Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum
jdub27

Kennedy vs. Engelstad Foundation: GF herald feature

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

I suppose you would also counsel a battered wife to stay with her abuser, because he gave her a really nice wedding ring 20 years ago?

Wow...

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

Oh.........and it sounds like someone, possibly Kennedy or UND1983, forgot to tell the Engelstad Foundation that UND doesn't need their "Sioux" money cause donations have never been higher since the nickname was retired.

Weak, El Zagel.  Weak.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why the hell would Kennedy want to move Basketball and Volleyball? Where would he move them to? Whats the point? Doesn't he have bigger fish to fry (or jobs to apply for) than where basketball is playing?

I feel like the article was lacking a little depth as to the backstory of the issue between Engelstad and Kennedy. There was more in there about Engelstad stating her position on the name and logo, than about the actual issues between her and Kennedy. That being said, I am becoming less and less impressed with Mark Kennedy, and would not mind if another school like "UCF" wanted to come in and try to get him out of Grand Forks. Having/Creating bad relations with top donors is stupid, plain and simple.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Blackheart said:

Are you 100% sure of that?  Maybe the REA will change their mind...not likely but who knows?

How exactly do you propose they do that other than a messy legal battle that likely doesn't end in their favor? The contracts that turn it over were signed decades ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, siouxfan512 said:

Maybe I'm missing something here, but why the hell would Kennedy want to move Basketball and Volleyball? Where would he move them to? Whats the point? Doesn't he have bigger fish to fry (or jobs to apply for) than where basketball is playing?

I feel like the article was lacking a little depth as to the backstory of the issue between Engelstad and Kennedy. There was more in there about Engelstad stating her position on the name and logo, than about the actual issues between her and Kennedy. That being said, I am becoming less and less impressed with Mark Kennedy, and would not mind if another school like "UCF" wanted to come in and try to get him out of Grand Forks. Having/Creating bad relations with top donors is stupid, plain and simple.

Does UND pay separate rent for the Betty or is it lumped into the rent for the REA? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

That article, which needs to be pointed out was requested by the Engelstad's, seems like a whole lot of nothing. They are unhappy UND wants to renegotiate the revenue split, which seems like a reasonable request given the change in usage. 

Donations to the Alumni Foundation go from 7 figures to 5 figures in that past couple of years........yup nothing to see here.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

Donations to the Alumni Foundation go from 7 figures to 5 figures in that past couple of years........yup nothing to see here.

But it’s all Kennedy’s fault that they gave more to a club hockey team than to Ralph’s Alma mater? I know the GFH paints Kennedy as the bad guy in this he said she said so it must be true.:silly:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not understanding why Kennedy is against the REA spending 800K on a new roof for the Betty. It currently leaks constantly. It's not UND $, it's Engelstad $ paying for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is disturbing regardless of who you believe. It’s just bad PR and not good for our university. This could have a bad ripple effect for other possible donors. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, crb1 said:

This is disturbing regardless of who you believe. It’s just bad PR and not good for our university. This could have a bad ripple effect for other possible donors. 

100% agree. Lots of questions like, what was wrong with the contract that is agreed every year since 2001. Why threaten something like pulling teams out of the Betty. Now with budget cuts again from Burgum the school has to chop more things (athletic or academic). Can we ever have a peaceful offseason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sprig said:

Not understanding why Kennedy is against the REA spending 800K on a new roof for the Betty. It currently leaks constantly. It's not UND $, it's Engelstad $ paying for it.

I suppose he thinks that 800k could go to the university instead of their properties. Makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading that, combined with Kennedy's other transgressions, I would say his days are numbered.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say from a journalistic standpoint, I believe the Herald did a poor job at best of presenting a full story.

That being said.... "Mr. Kennedy your 9am appointment is here"....

 

 

tenor.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

Donations to the Alumni Foundation go from 7 figures to 5 figures in that past couple of years........yup nothing to see here.

The Foundation made a pledge in 2011 and fulfilled that. They didn't give anything beyond that, which predates Kennedy by multiple years.

Really wondering what the motive is here. Calling the Herald and flying in for a sit-down? She also seems to be making thinly veiled threats of her own:

Quote

She told the Herald she has no interest right now in funding capital projects at UND and made a point to note that her father was the family's sole alumnus of the school. Her mother, Betty Engelstad, didn't graduate from UND and McGarry is an alumna of UNLV.


If Kennedy is right and there are some discrepancies in the the current arrangement which are negatively benefiting UND, then trying to right that is his job. Let's not forget the actual arrangement between UND and the REA as it sits today and remember UND is now using the facility less by dropping WIH (which both the REA and UND were losing money on):

Quote

RE Arena Inc. manages, operates and maintains an arena known as the Ralph Engelstad Arena (REA), which was constructed in 2001 for the benefit of UND Athletics. UND and RE Arena Inc. enter into an operating agreement. The operating agreement sets forth the facility usage, fees and services, ticket administration and revenue allocation, sponsorship sales administration and revenue allocation, and net income disposition. In accordance with this agreement (1) RE Arena Inc. collects all ticket revenue from ticketed UND athletic events (men’s and women’s hockey, football, men’s and women’s basketball, and volleyball), RE Arena Inc. retains 52 percent of such ticket revenue and remits 48 percent to UND; and (2) If RE Arena Inc. collects sponsorship sales revenue from UND athletic events at the arena, RE Arena Inc. retains 64 percent of such sponsorship revenue, net of direct costs, and remits 36 percent to UND. In addition, UND and RE Arena recognize the mutual benefit by UND Athletics and REA in collaborating on marketing and sales functions for the UND enterprise.

 

Here are the details on last year's financials between the two entities:

Quote

In fiscal year 2017, gross tickets sales were $4.6 million of which RE Arena, Inc. recognized revenue of $2.4 million with a net due to UND $2.2 million. Gross ticket sales for the next athletic season year are recorded in deferred revenue at gross by RE Arena, Inc. for a total of $2.7 million.

RE Arena, Inc. recognized net sponsorship (advertising) revenue of $769,000 and the net due UND in sponsorship (advertising) income of $432,000.

RE Arena, Inc. recognizes box office revenue on a cost reimbursement basis, for ticket facility fees, credit card fees and payment plan fees and expenses. The total cost that the UND Athletic Department reimbursed RE Arena, Inc. for managing and administering the box office on their behalf was $247,000.

In addition, RE Arena, Inc. allocated $750,000 of net income to the UND Athletic Department for the year ended May 31, 2017.

RE Arena, Inc. expensed $1.1 million to UND for utilities, maintenance staff, phone service and other expenses.

At the end of the fiscal year RE Arena, Inc. owes UND $813,000 for the annual operating agreement and monthly services. UND owes RE Arena, Inc. $55,000 for box office income for the same period.

 

You think the Herald would have bothered to put some of this out there considering it is the basis for the strained relationship.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One must also forget how rea sticks it’s neck on line for Und to host regionals and hall of fame games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, sprig said:

Not understanding why Kennedy is against the REA spending 800K on a new roof for the Betty. It currently leaks constantly. It's not UND $, it's Engelstad $ paying for it.

Better question is why does a facility that is still a year or two away from being 15 years old have such a leaky roof? Seems like there is more to that than the Herald went into because it doesn't add up.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oxbow6 said:

I mostly enjoy your witty/clever posts but this one is "moronic". 

What's "moronic" is blindly supporting the Engelstads based on nothing but past generosity, and dismissing wholesale Kennedy's selected negotiation tactic without even the slightest understanding of what has been said or what is on the table.  If someone with an in-depth knowledge of the current deal and the parties' respective proposals and the economic impact on UND of each wants to go out on a limb and call Kennedy a moron, I'll listen.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

I suppose you would also counsel a battered wife to stay with her abuser, because he gave her a really nice wedding ring 20 years ago?

Crosses a big line.

Saying things like this really trivializes how terrible and evil spouse abuse is.

Lets find a different way to express your issues and resentment towards the hockey team/REA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Big Lubowski said:

I don’t have any idea what the true story is here but it should be pointed out that McGarry is also doing battle with UNLV, her alma mater, and has rescinded their $14m donation to the Med school there because the president was “pushed out.” I understand big donors have significant influence, and that college presidents and governing boards can all be very obtuse, but how much control and influence do we want non-elected individuals to have with state run institutions? 

The fact that McGarry requested this interview tells me she intended to throw a grenade here, and hopes to get a certain result—-Kennedy gone, or Kennedy more agreeable to what she proposes. 

Again, I don’t know much about Kennedy, or his abilities, but these tactics by McGarry seem pretty strong-armed. They really put Kennedy in a difficult position. 

The Ralph donation wasn’t a contract with the devil, but UND certainly sold its soul to a certain extent, and it has to be somewhat frustrating for a college President not to have full control of its major sports—hockey, and men’s & womens b-ball.

 

Wow, thanks for the info about UNLV, had no idea. 

 

This is McGarry's "Dear Chuck" moment.  It appears that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

What's "moronic" is blindly supporting the Engelstads based on nothing but past generosity, and dismissing wholesale Kennedy's selected negotiation tactic without even the slightest understanding of what has been said or what is on the table.  If someone with an in-depth knowledge of the current deal and the parties' respective proposals and the economic impact on UND of each wants to go out on a limb and call Kennedy a moron, I'll listen.  

It was your analogy that was used.................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Frozen4sioux said:

Crosses a big line.

Saying things like this really trivializes how terrible and evil spouse abuse is.

Lets find a different way to express your issues and resentment towards the hockey team/REA.

Here's an analogy for the soft crowd:

Let's say you've been renting a home. After 18 years, you hit some hard times. You ask the landlord for some help. Maybe rent forgiveness, maybe reduced rent, maybe renegotiate the lease entirely. After all, you've been a good tenant.

The landlord says no. How do you respond? Frustration? Anger? Fight back? Move out? Bite the bullet and stay?

Sprinkle in some new facts:

1. The home cost > $100MM, was custom built for you, and becomes yours in 12 years.

2. The landlord is a non-profit corporation set up almost entirely for your benefit.

3. Your proposals are objectively reasonable, and do not cause the landlord any grievous economic harm.

Does your response change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×