NoiseInsideMyHead

So that's license to abuse and take advantage in perpetuity? Sorry, not buying it. I got railed for my battered wife reference a few days ago, but your attitude is what reinforces it for me.

Not trying to be too insensitive, but is it okay to bring the sticks inside yet?

I'm willing to bet you're not nearly as emotionally invested in your clients' businesses. Changes things a little bit. Not saying you're not entitled to an opinion, but the FH logo did garner some high praise from unbiased sources. I'm too lazy to look, but it ranked pretty highly on a well-regarded, published list of new designs.

Status quo is a powerful tool, and the path of zero resistance. It's one thing to tweak numbers here and there each year; it's another thing entirely to reconstruct the math. Kennedy played the renegotiation card (probably the first time it's ever been played) and look where it's gotten him. Kelley, having presided over years of ND prosperity and loose cash, didn't want to exercise the nuclear option so late in his tenure, so it fell to Kennedy. Depending on the net gain to UND if the gambit ultimately works, a little PR smudge may be a small price to pay. One that will be forgotten over time, accelerated by a period of financial stability and athletic successes. The jury is still out (for me, at least) as to whether the risk was worth it. Engelstads can do with their money whatever they want. Thin-skinned philanthropists are a curious breed.

It may have been ugly. But the truth is often ugly, and painful. The real question, was it effective?

Here's an analogy for the soft crowd: Let's say you've been renting a home. After 18 years, you hit some hard times. You ask the landlord for some help. Maybe rent forgiveness, maybe reduced rent, maybe renegotiate the lease entirely. After all, you've been a good tenant. The landlord says no. How do you respond? Frustration? Anger? Fight back? Move out? Bite the bullet and stay? Sprinkle in some new facts: 1. The home cost > $100MM, was custom built for you, and becomes yours in 12 years. 2. The landlord is a non-profit corporation set up almost entirely for your benefit. 3. Your proposals are objectively reasonable, and do not cause the landlord any grievous economic harm. Does your response change?

What's "moronic" is blindly supporting the Engelstads based on nothing but past generosity, and dismissing wholesale Kennedy's selected negotiation tactic without even the slightest understanding of what has been said or what is on the table. If someone with an in-depth knowledge of the current deal and the parties' respective proposals and the economic impact on UND of each wants to go out on a limb and call Kennedy a moron, I'll listen.

I suppose you would also counsel a battered wife to stay with her abuser, because he gave her a really nice wedding ring 20 years ago?

Here's a hot take. The REA, frustrated that Kennedy was taking a harder line than they expected and fearful of the golden goose laying a couple fewer eggs, ran to the Herald with this story to test the waters of public opinion. What happens next will depend on the public's response. Either Kennedy will be hailed as a hero for bravely trying to right the ship by deftly renegotiating the one-sided REA contract albatross, OR the public will be outraged by Kennedy's cold-blooded assault on 'those wonderful Engelstads, who have done so much for UND and are (apparently) infallible and incapable of doing anything wrong.'

Hey, mods. This discussion really deserves its own thread.

With the anger brewing on here, it seems that a lot of people are breaking the cardinal rule. This is business, not personal. A legal threat is strategy, not malice. Nobody is saying that the REA gift was not a watershed moment for UND and for Grand Forks, or that it wasn't insanely generous. Hard to fault either side for looking out for itself. Easier to fault REA if it turns out that they are stubbornly turning a blind eye to the University when there's an opportunity to help in fiscal crunch time by renegotiating. Just as easy to fault UND if it hasn't done the right math and has made an unreasonable demand. Whoever ran to the media is definitely worthy of blame. A simple 'no comment' would have kept the dealings behind closed doors. Again, business. Not personal.

You seem to be loyal to them. Do you have inside information? Are you really willing to say it's "stupid" to suggest that they might not presently be acting in the best interests of UND? Why is it so easy to accept that Kennedy is in the wrong? I mean, he must have access to the financials, right?

Since I suspect neither of us were at the table, all we can do is speculate. My hunch is that Kennedy didn't lead with "Give me what I want or I'll sue you." But I could be wrong. One thing we can probably agree on...there must be a heck of a lot of gravy in the current deal.

Maybe the Engelstads have outlived their usefulness. A one-trick (albeit a big one) pony with perpetual sour grapes about the Sioux. Maybe they're insufferable, which is why the negotiations went south?

Kennedy critics can't have it both ways. If the contract is as bad for UND as some suggest, and re-negotiation (by force, if need be) is an absolute economic necessity, then he has to do something. Keeping the Engelstad family happy and not hurting their feelings are probably not as important as keeping the lights on.

But the REA economic model probably won't work if they lose non-profit status, and isn't that status tied to their support of UND?

This is why I question REA leadership playing hardball here. They know they have a shelf life, and one would think they want to be the obvious choice to manage the arena full time once control is officially ceded to UND, and UND inevitably puts it out for bid. Unless, perhaps, they are content to run out the duration of the gift and then bail. They are a benevolent non-profit, right? Set up for the good of UND? And they run to the Herald to crap on Kennedy?

Fate (and necessity) took me to the Grand Cities Mall the other day. I entered off of Washington across from the bowling alley and passed the Tesoro station. Then I made my way toward Kmart. After a brief stop, I exited to the north along the path defined by Play it Again, Ace Hardware, and Popplers, passing by Northwest Tire as I turned onto 17th. I really missed that series of obnoxious, black, suspension-destroying speed bumps outside of the HOPE Church entrance, because they would have been the smoothest, least jarring part of the entire freaking trip. To the owners of this property, I say - with all sincerity - F THE HELL OFF. If North Korea launched a nuke aimed at the Grand Cities Mall parking lot, and I alone held the key to self-destruct, let's just say...it must have bounced out of my cup-holder and slipped between the seats of my car.

Coeds have for years been trying to keep the Minutemen around longer.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/entertainment/music/4441932-organizers-contend-big-crowd-downtown-grand-forks-rock-show I didn't go, and I wouldn't have gone given I have no interest in glam cover bands, but that seems like one of the biggest 'events' GF has seen in a while. Anyone there that can attest? Was it an epic scene with that many people crammed into a few blocks? How was parking and just getting around?

How many licks does it take?

So the Peter Johnson search for "perfect" goes on after multiple rounds of interviews, but the innovation search yields a single candidate and that's good enough?

Setting aside the lightning rod issues of mental illness and access to firearms... Food for thought: does this tragedy reveal a dark, ugly secret about "GoFundMe" and its role in society? Do we so much publicize and celebrate the 'viral' success stories, that when someone makes a very modest (and desperate) plea and gets nothing, the pain and despair are magnified? Humboldt is a unique case, obviously, but doesn't it plainly illustrate the unquestionable generosity of strangers? Should there be a GoFundMe safety net? Does GoFundMe now occupy a special role vis-a-vis state or local government, kind of like a social services surrogate, to assist in the identification of those in need, and the provision of services? If the absolute last gasp of an individual on the edge of the cliff is to reach out via GoFundMe, does the platform necessarily have a moral obligation? GoFundMe is, it would seem, the 21st century version of panhandling and street begging. Yet the latter seem to pay off better than the former. As always, answers are elusive.

From the Googles: Tragic.

Transdermal tuition remittance upon graduation...sure beats the heck out of the rectal extraction methods used by most schools.