Sox want to sell beer in cans at Fenway

The Red Sox go before the Boston Licensing Board this week for permission to add cans to their repertoire of beer options at the lyric little bandbox this season.

In December, the board approved a Sox request to start selling beer in aluminum bottles - after Fenway officials assure the board that the bottles would be opened first and that, even if they were thrown, which they wouldn't be, of course, they would do no more damage to somebody's noggin than the cups of beer already available, because their wide mouths would spill beer in flight, making their impact that less damaging.

Previously, thirsty fans could only buy beer in plastic cups.

As with bottles, Sox officials will have to make the case for "the public need" for cans. In the bottle hearing, the Sox said the goal was not to make money, but to improve Fenway security, by speeding up beer sales and so reducing the number of fans in the old park's concourses at any one time.

Board hearings start at 10 a.m. in its eighth-floor hearing room in City Hall.



Free tagging: 


Does this mean Sankaty Light at Fenway? Harpoon Cans?

Please, oh please, no more Coors Light. Please? (I know all of Cisco's cans are from Albany, not Nantucket, but nevertheless).

I pretty please promise I won't hit some family from Wyoming trying to get see Fenway as part of their life dream to be in Section 6 in April and just soak up all that Field Of Dreams/Reverse The Curse/Gee Isn't It Great We Got To Go To Fenway Stadium and See A Game/Where is Manny tonight malarkey.

I might chuck a can at some dope from New Hampshire or Cultural New Hampshire; Dracut (See Previous Story) who is acting all tough, cause they are in the city, and that is how city people act. Represent.

At $9 a can, who is going to throw a beer anyway? It is cheaper to throw your child or a BU sophomore who is secretly a Mets fan instead.


My Vote

By on

My Vote is for Dale's Pale Ale!

There's actually a lot of great beer being put out in cans these days.

Here's hoping that Old Mil for $10/wack isn't the plan.

I'd rather pay $4 for a coke and dump a few smuggled airplane bottles of Captains in it anyway.

As a son of the Valley I have

By on

As a son of the Valley I have never heard of anyone refer to Dracut as cultural New Hampshire before, but I like it. Somerville with trees is still the best nickname though.


That was apparently used by someone who had never been to Somerville, right?

You rang?

By on

What is this "Somerville" you speak of?
Is it near Wyoming?

Gold, Jerry!

By on

We'll drive them all to Michigan and get dimes instead!



By on

Try Maine.

Nickel a beer in Maine

By on

It's still only a nickel a beer redemption in Maine, same as here. They have $0.15 redemption for some wine and liquor bottles though.

Safer too!

Less spilled beer on the floor, reducing opportunities for slips, though more empty cans to trip on. Less collateral damage when an excited fan jumps up. I can really understand the much greater efficiency of service in a cramped park without shopping mall concourses - its not like the beer is some craft brew lovingly nursed from a tap.

BTW: Australian for beer cans: tinnies.

As with bottles, Sox

By on

As with bottles, Sox officials will have to make the case for "the public need" for cans.

The Sox should hire Kevin Bacon to get the point across.

Great, great...

By on

I don't care what the form factor is...could they just do me a huge favor and bring it to my seat in the bleachers already??


Finally no more spilling

By on

Finally no more spilling beers on Sox fans while navigating the narrow steps.

- Not a Sox fan

This is the height of absurdity

By on

when a venue that already has a license to sell beer has to go before the Licensing Board to get permission to sell it in cans.

Mayor Walsh - do the businesses and the taxpayers of this City a big favor and start taking the necessary steps to eliminate this wasteful and pointless bureauracy as soon as possible.



By on

*hits anon over the head with a glass bottle to make a meandering point about alcohol regulatory authority*

Because an aluminum can

By on

is more hazardous than an alumimum bottle - right? And we really need an expensive and time consuming bureauracy to detemine whether or not peole can be trusted with glass bottles - not!


That would be sweet. All the

By on

That would be sweet. All the suburban drunk drivers could save taxpayers millions by demolishing the Bowker Overpass by crashing into it repeatedly 81 early mornings of the year.


Because, as we all know

By on

There are not any bars within walking distance of Fenway. No liquor stores, either.

With respect, I have a suggestion for you.

By on

Conclusively prove to us beyond a reasonable doubt that not allowing Red Sox management to sell beer after the 7th inning has directly led to a statistically significant decrease in the incidence of drunk drivers on game nights. Then I'll consider the practice of letting government forcing such decisions on business owners instead of letting the business owners make those decisions themselves.

It's time to ditch this outdated notion that proposed changes, however minor, are ALWAYS presumed to be inherently bad just because somebody insists it will be so. Especially when, as in this case of allowing somebody who already sells beer to sell it in cans (gasp - the world's about to end), those against change have no factual evidence to support their "claims".