jdub27

I can probably find the actual terms later but here's a decade old article showing NDSU and the Fargodome having a disagreement in rent (sound familiar?) but NDSU absolutely pays rent for their use of the Fargodome. http://www.inforum.com/content/rent-revenue-sharing-issue-ndsu-lease-fargodome And as already stated, one of the biggest parts of Phase 2 is the locker room and coaches offices. Though i don't disagree with your solution to the issue.

Are you on the IAC? Yes, those things can happen but only under the circumstances. 1)They increase ticket revenue (which football did last season but 52% went to the REA). 2)UND renegotiates with their partners which is what Kennedy is trying to do. 3)A combination of the previous two. NDSU pays rent to the Fargodome just like UND pays rent to the Alerus (though more, since UND use the Alerus less). I'm not sure how one can rip on the idea of new locker rooms for the football team while not even acknowledging the money spent on the hockey locker rooms which are 70+ years newer and "needed" a $3 million plus renovation to remain competitive. But your comments, I assume you haven't seen the new hockey locker rooms. It's about as close to gold plated jock straps as you'll get.

I would imagine there are programs on campus who feel very similar from time to time.

I'd be willing to guess many of the "anti-hockey" people actually hold season tickets to and support the hockey program. However pointing out the disparities in how programs are viewed and supported is done to try to show that just because things are running smoothly with the hockey team (mainly because of some very gracious support from an outside donor) does not mean that programs or the overall relationship with the REA is operating in the best interest of UND or its athletic department (which again, is the mission of the RE Arena and basis for its non-profit status).

I don't know the breakdown, however yes, a large majority came from private donations, including the Engelstads. However there were at least some REA resources used for some portions of it in whatever capacity. The point was that the argument that things like locker room doesn't matter help or matter for recruiting for one team but is so important another needs to spend a significant amount of money on it doesn't hold water. Also, I think you're underestimating how much the UND alumni football player endowment is and how much they raise annually to contribute to the athletic department. If you were to take Mr. Engelstad out of the equation (an obvious game changer), I think the football team alumni would be leaps and bounds ahead of where the hockey team is. I'll let some former players speak to that since they have a much better idea. The hockey program is where it is because of the largest gift to an athletic department at NCAA history (at the time), which was mainly for the hockey team but was set up to benefit the entire athletic department and has apparently started to stray further and further from that. I mean, what does that make them in your eyes? They are at the top because of what someone else did, they didn't earn the REA through their own work (ticket revenues).

Parts of them are borderline condemnable. Great view for recruits. At least they finally got new lockers to put in them, slap a little lipstick on that pig. Tough to make the argument that stuff like that doesn't matter when the hockey team literally made that exact argument on why they needed to spend the (semi-private) money to renovate their locker room to make sure they keep up with rival programs.

RE Arena, Inc. expensed $1.1 million to UND for utilities, maintenance staff, phone service and other expenses. So whatever that includes I guess?

Correct, however UND paid them $247,000 last year for that along with an additional $1.1 million in other expenses, on top of the ticket revenue split.

Can you give me one way the current usage agreement with the REA is beneficial to the football program? They pay rent at the Alerus Center and give 52% of their ticket revenue to the REA. Plus I think they get dinged for some of the expenses to run the HPC. The REA has a lot of money in reserves, I'm having a hard time buying that they continue to need football ticket revenue or that they ever should have to begin with. I concede the basketball program is benefiting but it's fair to point out the exposure potential is greater than anything on campus and it's not really close.

Indeed.

Guessing there is one more guard leaving, likely looking at the JuCo route for next season. If accurate, I stand corrected on my previous assumption.

Here is 2017's information: Note that this is an oversimplification The REA got $2.4 million in revenue, another $769,000 in advertising revenue, $247,000 for box office revenue and charged UND another $1.1 million to UND for other expenses, so basically earned $4.5 million in revenue related to UND (not including concessions/merchandise shop/etc). UND got $2.2 million in ticket revenue, $432,000 in advertising revenue and $750,000 in "extra revenue". Net effect, UND saw $3.4 million in revenues before paying the REA $1.3 million for a net of around $2 million. I'm having a hard time with the $1.1 million charged to UND for "utilities, maintenance staff, phone service and other expenses" without knowing all the details behind it. Seems like that should be covered in the "rent" payment. That is separate from the REA getting a cut of football ticket revenue. Even if these numbers are close, I can see why UND is asking for the contract to be looked at. This also paints a bit of a different picture than what KEM made it look like when she said UND should sign the usage agreement and sit back and collect their check. UND is doing plenty of heavy lifting.

Why is any football ticket revenue going to the REA? I can see MBB/WBB/VB due to the BESC, but feel free to explain the football part. The revenue split It is also part of the ongoing negotiations, so the fight isn't all about the logo, it's about the bigger picture that the REA is supposed to operate in the best manner to support UND athletics (note that the term used and it isn't men's ice hockey) and the President is saying they aren't. Tough to argue with him given the information that is currently available. How many years did UND hockey "stand for themselves" before getting a $110 million gift?

While I won't argue that money hasn't been misspent along the way, there is no chance that anyone saw the multiple rounds of budget cuts to the degree that were required. His "implication to sue" was simply to remind the RE BoD that the RE Arena Inc is to operate in a way that is most beneficial to the University of North Dakota as the sole financial beneficiary. They are literally required by the their bylaws to do so and pointing out that he feels they might not be doing that seems like a fair comment to make. The Engelstad Foundation is free to do as they please (and MK literally went out of his way in every e-mail to thank them and show gratitude for what they have done), however the REA does not have that latitude to have free reign to do as they please.

Again, which nickname did you vote for?

Also, which nickname was it you voted for since your top choice wasn't an option but your second choice was....?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'd be curious to see the mock-up UND prepared. Surprised it isn't out there somewhere as it was attached to the emails that were sent. Hey @RobPort, anyway to see some of those attachments? I agree that the mock-up shown isn't bad at all, however that literally isn't the point at all. The President, AD and every coach who uses the building wanted to logo at center court. I'm assuming they saw the mock-up and supported it.

What do you mean you don't "accept it"? Like you just pretend reality isn't happening all around you and all the FH logos you see are part of some alternate world that you're dropping by in? You pretend that the settlement never happened, the FS nickname and logo was never retired and the items that they still sell with the FS logo don't have "Dacotah Legacy Collection" on them? I'm very curious on how one chooses not to accept reality.

Yes, some student athletes who were in junior high or middle school the last time UND was known as the Fighting Sioux somehow have an emotional attachment to an inanimate deity. And yet that team with a "certain distinction" couldn't hang a green banner while proudly wearing the most recent (and treasured) version of that logo that means so much to them.

Comparing changing the logo on turf (that is sewn in, not painted on) is not an apt comparison to ice (changed out every year) or basketball/volleyball courts (changed out every few years in not more often and currently scheduled to be replaced this year). Especially when the Alerus Center has made significant strides in trying to incorporate the logo, including a large display of it on the outside. How about this: if the REA takes down the Brien logo and puts up the FH logo, people can't complain about what is or isn't the ice or court. Then we have a closer comparison to the situation with the Alerus Center.

Not a guess anymore, the strategic plan outlines it and I believe they are making the request for the building in the next biennium.