To be fair, if they posted the standard blue sign erroneously as well (even though they neither operate the bar or own the building), then I can believe the bad lawyer excuse.Deats said:
Sounds like they are blaming a ****ty lawyer for a bad policy choice.
Yeti not LTC friendly?
11,078 Views |
78 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by JSKolache
Sounds to me like they are trying to back-track out of a PR pickle.
No way in frozen he__ are you going to convince me that their 3rd party concessionaire running the BAR (or BARRR) doesn't know the difference between TABC RED and BLUE signage.
Now they're raising an interesting question. They've gone with 51% as opposed to "unlicensed possession" for the bar. So is the bar 51% or not? Since the bar is run by a 3rd party, I suppose they can claim the revenue streams for the two entities are different so the bar would in fact be 51%. Otherwise their booze is as popular and equally (or more) expensive than their coolers.
Edit... If it is indeed a really bad lawyer, they've got equally bad bar managers. The signage really isn't all that difficult to understand. If this was a mom & pop operation opening up their first retail place swith Legalzoom representation I would understand. NO... This is a nationwide, multi-million dollar operation that just pulled off a nice legal victory over their largest competitor, with a bar in a "foodie" and service industry heavy city. That's some SUPER bad level lawyering/management.
No way in frozen he__ are you going to convince me that their 3rd party concessionaire running the BAR (or BARRR) doesn't know the difference between TABC RED and BLUE signage.
Now they're raising an interesting question. They've gone with 51% as opposed to "unlicensed possession" for the bar. So is the bar 51% or not? Since the bar is run by a 3rd party, I suppose they can claim the revenue streams for the two entities are different so the bar would in fact be 51%. Otherwise their booze is as popular and equally (or more) expensive than their coolers.
Edit... If it is indeed a really bad lawyer, they've got equally bad bar managers. The signage really isn't all that difficult to understand. If this was a mom & pop operation opening up their first retail place swith Legalzoom representation I would understand. NO... This is a nationwide, multi-million dollar operation that just pulled off a nice legal victory over their largest competitor, with a bar in a "foodie" and service industry heavy city. That's some SUPER bad level lawyering/management.
Given some stories I saw here when open carry passed I can believe some of this. Someone here said the got a solicitation from sign companies wanting to put up the new 30.06 and 30.07 signs, and the sign cos we're basically selling them as a package and didn't know the difference. I can see there being some confusion between the two businesses operating in the same space.
Yes, other places that you can purchase Yeti products although there are fewer as they are losing retail space to
RTIC and many other knock off brands. Seems like everyone is getting into the cooler game.
RTIC and many other knock off brands. Seems like everyone is getting into the cooler game.
If the BARRRR's liquor license has the same address as the Yeti store, the 51% applies to the entire premises.Kenneth_2003 said:
Sounds to me like they are trying to back-track out of a PR pickle.
No way in frozen he__ are you going to convince me that their 3rd party concessionaire running the BAR (or BARRR) doesn't know the difference between TABC RED and BLUE signage.
Now they're raising an interesting question. They've gone with 51% as opposed to "unlicensed possession" for the bar. So is the bar 51% or not? Since the bar is run by a 3rd party, I suppose they can claim the revenue streams for the two entities are different so the bar would in fact be 51%. Otherwise their booze is as popular and equally (or more) expensive than their coolers.
Edit... If it is indeed a really bad lawyer, they've got equally bad bar managers. The signage really isn't all that difficult to understand. If this was a mom & pop operation opening up their first retail place swith Legalzoom representation I would understand. NO... This is a nationwide, multi-million dollar operation that just pulled off a nice legal victory over their largest competitor, with a bar in a "foodie" and service industry heavy city. That's some SUPER bad level lawyering/management.
This is how some of the larger concert venues in the state that are owned by political subdivisions are banning carry. They have a liquor vendor who gets 100% of its sales onsite so the entire venue is posted. The law needs to be fixed. IMO, 51% should only apply to the bar area in a multi use facility. The bar carry prohibition needs to go away entirely.
Quote:
The bar carry prohibition needs to go away entirely.
Thanks for the clarification... Didn't know about that little twist of the law.
I agree the bar prohibition needs to go away. Also, that's some terrible counsel that didn't know the proper signage. The bar owner alone should have known what the proper signage for their facility is. That signage is probably some of the simplest of TABC regulations.
I agree the bar prohibition needs to go away. Also, that's some terrible counsel that didn't know the proper signage. The bar owner alone should have known what the proper signage for their facility is. That signage is probably some of the simplest of TABC regulations.
Sounds like some skinny jean wearing hipster tried to get righteous in Austin and it backfired quickly...now they called in the good 'ol boys marketing dept for damage control.
So do we like YETI again?
Liberty.Poeag said:
Doesn't bother me, I'll still buy their product. It's a workplace too, I can't carry a gun at my job, why would I expect them to be different?
Featured Stories
See All
18:00
22h ago
7.8k
13:34
22h ago
1.3k
Our QB1 Stephen McGee remembers his NFL Draft experience
by David Nuño
2:07
1d ago
2.5k
Dave Grohl
No panic Edgerrin and other Aggies, Madubuike was drafted #71
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
58
Chandlauch
JACKSON APPEL - Aggie Baseball - Would You be Surprised???
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
39
agsalaska
JACKSON APPEL - Aggie Baseball - Would You be Surprised???
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
36
1/2 Man 1/2 Amazing
No panic Edgerrin and other Aggies, Madubuike was drafted #71
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
31
Rudyjax
JACKSON APPEL - Aggie Baseball - Would You be Surprised???
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
21
Rudyjax
JACKSON APPEL - Aggie Baseball - Would You be Surprised???
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
18
3rd Platoon
JACKSON APPEL - Aggie Baseball - Would You be Surprised???
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
16
Prosperdick
JACKSON APPEL - Aggie Baseball - Would You be Surprised???
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
14
5 Star Bag man
JACKSON APPEL - Aggie Baseball - Would You be Surprised???
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
12