jdub27

Actually yes they do. The foundational documents require the facilities to "be managed in a manner that best serves UND's needs". Repeat, this is the document that governs how the REA is to operate. Kennedy further references this by stating UND is the landlord and sole beneficiary of the financial results of the REA. Kennedy isn't making things up as he goes, he is backed up by the foundation's governing documents.

So you're saying people should just move on once minds have been made up and decisions aren't going to change? Interesting stance to take considering the crowd...

Represent? No. But they definitely have a much better pulse on what is actually best for the University. Almost like it's their job or something.

No. They had the vote after hearing what Kennedy had to say (multiple times) ignoring what the President, Athletic Director, Coaches and multiple operations people stated was in the best interest of UND. Kennedy had clearly expressed his point of view before March 28, when JH sent him an e-mail stating that KEM didn't want the logo. Kennedy responded on 3/30 detailing he was disappointed in this and further reiterated that the logo at center court was in the best interest of UND and attaches further supporting documents. Bill Chaves also responds backing this stance. JH responded he would pass on the information. JH sent an email on 4/20 saying that design work was in process but he thought the board was going to use the script instead of the logo regardless of whether it's actually in the best interest of UND and would contact him on 4/23 to discuss further (no final decision had yet been made). Kennedy sends an e-mail to multiple people on 4/25 regarding JH's previous e-mail, stating his disappointment and furthering his stance that the REA is not following their mission of operating in the best interest of UND On 4/27, someone from the Engelstad Foundation responds the decision has already been made. The attachment includes a document titled "Betty Court Design - April 26 2018", indicating that was the date the design was finalized. Kennedy didn't go on any tirade after the final decision was made (or at least none that has been made public). If reminding KEM and the REA Board of Directors what their mission statement is pisses them off, then maybe it's time some of them are replaced. Tough to have a partnership when the entity who is supposed to be supporting another entity doesn't bother to listen in what ways they think the best way for that support to be employed is and instead operate on their own feelings.

That's your take or are you just trying to stir the pot again? Kennedy and UND proposed how they would like to see the court redone since the whole building is done for the benefit of UND athletics (per signed contract). He included supporting documentation showing that the Athletic Director, Operations, Marketing and every head coach who plays in the facility also wanted to see that. On top of that, he included actual reasons why putting the logo at center court helps them and how not having it there could be harmful. The response was "too bad, we already approved what we wanted even though we know you don't support it". No reason given other than the preference of one person because well, I guess she just doesn't like the logo (but remember the Herald said it had nothing to do with the nickname!!). On top of that, people, including Jody Hodgson, Jeff Cooper (Engelstad Foundation Trustee) and James Waddoups (attorney who has worked with the Engelstads), spent 10 months coming up with a revised framework for the Usage Agreement and the REA Board promptly rejected it. Yeah, Kennedy, standing up for his athletic department and operating in their best interests of the University he runs is what blew this out of proportion, not the person who decided they didn't like a logo and responded by running to the local paper to get their side of the story out and make all of this public. For years people complained about not having a President who actually stood up for things, now that's all people can complain about.

Wow....The REA and it's board decided to design the court how they wanted to instead of taking input from the UND President, Athletic Director and every coach who plays in the Betty because they didn't want the Fighting Hawk at center court. Kennedy calls them out and says they aren't acting in the best interest of the University of North Dakota, which puts them in violation of the governing documents of the relationship. There is also a small blurb about the Usage Agreement, reinforcing that it remains unsigned and there are disagreements on it from both sides. There was a negotiated framework presented to the REA board in February that they rejected even though Jody Hodgson and some others representing the REA helped put it together. I guess there's no argument anymore on whether or not the REA is intentionally dragging their feet and intentionally not incorporating the new logo. And KEM's comments about it not being about the nickname seem to ring pretty hollow, especially considering JH relayed that she specifically stated she wanted to brand the floor of the BESC with the wordmark and not the logo. Not a good light shed on the REA or KEM, no wonder they went on the attack first. Assuming as soon as they heard about the open records request, they new they needed to do some damage control. Kennedy also goes out of his way in every e-mail to express gratitude for the gifts give by the Engelstads.

Your second post literally contradicts your first post. Yes, the absolute final say was Ed's, however there was input on the design and narrowing it down, along with opinions given on the final decision from people besides him.

I assumed that was a given, but yes, it plays into it. But much easier to do when you can hide behind calling him "arrogant".

Well at least the Herald finally put their grudge out into the open. At least the bias they have in their articles going forward will be able to be pointed out and expect the majority of the coverage going forward to reflect this negative stance. Shame on him for taking a stance on buildings that fell into nearly $10 million in disrepair under previous administrations' watch.

I want to point out that how much "extra money" given back to UND at the end of the year is likely the issue. The REA can designate as much funds as they want to be held back before giving what is "leftover", meaning they can hold back more than what others think is fair or prudent for their own use, which isn't necessarily what is best for UND athletics as a whole. UND would like to control that stream of funds a little more from their end, which is more than a fair stance to take considering they are using the building less and have freed up more weekends for the REA to generate revenue from outside sources. UNDBIZ also made a good point in that the REA has not shared in the budget crunch that UND has (again, partially by design), but they have an opportunity to help out, since the REA exists for the betterment of UND athletics, and it appears they are taking an issue with that.

I was there this weekend and thought the bread was fine. Not as light as it previously was but I thought it was still good. YMMV though.

I believe this to be pretty accurate. The REA intentionally operates outside the UND budget for multiple reasons. Some are beneficial, some not as much, some in a gray area depending on a various factors. Extra money taken in is given back to UND at the end of the year, though they obviously keep a reserve account for upkeep and upgrades mostly at the board's discretion. I don't necessarily think any of the programs are being shortchanged because of the arrangement, however I think the athletic department as a whole has had to lean a bit more on institutional funds due to uncertainty and inconsistent dollar amounts coming back from the REA. There's probably an argument that some upgrades in the REA could have been money spent elsewhere (outside of private donations) which UND would be able to make the decision on with a different revenue split. I think some people are taking the issue a little too far on placing blame and claiming it is the reason for the downfall of other sports, though with how things were stirred up with a lot of unknown details that still haven't been made clear, that is bound to happen. My thought is there is some negotiations going on currently on issues that were previously signed off on with no second thought because the arrangement was working for both parties. UND now would like a little more control over funds and see them flow in a different way to help their budget.

While Ed had the final say, his voice was far from the only one heard. Again, they tried to please too many people.

My understanding is that the Supreme Court just shifted the burden to the state's, so any state that wants to have betting needs to set up their own regulations. Some have already made some steps and New Jersey is at the point where they could be up and running in a few weeks. So basically up to the ND legislature to make laws regarding it next time they meet.

People (including yourself if I remember correctly) have already complained about funds spent on the new nickname and logo and now your'e saying they didn't spend enough? Though I suppose being fluid in your position makes it easier to criticize.

Amazing SME has managed to keep the doors open let alone continue to pick up national contracts with some pretty impressive brands.

Not exactly sure how that could ever happen. UND had a master lease that keeps them in the building until they take ownership, they own the land the building sits on and unless there is significant subsidies, they are needed as a tenant to keep the lights on.

I mean, over 30 years, we are talking millions of dollars, which would go a long way. Not saying it's more than what UND maybe might possibly get in the future from the Engelstad's but KEM made it clear she has no ties to the school so there are no guarantees. And again, the contract is reviewed and renewed annually. With the current budget situation and UND using the REA less, I'm not sure why people think Kennedy is in the wrong for wanting to renegotiate it, especially when he said he was going to do exactly that.

Absolutely false. The article specifically stated she reached out to the Herald and requested a sit down interview. And what friends does she have at the Herald? She made it clear she doesn't have ties here.

Probably because UND wasn't having huge budget issues so there was no need to revisit it and everyone just signed off. A new contract is supposed to be signed every year.

The Betty is being repaid exactly as it should, which is through the revenue share of UND and the REA plus operating profits from other events. The revenue share is supposed to be revisited every year. There is a decade plus old article out there with Jody Hodgson saying exactly that if you don't believe it.

It's almost like the revenue split contract is reviewed and then renewed every year....it just hasn't changed for a for a while and now it's being brought up. Oh wait, that's exactly what is happening.

Also should point out that the usage agreement is supposed to be updated yearly on the revenue split, however it has been approved as-is for a significant period of time with no changes (if not since inception). I guess Kennedy asking for an update to that is causing the issues.

I guess it depends on which entity you want to look at (probably the first one) but these are the most recent board members/officers listed. UND Arena Services, Inc - Managing and providing stewardship and oversight services with respect to the ownership, operation and maintenance of athletic facilities for the benefit of the Unviersity of North Dakota Athletic Department, and engaging in any other charitable, educations, or scientific activity as permitted by IRC Section 501 (C)(3) Jeff Cooper, President Aron Anderson, Vice President Kris McGarry, Secretary/Treasurer Earl Strinder, Director Greg Gerloff, Director Robert Peabody, Director Alice Brekke, Director Michael Bergeron, CFO UND Sports Facilities, Inc - To operate and maintain a multipurpose sports and entertainment arena in Grand Forks, ND, primarily used for University of North Dakota athletics and activities Earl Strinden, President Aron Anderson, Secretary/Treasurer Alice Brekke, Vice President Jody Hodgson, General Manager Michael Bergeron, CFO RE Arena Inc - To manage a sports arena for the benefit of UND Sports Facilities, Inc Jody Hodgson, President Kris McGarry, Vice President Jeffrey Cooper, Treasurer Aron Anderson, Director Earl Strinden, Secretary Michael Bergeron, CFO

Two main points to make: The sports that use (used) the REA (MIH, WIH, MBB, WBB, VB) all made sense to include in the ticket revenue split since that is what is considered "rent". Obviously MIH carries the majority of that weight and subsidize some of the other users of the facility, which is fine. However the loss of WIH had minimal impact to ticket revenue stream that was split and has provided the REA with 5-6 extra weekends per year to book other events they didn't have prior and cut down on staffing costs, which they were losing money on due to lack of attendance at those events. UND is using the facility less overall. Renegotiating the contract because of that change is very logical. I'm not sure why football ticket revenue was ever included in the agreement, particularly when UND is billed separately for ticket administration services provided by the REA. There's absolutely no arguing the REA has been a net positive for UND. The relationship is intentionally convoluted, mainly for tax purposes and allowing the REA to do some things UND would not be able to. That being said, re-looking at how things have been operating isn't a bad thing and there are some changes that likely should be made.