Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

Kennedy vs. Engelstad Foundation: GF herald feature


Recommended Posts

Posted

Kennedy's response seems a very political and non-engaging one. "What do mean there's a problem?" ... Arrogant. Insulting to the parties involved I would think, which tends to back up the trends and claims about Kennedy being bullish or standofish at best and disinterested in UND at the worst. 

I was really in favor of Kennedy at first, I disagree and have been disapointed in body of work so far.

What I would like to know is if the money that REA takes as part of the agreement goes into the foundation that benefits University.....

Is the arguement really just semantics of where money lays on budget reports?

McGarry isnt taking profit out of the deal at all right?  

If the money REA takes in goes to maintain the facility and support student athletes how is this a bad thing.

I gues objectively its important to follow the money, and ask those questions. What really is the problem here?

How is UND effected by receiving the money they get from the REA?...

What is the requested change to the agreement? How does that make UND or the arena better off?

How exactly is UND Athletics hurt by the current situation?

 

  • Downvote 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

As UND has transitioned to a new Fighting Hawks moniker, McGarry said Kennedy has argued the arena's Fighting Sioux holdovers have created "brand confusion." "I feel as we got drug in, we got blamed for causing brand confusion," she said. "But the fact is we didn't change, the building stayed the same. ... Everything around us changed. We can only do what we can do in our space to be in accordance to the NCAA. ..."

Actually, no.

The document defined what may stay (historically significant) and "change by" dates for other items. 

REA could pull out everything defined in the documents as "has to go" earlier than scheduled.

 

"The building stayed the same ... Everything around us changed." Why yes, things around REA changed. By necessity. From the NCAA settlement. REA knows this. They signed on to being part of the change (their NCAA agreement). That said, are you sure the building stayed the same? 

Posted
Just now, Frozen4sioux said:

Kennedy's response seems a very political and non-engaging one. "What do mean there's a problem?" ... Arrogant. Insulting to the parties involved I would think, which tends to back up the trends and claims about Kennedy being bullish or standofish at best and disinterested in UND at the worst. 

Yeah, his press release should've sh*t on McGarry and called her out as a liar....

Posted
29 minutes ago, Nodak78 said:

Nice professional response.  Sounds was Miss McGarry was trying to negotiate from a position of strength.  The Herald trying to sell newspapers.

Given the amount of interest this has drawn, you don't think this is newsworthy? 

Posted

I don't know Kennedy. I do know he has a suck job in a world of less and less state revenue to fund UND. 

If he's looking at everything with fresh eyes good for him. If he's doing it tactfully good for him. 

If he's bull-in-a-china-shop-ing people bad on him. 

I don't know. 

 

The truth is somewhere between the two sides. 

Posted
1 minute ago, UNDBIZ said:

Yeah, his press release should've sh*t on McGarry and called her out as a liar....

I would say this press release indicated the McGarry is not lying. Glossing over the issue is in the political arena, an admitance of truth in the opponents story.

Posted

If REA is holding back "extra" money via a lopsided deal the reality is it is only saving UND from itself. UND doesnt have a very good recent track record of managing money responsibly that is meant to maintain buildings/programs/benefit students......none of which are anywhere near the size as the Ralph.  No need for REA to give UND extra money that will only go to the layer of Executive Associate Vice President Kennedy butt-kissers instead of the front line instructors.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Posted
1 minute ago, forksandspoons said:

Given the amount of interest this has drawn, you don't think this is newsworthy? 

To be fair, the Kardashians draw a large audience too.

  • Upvote 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, TheFlop said:

If REA is holding back "extra" money via a lopsided deal the reality is it is only saving UND from itself. UND doesnt have a very good recent track record of managing money responsibly that is meant to maintain buildings/benefit students......none of which are anywhere near the size as the Ralph.  No need for REA to give UND extra money that will only go to the layer of Executive Associate Vice President Kennedy butt-kissers instead of the front line instructors.  

Instead, the REA will spend that money on full-time staff at the REA.

96fdbf1c.jpg.650x650_q85.jpg

Posted
5 minutes ago, TheFlop said:

If REA is holding back "extra" money via a lopsided deal the reality is it is only saving UND from itself. UND doesnt have a very good recent track record of managing money responsibly that is meant to maintain buildings/programs/benefit students......none of which are anywhere near the size as the Ralph.  No need for REA to give UND extra money that will only go to the layer of Executive Associate Vice President Kennedy butt-kissers instead of the front line instructors.  

Many of them really shouldn't be b!tching after so many years of zero accountability.  I know, I know.... it's tough when someone comes in and actually demands proof of results.

  • Upvote 1
Posted

I see they decisions and manner in which the North Dakota University system manages itself, and how the bureaucratic UND administrations have bungled so much.

I see how the REA manages itself.

I guess what we should really be asking is when can REA start managing more of the day to day operations of UND!

 

  • Downvote 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Frozen4sioux said:

I see they decisions and manner in which the North Dakota University system manages itself, and how the bureaucratic UND administrations have bungled so much.

I see how the REA manages itself.

I guess what we should really be asking is when can REA start managing more of the day to day operations of UND!

And as soon as UND asks REA to start living within its means, the REA board starts launching bombs in the media.....

  • Upvote 3
Posted
10 minutes ago, Frozen4sioux said:

I see they decisions and manner in which the North Dakota University system manages itself, and how the bureaucratic UND administrations have bungled so much.

I see how the REA manages itself.

I guess what we should really be asking is when can REA start managing more of the day to day operations of UND!

 

If REA was subject to open records/open meetings laws and as much public scrutiny as the NDUS and all its members institutions; local, county and state government;  and the Alerus Center, etc. are.... you'd see the sausage being made there, too.   REA has the benefit of doing all its mistakes behind the curtain instead of in the public eye. Big difference.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Posted
50 minutes ago, Cratter said:

How long will Kennedy keep paying to maintain Ray Richards before it's turned back into a golf course and make the U money again?

The decision to change a community golf course that was gifted to the University into a pasture is one of the most stupid I have ever seen.  Acres of proof that those in charge of the University only listens to a few inner circle yes-men.  Not much community input.  Kennedy seems just fine with this decision.

  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Irish said:

The decision to change a community golf course that was gifted to the University into a pasture is one of the most stupid I have ever seen.  Acres of proof that Kennedy is an idiot who only listens to a few inner circle yes-men.  Not much community input.

Any chance Ray Richards reopens after the golf program gets cut?  I would think there is some correlation there.  

Posted
8 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

And as soon as UND asks REA to start living within its means, the REA board starts launching bombs in the media.....

this will be telling...

What do you  actually ... mean.... by saying that?

What does " living wiyhin its means " look like to you?

Posted
Just now, Frozen4sioux said:

this will be telling...

What do you  actually ... mean.... by saying that?

What does " living wiyhin its means " look like to you?

Sounds to me like the REA was needing UND to bail them out on some things.  Interesting.  I said it earlier, there is much more than came out in the story and McGarry got out in front to try and control the narrative.    

  • Upvote 3
Posted
2 minutes ago, Frozen4sioux said:

this will be telling...

What do you  actually ... mean.... by saying that?

What does " living wiyhin its means " look like to you?

Not requiring additional subsidies from UND beyond its agree-upon share of ticket sales.

Posted
Just now, UNDBIZ said:

Not requiring additional subsidies from UND beyond its agree-upon share of ticket sales.

What additional subsidies?

Not being dickish here. Serious question, just want to make sure I understand your viewpoint and thebissue better

What do you mean by "additional subsidies" ... how much are we talking about per year and for what?

Posted
2 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

Sounds to me like the REA was needing UND to bail them out on some things.  Interesting.  I said it earlier, there is much more than came out in the story and McGarry got out in front to try and control the narrative.    

And typically when you use the "control the narrative" strategy, there is a side to the story that you don't want people to know about.

  • Upvote 1
Posted

 

58 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

This is still frustrating to me.  I believe it was Schafer that closed Ray Richards, but Kennedy should reopen it.  Continue to market the land as for sale, but don't lose money in the meantime.  Large plots of expensive land can take many years to sell.

 

35 minutes ago, UNDBIZ said:

 

 

Did not know that the land is for sale? as in your first post.

Then your picture video fit "Don't know what you got, till it's gone"

 

Why should UND sell the land when it is adjacent to UND? So much future potential.

Posted
6 minutes ago, UND1983 said:

Sounds to me like the REA was needing UND to bail them out on some things.  Interesting.  I said it earlier, there is much more than came out in the story and McGarry got out in front to try and control the narrative.    

Thats an assumed generalization that inflames the narrative, we may be actually narrowing down the nuts and bolts here. 

What would REA need UND "bailing them out on"?

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...