Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum
jdub27

Kennedy vs. Engelstad Foundation: GF herald feature

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Oxbow6 said:

 

With what options UND has to work with as far as the logo and nickname this set up looks great IMO. Interlocking ND at center court would be the only possible upgrade.

The interlocking ND is retired.  Not coming back.  Not an option.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said:

With Ralph and the parties and the memorabilia.

Party or parties? He was a collector and he isn't the only collector to have something from history.  Doesn't make him a Nazi as you are insinuating.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, UND1983 said:

I agree, not going to lose sleep over it.  But, in this case it's only being used because REA won't incorporate the new logo.  If the new logo was "acceptable" by KM standards then it would be there, IMO.  
 

And that's the problem.  Should the decision of what logo is to be used at center court/ice be made my KM or the Engelstad Foundation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

The interlocking ND is retired.  Not coming back.  Not an option.  

Never quite understood that.  Many major college teams have a character logo of their nickname and alsoa "state" or "name" logo, like the interlocking ND. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

And that's the problem.  Should the decision of what logo is to be used at center court/ice be made my KM or the Engelstad Foundation?

Can we put it before 3 committees and have a couple public votes on this????

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

The interlocking ND is retired.  Not coming back.  Not an option.  

This was a complete knee jerk reaction to expunge everything and all things related to the Sioux controversy within that period of time.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Can we put it before 3 committees and have a couple public votes on this????

We apparently already have the three committees! And they have voted!  

*The committees are the Board of Directors of each of these, and their names are listed in the forms (on page 7 of each):
UND Arena Services  EIN: 14-1846178 
UND Sports Facilities EIN: 36-4511153 
Ralph Engelstad Arene EIN: 11-3666663
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, coachdags said:

Here is a question. 

If UND had complete fiscal responsibility for the last 18 years of the REA facilities, tickets, concessions, apparel, where would we be?

Here is my question.

If UND had been receiving 50% of all revenues from facilities, tickets, concessions and apparel, where would our budget situation for athletics be?

I say much better than it is now.

That arena is a big cash machine. And UND should start getting more of the revenues from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Form 990 for 2017 for REA-related organizations ....
UND Arena Services  EIN: 14-1846178 
UND Sports Facilities EIN: 36-4511153 
Ralph Engelstad Arene EIN: 11-3666663

UND Arena Services "mission or most significant activities": 
MANAGING AND PROVIDING STEWARDSHIP AND OVERSIGHT SERVICES WITH RESPECT TO THE OWNERSHIP, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ATHLETIC FACILITiES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT, AND ENGAGING IN ANY OTHER CHARITABLE, EDUCATIONAL, OR SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITY AS PERMITTED BY IRC SECTION 501(C)(3)

UND Arena Services made one Form 990 Schedule I grant last year to ... RE Arena Inc ... of $1,175,803. So one entity moved funds to another. 

UND Sports Facilities: TO MANAGE A SPORTS ARENA FOR THE BENEFIT OF UND SPORTS FACILITIES, INC

Ralph Engelstad Arena Inc: TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A MULTIPURPOSE SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT ARENA IN GRAND FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA, PRIMARILY
USED FOR UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA ATHLETICS AND ACTIVITIES

Ralph Engelstad Arena made monetary support to UND Athletics of $751,469 (Schedule A). Schedule R, Part V.2 shows business transactions between the various entities (UND AS, RE Arena, UND). 

And now it seems there's a FOURTH entity (as found in the RE Arena 990, Schedule R, Part I: ARENA HOLDINGS CHARITABLE LLC 

ARENA HOLDINGS CHARITABLE LLC: THIS SINGLE MEMBER LLC OWNS THE RE ARENA AND IS THE LESSEE OF THE LAND

 

I can't seem to find a Form 990 for ARENA HOLDINGS CHARITABLE which seems odd given the name. However, I can find litigation they were involved in after the arena fire a couple years back (and some other cases). 

Share this post


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

Kris, you're absorbing all these costs with UND's money!!  You personally have never contributed anything to REA, and the Engelstad Foundation is not making annual contributions to support the REA.  It's not your money, it's money you are taking from UND that is being used to pay for everything. 

I'll give her partial credit, the REA does a good job in bringing in outside revenue with other events, however the greater point is that UND is helping generating a large portion of that revenue still stands and she seems to ignore that. And it isn't that UND hasn't benefited from the relationship, they obviously have greatly, but any outside observer sees the absurdity in some of these comments. The frustrating thing is that even if Kennedy and UND are right (and by what has come out, I'd argue they are), they still lose overall. However Kennedy is doing his job and it's tough to fault him for that, especially considering nothing is guaranteed in the future outside of the current agreement turning the REA over to UND in 2030 as it reads right now.

Share this post


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

The KEM media tour continues....
http://www.valleynewslive.com/content/misc/Kris-Eng-482606541.html

The horror that UND has cut back on money the hockey team has gotten. It's almost like they are part of the athletic department and a University that faced significant cuts.

Then there is this gem:

So why is the agreement renewed annually if there is nothing to be renegotiated? And the original agreement is what is sitting on his desk, not the framework of an agreement that was negotiated over 10 months with management and members of the REA and its board, which the whole REA Board turned around and rejected. I also think KEM needs to look into where the revenue from the REA comes from and take a look at what the REA charges UND directly services provided. Safe to say a large portion of the revenues and cash flow that UND should jsut sit back and collect are tied to and generated by UND athletics either directly or indirectly.

Wait, are you trying to convince me that the REA makes money because of UND athletics?  Poppycock!!! ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the outside of athletics entertainment that comes to the Ralph, UND still gets a portion of, correct? If so, UND needs to check itself. The buildings themselves didn't come out of UND's budget, the land didn't come out of UND's budget. While their is an agreement in place for the university to take over eventually, they have not yet. While Kris never should have gone to the media, and likely should have worked with UND a little more in the floor design, we're still essentially talking about a privately built building and enterprise that is allowing the university to use the facilities, and then donates the money made back to the university. I guess I'm saying there is a lot of pig headedness to go around for all parties, and they are both pretty guilty of having a male member measuring contest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, snova4 said:

So the outside of athletics entertainment that comes to the Ralph, UND still gets a portion of, correct? If so, UND needs to check itself. The buildings themselves didn't come out of UND's budget, the land didn't come out of UND's budget. While their is an agreement in place for the university to take over eventually, they have not yet. While Kris never should have gone to the media, and likely should have worked with UND a little more in the floor design, we're still essentially talking about a privately built building and enterprise that is allowing the university to use the facilities, and then donates the money made back to the university. I guess I'm saying there is a lot of pig headedness to go around for all parties, and they are both pretty guilty of having a male member measuring contest. 

UND owns the land. And the whole thing was set up to operate in the best interest of UND and it's athletics program. That's literally their mission statement. Calling the REA a private enterprise is also misleading as it is set up as a non-profit (enjoying significant tax breaks) with UND as it's sole financial beneficiary. And UND doesn't just "use" the facilities, they pay 52% of all ticket revenue to the REA as "rent" and also pay the REA for some other services.

As for what is given back to UND, they only gets whatever is determined to be "leftover" at the end of the year from all sources of cash flow and that number is a very highly subjective number, which I'm assuming is decided by the REA Arena BoD. 

The ability for the REA to book more of these outside events due to increased arena availability is part of the reason UND has asked for a change in the UND ticket revenue split, they are using the arena less and the REA should in turn have to lean less on UND's ticket revenue to operate as they can bring in more outside revenue. That seems pretty logical.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

UND owns the land. And the whole thing was set up to operate in the best interest of UND and it's athletics program. That's literally their mission statement. Calling the REA a private enterprise is also misleading as it is set up as a non-profit (enjoying significant tax breaks) with UND as it's sole financial beneficiary. And UND doesn't just "use" the facilities, they pay 52% of all ticket revenue to the REA as "rent" and also pay the REA for some other services.

As for what is given back to UND, they only gets whatever is determined to be "leftover" at the end of the year from all sources of cash flow and that number is a very highly subjective number, which I'm assuming is decided by the REA Arena BoD. 

The ability for the REA to book more of these outside events due to increased arena availability is part of the reason UND has asked for a change in the UND ticket revenue split, they are using the arena less and the REA should in turn have to lean less on UND's ticket revenue to operate as they can bring in more outside revenue. That seems pretty logical.

Would that new ticket revenue from other events not find it's way back to UND in the end?  I was under the understanding that someone else owned the land and it is nothing more than a hundred year lease for $1, and UND paid that lease. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She is making is this way simpler than it really is.  That was a "D2 days" agreement.  Things have changed GREATLY on campus and she is well aware of that but refusing to acknowledge it.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, snova4 said:

Would that new ticket revenue from other events not find it's way back to UND in the end?  I was under the understanding that someone else owned the land and it is nothing more than a hundred year lease for $1, and UND paid that lease. 

Maybe, if UND knew that the REA didn't use it for other things and thus create "expense".  How does UND know what they are doing to operate efficiently?  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, snova4 said:

Would that new ticket revenue from other events not find it's way back to UND in the end?  I was under the understanding that someone else owned the land and it is nothing more than a hundred year lease for $1, and UND paid that lease. 

Assuming the events are profitable and those funds aren't held back in reserve or to cover expenses they would be included in the funds that go back to UND, however all of these numbers appear to be subjective to various degrees. But increased revenue that can be attributed to more availability for events because of less facility use by UND seems to argue that the usage contract between the two should be renegotiated. The REA can use revenue from those events to cover more of their costs and UND can keep more of their ticket revenue upfront instead of waiting/hoping to get it on the back-end.

UND owns all of the land from 6th Ave N to Gateway Dr (north to south) and Columbia Rd to the back of the lots on Boyd Dr (east to west). This includes the land underneath all of the townhomes and commercial buildings to the north and commercial space to the east.

 

  • Upvote 1

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


×