinous denial of freedom nor want to compare it with more serious matters but unfortunately it still is a (albeit a minor) denial of freedom If you have to prove your identity at a bank, what do you do? It's wise to have current identification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earlimus Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 There's a lot of good arguments here. I think that Canada is the best country in the world (having been to over 20 of them) and Ontario is a great place to live. I'm happy to pay high taxes on alcohol so that we can have decent public schools and health care. I like how our government doesn't want our youth purchasing substances with ease. Having said all that... Ontario is THE LAMEST PLACE I'VE EVER BEEN TO ON EARTH to have, buy, or enjoy a drink. Our governments head is shoved so far up its own ass I can't believe it at times. I went to our home opener (TFC) this year and every time my friend or I got a round we had to write our Driver's licenses numbers down on a sheet, get checked out for sobriety, and both be present. I detest everything about the Beer Store AND LCBO and their little monopoly. I hate going to a concert and having to be hearded into a little pen in order to wait another hour to buy $15 warm bull**** beer. It's absolutely tyrannical at times. As for BMO... it's not their fault that we'll soon have little microchips in our arms for identification scanning just so we can hold a beer, but they could hire more people to help out and come up with a way to have more bathrooms. Those guys make a fortune every game on beer sales and there's no excuse. For those of you who will write: "It's the law", "Canada's a great place", "We don't want kids drinking".... I know and I agree. Nonetheless.... LAMEST PLACE ON EARTH. Period. BC.. if you're getting carded for buying smokes at the age of 39, as Richard has written, then maybe I should be including everywhere east of Quebec in my rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.