Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum
jdub27

Kennedy vs. Engelstad Foundation: GF herald feature

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, gfhockey said:

The new agreement will be hardly noticeable to the average fan but will be good for budget going forward

How so Mr. Insider.  What are the details?  Prove to us you actually know something by sharing something that will come out in the Herald eventually anyway.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

Considering he won I would say his tactics worked.

He won?   What is a win in that situation?   Even if they have a new agreement by a threat of a lawsuit, things down the road may never be the same.  Guess we'll never know the costs of the "win". 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tnt said:

He won?   What is a win in that situation?   Even if they have a new agreement by a threat of a lawsuit, things down the road may never be the same.  Guess we'll never know the costs of the "win". 

Did he lose?  I would say getting a new agreement that is multi-year is a win in his book. 

You can speculate at everything that may or may not happen in the next 10 years.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tnt said:

He won?   What is a win in that situation?   Even if they have a new agreement by a threat of a lawsuit, things down the road may never be the same.  Guess we'll never know the costs of the "win". 

There is zero proof that he threatened a lawsuit.  Kennedy saying that the REA is straying from it's mission is an implication, at best.  The emails were released after Kris said this, and it's not the only thing that she was caught lying about.  Her word is worth nothing after her lies about scheduling a meeting were revealed.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gfhockey said:

The new agreement will be hardly noticeable to the average fan but will be good for budget going forward

xbod9U5.gif

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tnt said:

He won?   What is a win in that situation?   Even if they have a new agreement by a threat of a lawsuit, things down the road may never be the same.  Guess we'll never know the costs of the "win". 

the problem was it was a percentage based agreement from 20 years ago. Revenues have changed considerably, as they increase the gap only widens. That was the real problem with it, props to Kennedy for hopefully fixing it.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The usage agreement differs from the 30-year lease agreement between the university and the Ralph"  from the last GF Herald article posted.

 

So we have 4 entities (3 non profits & 1 LLC) that is in short known as "The Ralph" all on top of UND land.

We have a 30 year "Lease Agreement" that ends in September of 2030, which at such time, the improvements become part of the land. 

There is a "Usage Agreement" with UND Athletic Department that is presently being worked on and has been adjusted in the past. Apparently a majority of the board of directors need not get involved to renegotiate this agreement.

 

Be interesting what really is disclosed to the public in this next week. If all the money stays within The Ralph and the U (like board of director Strinden claims), what does it matter what %(52/48) is used up front at ticket collection time?  Because, funds get shifted in other various ways (rent, adv, services, police, & etc.) between the two which also could get adjusted. Where do the proceeds from concessions, parking, & etc. come in, do any of these $ get forwarded to the AD in some way, or does The Ralph have a piggy bank? Any potential season ending overage $ given to the AD? What changes in 3 years when The Betty bond is paid off?

How much more are MH tickets today than they were in 2001 for the first season in The Ralph?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all comes down to the question of should a donor be making money off of their donation.  Ideally, The Ralph would would pay its bills for all operating costs of the arena and any profit beyond that should go to UND.  That would be "acting in the best interest of UND" and ensure that the building was being maintained, and that UND would benefit from the profit the arena generates.  Sholud the Engelstad Foundation be profiting from a "gift"?  In my opinion, I don't think so.  And that is why Kennedy made his statement that the deal signed in 2001 was to benefit the donor.  He said it because he is right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, UND1983 said:

Considering he won I would say his tactics worked.

He didn't win...he showed up at the meeting and left immediately...an interaction with a donor is not a win or lose situation for the President of the University by the way...if you think that then we are in for more disappointments from donors in the future.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

It all comes down to the question of should a donor be making money off of their donation. Sholud the Engelstad Foundation be profiting from a "gift"?  In my opinion, I don't think so.  And that is why Kennedy made his statement that the deal signed in 2001 was to benefit the donor.

Donald Trump Wrong Meme Debate -  Wrong

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BobIwabuchiFan said:

He didn't win...he showed up at the meeting and left immediately...an interaction with a donor is not a win or lose situation for the President of the University by the way...if you think that then we are in for more disappointments from donors in the future.

 

Because you know how to score interactions between Presidents and donors who own massive structures on campus.  This isn't the typical interaction but you know that already, I am sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

Soy you think donors should make money off of what the recipient used their donation for?

For the 1000th time, Engelstad Foundation isn't profiting off of the Ralph Engelstad Arena.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Cratter said:

For the 1000th time, Engelstad Foundation isn't profiting off of the Ralph Engelstad Arena.

So REA Inc then.  Someone is making money off the arena?  I don't think they are operating in the red.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

So REA Inc then.  Someone is making money off the arena?  I don't think they are operating in the red.

Agreed 1000% That arena is one gigantic cash machine. The idea that UND is getting all there is to get simply does not make sense.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much of this information is public?  Is there records out there that would show how much net profit the REA generated each year and how much it gave to UND?  If those numbers are not the same, then the REA is making money off of their giff, which I don't think is right.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

So REA Inc then.  Someone is making money off the arena?  

Yes, Ralph Engelstad Arena Inc is making money off the arena.

REA Inc (and or other arena management groups) is a non-profit that takes money from UND ticket sales, operates the arena and gives back money to UND they don't "use."

The money stays between the arena or UND. Each entity wants more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cratter said:

Yes, Ralph Engelstad Arena Inc is making money off the arena.

REA Inc (and or other arena management groups) is a non-profit that takes money from UND ticket sales operates the arena and gives back money to UND they don't "use."

The money stays between the arena or UND. Each entity wants more.

Why would the Arena need more money?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

Why would the Arena need more money?  

To buy on ice projectors or video replay boards for the Betty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Cratter said:

To buy on ice projectors or video replay boards for the Betty?

They are already giving money back to UND at the end of the year.  If the net profit comes from UND already.....shell game?  

Would they just give UND less because of capital improvements then?

(I admittedly don't understand how all that works)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UND1983 said:

They are already giving money back to UND at the end of the year.  If the net profit comes from UND already.....shell game?  

Would they just give UND less because of capital improvements then?

(I admittedly don't understand how all that works)

It is a shell game.

The REA can hold back whatever they want/need to for reserves and "expenses" (while billing UND directly for others) with no checks and balances, which is one of the reasons they have a very significant reserve. However this is also the reason they have been able to do some of the updates they have, which is obviously good for the REA (and occasionally the BESC) along with the UND teams that play their but not great for the rest of the athletic department. It has been an advantage to UND as they likely wouldn't have been able to do some of the updates and don't have to worry about state oversight, however on the flip side, they are basically at the REA's whim on how much money they get back at the end of each year. The theory behind changing the agreement takes a bit more of that uncertainty out of the equation, particularly since ticket revenue has increased significantly from when the original usage agreement started and UND is only seeing 48% of that benefit come into their pockets.

Side note - I wonder if the original agreement had the REA taking 52% of all ticket revenues even though  men's hockey would have been the only team using the facilities at the time or that was something that changed when WIH was started and the BESC was built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When UND athletics is a little cash strapped they have the option to use "institutional funds." 

If you're a fan of athletics and dislike music therapy this is a good thing.

It also helped trim the athletic department fat (cough womens hockey cough).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2018 at 8:13 PM, Goon said:

Jacobs is retired and is at best a part-time columnist. 

part-time columnist...full-time communist.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×