The Sicatoka Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Let's not "over-think" this folks, does hockey help UND's quest for a conference: Yes, in that basketball and volleyball have premier facilities to host games and/or conference tournaments. No, in that hockey doesn't mean much to schools that don't play the sport, but it's not a negative either. Net result: Facilities matter --> Positive. Now, let's do the overthink: Does hockey help UND in a way yet to be mentioned here, namely, the ability to "trade" non-conference hockey games for (insert other sport here) non-conference games? Yes. For example, try this notion: Dear UConn, we'll play your fledgeling DI hockey program at your place (or place of choosing for gate) if you come play WBB here (trade a gate for a gate). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 For example, try this notion: Dear UConn, we'll play your fledgeling DI hockey program at your place (or place of choosing for gate) if you come play WBB here (trade a gate for a gate). ha-ha-ha. that's funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamStrait Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 They certainly do as they negotiate with one another for fees; you can't squeeze money out of a turnip. Call it what you want, the official books say the were about 1/2 million dollars off. Actually, according to this report: http://www.UND.nodak.edu/dept/vpfo/Documen...ncialReport.pdf UND received over $450,000 from the Ralph in FY 2005. Heavens, to have such a millistone around one's neck! I am not sure from where you are getting this REA "loss". My search could find only the info above. And just because the Alerus lost money does not mean it lost money hosting UND football. And just because FargoDome made money doesn't necessarily mean that it made money hosting 'SU football (I suspect it was a money maker). This is what will have a more direct bearing on the contracts between these institutions and their respective venues. I know you have a pathological need to get in the last word no matter how wrong you are, but please resist it in this case. You made a foolish statement and got called on it. Let it rest. It's almost as bad as someone disagreeing with "The whole Potts/NDUS affair at best paints Chapman in an unfavorable light". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 The Ralph's Books. Your bizarre interpretation of UNDs/REAs financials is quite funny. It would be like me saying IBM lost $100 million last year and you replying, "Yeah, but they wrote a check for $130 million to purchase hardware. See they bought it all from SISCO." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamStrait Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 The Ralph's Books. Your bizarre interpretation of UNDs/REAs financials is quite funny. It would be like me saying IBM lost $100 million last year and you replying, "Yeah, but they wrote a check for $130 million to purchase hardware. See they bought it all from SISCO." I'm not sure why you chose to not let this die, but... From your source cited above: The Ralph had an operating income of -$5,964,909, $5,657,731of which was depreciation (I would guess this is a 20 year straight-line ammortization). Once you take depreciation out, you have an operating income of -$307,178. The Ralph also had a nonoperating revenue of $472,939. This means the Ralph had an income, not including depreciation, of $165,761 while paying UND over $450,000. I'm no accountant and maybe I need your apparently superior intellect to explain it to me, but honestly: What's the problem? And in your little example above, SISCO still received $130,000,000 from IBM. They could care less whether IBM made money that year. In your example UND is SISCO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 What's the problem? Nothing as long as your sure the REA is going to be getting a million dollar 'gift' every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 And in your little example above, SISCO still received $130,000,000 from IBM. They could care less whether IBM made money that year. In your example UND is SISCO. They could care quite a bit if their relationship was symbiotic and that SISCO had a few years earlier tied itself to IBM's ship and was expecting to make considerably more than they did. (ie periodically wondering if they could rework the contract because their budget just wasn't adding up). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Question: Who owns Ralph Engelstad Arena? Answer: Arena Holdings Charitable, LLC, an umbrella for three corporations that will own and manage the arena. The new organization is designed to run the arena, with profits donated to the university, while ensuring that the arena would not become a liability for UND were profits to disappear. Arena Holdings Charitable is a tax-exempt organization, created to support UND athletics. This limited liability company has two arms. The first is UND Sports Facilities Inc., which will act as owner of the arena complex. This group is run by a board appointed by the UND president. Currently, this board is comprised of UND President Emeritus Tom Clifford, former UND Foundation CEO Earl Strinden and Aron Anderson, a retiree who worked with the UND Alumni Association and the Lakota State Bank. The second arm is UND Arena Services Inc., which will oversee the management of the arena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Nothing as long as your sure the REA is going to be getting a million dollar 'gift' every year. The $1 MM + gifts were donations by alumni to finish the Betty with leather seats and marble floors etc. The REA is responsible for the debt repayment on the bonds that financed the Betty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 And I think within your post, The Sicatoka (thanks for posting it), lies the rub. I believe the original intent was for the REA to be a money tree for the University, ie funnel profits to the UND. That doesn't appear to be happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 And I think within your post, The Sicatoka (thanks for posting it), lies the rub. I believe the original intent was for the REA to be a money tree for the University, ie funnel profits to the UND. That doesn't appear to be happening. Not as long as they're paying off the bonds on The Betty, no. Just the same, I like the "safety net" of the Engelstad Family Trust. ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamStrait Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Nothing as long as your sure the REA is going to be getting a million dollar 'gift' every year. Spin-spin-spin. The Ralph did not lose money last year. The Ralph and the Alerus are not "millstones around UND's neck". Be a man (just once, just to see what it feels like), take your medicine, and admit you are wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamStrait Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 They could care quite a bit if their relationship was symbiotic and that SISCO had a few years earlier tied itself to IBM's ship and was expecting to make considerably more than they did. (ie periodically wondering if they could rework the contract because their budget just wasn't adding up). It was your example, not mine. If you say now that it was a poor one, I'm not disagreeing with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamStrait Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 Question: "For all practical purposes, we get every benefit of owning them yet don't have some of the liabilities of owning them," Charles Kupchella, speaking about REA and Alerus Center. WHICH WAS MY POINT!!!!! (Are you listening IowaBison? i.e. NOT millstones around one's neck!!! Get it now?God, I hope so.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamStrait Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 And I think within your post, The Sicatoka (thanks for posting it), lies the rub. I believe the original intent was for the REA to be a money tree for the University, ie funnel profits to the UND. That doesn't appear to be happening. So now you go from "millstone around the neck" to "APPEARING not to be a money tree"?? Would you care to change your argument (again)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamStrait Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Call it what you want, the official books say the were about 1/2 million dollars off. Nothing as long as your sure the REA is going to be getting a million dollar 'gift' every year. Call it what you want, the official books say the were about $150,000 in the black last year (after UND getting about $450,000 out of them). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 So now you go from "millstone around the neck" to "APPEARING not to be a money tree"?? Would you care to change your argument (again)? That former was my definition of what it is, the latter is my definition of what it was meant to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamStrait Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 That former was my definition of what it is, the latter is my definition of what it was meant to be. You sir, are without honor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 yep $150k in the black, that jives with the books: Operating loss: $5.9 million Income loss: $5.4 million Decrease in net assets: $5.4 million Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamStrait Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 thanks. have fun twisting my posts. all you'll do is get frustrated, and I won't give a hoot. Ha ha ha. That's a good one. I don't need to twist them, you do it yourself. If you don't want to get called on your ridiculous UND hating BS, go to Bisonville. You'll be a hero there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 You sir, are without honor. How 'bout an analogy. I say the animal is like a duck. (may be a millstone) I say it's not a bear. (not a money tree) You then say I'm without honor. funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamStrait Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 How 'bout an analogy. I say the animal is like a duck. (may be a millstone) I say it's not a bear. (not a money tree) You then say I'm without honor. funny. I'm surprised it took me so long to figure out (not really, I guess, as apparently I'm not too bright), but I've finally put it all together. You see, it was the constant spin-spin-spin that gave it away. Whiskey Joe, what are you doing on a Sioux message board? Don't you have a residence remodeling to oversee? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IowaBison Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 I'm surprised it took me so long to figure out (not really, I guess, as apparently I'm not too bright), but I've finally put it all together. You see, it was the constant spin-spin-spin that gave it away. Whiskey Joe, what are you doing on a Sioux message board? Don't you have a residence remodeling to oversee? no argument here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 yep $150k in the black, that jives with the books: Operating loss: $5.9 million Income loss: $5.4 million Decrease in net assets: $5.4 million Were you an accountant for Enron? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.