jdub27

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.

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.