jdub27

Looks like a good spot for a new library.

Unfortunately I think this might become the norm as it is inline with their strange conference scheduling from previous years.. And I would expect it won't be the only other sport where people aren't happy with the new scheduling pattern, but we'll see on that one.

Legacy of her nature? She chairs her family Foundation (and pulls salary well into the six figures for doing so). Continuous spirit of philanthropic donation? Recent tax returns and dealings with UNLV might show you're taking a few liberties on that. I'm also going to assume you don't work in the business world if you think that was a "shameful display of ungratefullness" nor do you have any understanding of how a relationship like UND and the REA works. MK also went out of his way in every single communication released through FOIA to explain how grateful and thankful UND was for the gifts. However, apparently standing up for what he perceived as wrongs against UND and working to fix them was just a step too far in his capacity running the actual University. Good on him for doing what it takes to make an important donor happy but I don't doubt he got what he felt was important out of the deal.

Not a huge fan of the conference set-up. Mainly Friday/Sunday games with a Wednesday, Tuesday and a Thursday scattered in. Last year every conference game was Thursday or Saturday except for a Friday night game against MSU before heading to UM the next day.

How exactly would the REA have an increased responsibility in managing a larger portion of the athletics budget? Currently they have zero responsibility outside of taking 52% of all ticket revenue as "rent", charging UND $247K for ticket office expenses and another $1.1 million in utilities, maintenance staff, phone service, all of which they used with minimal checks and balances to keep the REA running. I'm still confused why KEM feels the need to give out details of these meetings and negotiations to the press and on top of that is also scheduled to give an on camera interview within the next few days. Seems like there is a need to control the narrative when a simple "no comment" would be more than sufficient.

MK was a successful businessman and elected politician before venturing into academia, I think he's handled more than a few of similar situations with "investors" or "donors". I'm thinking he knew what he needed out of the meeting and walked away just fine with how it went.

Incredibly happy that someone who has professional aspirations and is also willing to stand up for UND when needed is running the university. You can have your status quo, they are a big part of what put UND square in line with some of the issues MK is trying to clean up. About time there is some forward thinking going on, even if it can be uncomfortable at times. There will be (and have been) hiccups, but it's unfortunate that some people can't see the big picture.

It's not a private entity, it's a non-profit, set up for the sole purpose of benefiting the public entity and on top of that, derives the majority of their income from the public entity (but still demands the same share of revenue while the public entity is seeing significant cuts). It's not as black and white as you want to make it seem. The REA can't "take their ball and go home" in any shape or form outside of future donations. While possibly significant, that is their only play at this point. I'm not defending some of the decision UND has made, particularly in regards to spending, but the concern about their being no checks and balances on how the REA spends some funds seems legitimate, particularly when the decisions directly impact. Isn't a big part of this whole argument UND trying to fix it's cash flow and become less of a train wreck? If the REA can't figure out a compromise, it's going to be a mess for everyone with no winners. The ideal situation is to have the contract extended and allow the current system to remain in place beyond the 30 year deadline. However if UND (rightly) feels like the REA isn't operating like they should, then it will be UND taking their ball and going home.

Well minus UND having to make huge cuts under state orders while the a member of the REA board throws a fit when they are asked to do the same by renegotiating an annually renewable contract....

Can't complain about the location or rink on this one, need to find something....

Since they usually play it as the Hall of Fame game to use the exemption status, I don't think they'd change the format.

How does selling that land for development play into this?

The "consensus" picked the nickname which is terribly bland and led to the logo. But everyone needed a voice...

Tough to do since UND isn't a member until 2020. I'm thinking with how easy it is to cut out chunks of turf, they should look at removing the Big Sky logos and selling some more ad space for the next two years. Just make a big jigsaw puzzle out of the whole thing.

The REA has given back nowhere near $2.3 million each year, that figure is how much UND has paid the REA as part of the revenue share agreement. It also does not include the $247K UND paid in box office fees or the $1.1 million in utilities, maintenance staff, phone service and other expenses. UND received $750K back last year after sending around $3.7 million to the REA. As to your other question, my guess is that football ticket revenue going to the REA is between $250-300K.

Considering it's a public facility, that seems fairly logical. It also makes it a bit different than the REA/BESC, which UND pays millions of dollars to be the sole tenant of.

Based on what? Are they redoing the turf or did they change the apparent sponsorship language? It's not like the court at the Betty or ice at the REA is scheduled to be redone anytime soon so it'd be simple to do. Or that those two arenas are the full-time homes for those UND programs instead of a renting tenant with no other affiliation.

Even if you don't start from scratch, they can apparently cost over $3 million. And that's only for 30 players.

The issue hasn't been lack of funds directed to the programs. There are also plenty of schools have more than one "successful" program. All a mere drop in the bucket compared to what was spent on the lawsuit that had zero returns unless you count negative publicity.

P5 school's with programs (or in conferences) that can demand massive TV revenue for their athletic department. Meanwhile, UND doesn't even keep half of it's own ticket revenue. One of these things is not like the other...

Why, is the Alerus center operating outside of their agreement with UND? And I don't think we've seen any proof that Kennedy threatened to pull any of the teams other some accusations and we've seen how accurate some of the comments have been thus far. If you can't figure out the difference between the relationships with the REA/UND and Alerus Center/UND, then I can't help you. To my knowledge, none of the conversations on the layout of the Alerus Center turf nor the sponsorship requirements that the Alerus Center and Altru required for their contribution to the new turf (though I fully agree that there should have been a logo at midfield like it is at Memorial). However we have been privy to a portion of the conversation in regards to the layout of the court at the BESC and it has nothing to do with sponsorship logos so I'm not sure why you're trying to make the comparison. Again, the Alerus Center isn't required to operate in the best interest of UND athletics. The REA/BESC is and completely ignored the court design preferred by the President, AD, every single coach who uses the BESC along with UND Marketing/Branding with zero reason (or at least any that they admitted to, not hard to read between the lines).

Straw man argument. The Alerus is not set up with the sole purpose to operate in the best interest of UND athletics, the relationship is nowhere near the same. Changing turf is also completely different than changing graphics on a court (that was scheduled to be done regardless) or stencils under ice. However I wouldn't be surpassed if it's on the turf before it's on the ice at the REA. That being said, they have done a hell of a lot more to incorporate the new logo than the REA, like putting it on the outside of the building. You'll have a better argument when the REA or BESC do something along those lines. I think they even have built in spots to place the when they finally get around to it.

Correct, it is my opinion. However it is based on that the athletic department saw significant cuts, yet apparently can't renegotiate their annual revenue split contract with their largest partner, who continues to take the same amount of money while providing for only certain programs within the department. There's no arguing that because of this, the football program has shouldered more burden since they don't see a direct benefit from the REA, yet give 52% of their ticket revenue to them.

The phrase "for the benefit of UND athletics" is literally the mission statement in the foundation documents for REA. Yes, the hockey team was always going to benefit from it the most, without question, however not to the point where it's at the expense of other programs.

Which has everything to do with with the $110 million gift given to support UND athletics. Without that gift, hockey isn't sitting anywhere near where it is today.