Budget shortfall!

[Riverman]

mind-reading forensic accountants from NDSU

The can say's worms.

Now where's that opener???

[fightingsioux4life]

How the heck would I know? I just posed what seemed like a realistic possibility.

This was a rhetorical question; I was hoping someone else with more connections than me would do some digging and figure it out. I probably should have phrased it better.

Maybe we could get some of those mind-reading forensic accountants from NDSU to figure it all out and report back to us.

They would just use their so-called "data" to "prove" that UND can't cut it in the "big-time" of Division I athletics and to "prove" that our poor little old market in the northern valley can't support an arena like REA. But it would provide us with some cheap entertainment.

[legend334]

Bottom line is the athletic dept should not be paying 250 grand a year to play in the Betty and another about 6500 a month to play hockey in the Ralph...combine that with REA backing out of many financial obligations...ie...paying for many of the costs of Sioux Illustrated....which now I see is only a online issue....how many alums will be willing to pay a subscription to read it online....that is as good as a idea as only putting media guides online....people want a book....a reference at their disposal...not something they need to look up online whenever they want to look up a fact.....but under new management all Sioux Illustrated needed was a editor....guess that dart didnt hit the board....i digress...if Ralph himself were to see things going on he would have the entire REA staff fired....without a doubt!!!!!

[The Sicatoka]

Bottom line is the athletic dept should not be paying 250 grand a year to play in the Betty and another about 6500 a month to play hockey in the Ralph...

Anyone have the numbers on what it cost to own and operate Hyslop (as BB/VB home) and old REA (as hockey home)? I ask because $250k + (12 * $6500) = $328k. That doesn't sound like a lot of money to run two buildings of those sizes. (Staff, maintenance, utilities.)

Is it because old REA and Hyslop were State owned and thus operational costs for them came from the general university facilities budget and not athletics?

(Last note: Maybe it's me, but $328k doesn't sound like a lot of money to play and practice five teams (M/W BB, M/W Hockey, VB), and house soccer, in a facility like Engelstad Arena.)

[legend334]

Those costs were covered by the state....that being said...a 328 grand swing, combine that with concession losses, 100 grand guranteed by dining services, losing concessions at REA, Betty, Alerus is a huge bottom line hit.....all and all if Ralph was alive today....this would not be the agreement....period

[star2city]

....i digress...if Ralph himself were to see things going on he would have the entire REA staff fired....without a doubt!!!!!

Would he see that certain athletic department staffers that post on the internet are driven off, too?

This argument is beyond insane. So lets go back to an Old REA and Hyslop and really put UND athletics on the DI map? The state of ND gave a mandate that there would be no tax dollars going to support the REA, including utilities and every other cost.

The whining on this site gets unbelievable at times.

[fightingsioux4life]

This argument is beyond insane. So lets go back to an Old REA and Hyslop and really put UND athletics on the DI map? The state of ND gave a mandate that there would be no tax dollars going to support the REA, including utilities and every other cost.

The whining on this site gets unbelievable at times.

Whining? I don't think so. It's called looking out for the interests of an athletic department I (and many others on this forum) support financially with our own hard-earned money. We want our teams to have the best situation possible in order to compete and win on a national stage. That will get more expensive once we move up to Division I in all sports (I-AA in football).

No one is suggesting that we go back to the Old Ralph (it would require a lot of renovations to use again). But you can't blame all the financial problems on the ND Legislature (which I have a very low opinion of, by the way). The fact is that when this palace was being built, it was promoted as a cash cow for UND and UND athletics. It was supposed to make the athletic department more financially secure. That hasn't happened. Somebody is making money off of this arena and it isn't my alma mater.

I can't remember a time in the past (during the days of the Old Ralph) when the athletic department was swimming in this much red ink. I know the cost of college athletics has gone up over the years, but that still doesn't explain the increasing deficits in the athletic department while REA continues to sell out almost every night and sell overpriced food and beverages (both alcoholic and otherwise). This isn't a conspiracy theory. It is a fact.

There is the viewpoint among some in Grand Forks and the UND community in general that you can't criticize REA no matter what they do. The idea is that the arena is a wonderful gift (which it is) and any criticism equals being an ingrate. The fact that REA is privately-owned is also used to promote this viewpoint. I disagree with both ideas 100%. Being a gift and being privately owned doesn't make REA immune from legitimate criticism. As stakeholders in this great enterprise that we like to call UND sports, we have a right and a responsibility to criticize institutions and decisions that we think are detrimental to the health of our programs. If we can't criticize REA, then let's just make the REA General Manager the AD and be done with it.

The bottom line is this: If we don't find a solution to this financial situation, we will soon be talking about roster caps and scholarship cuts. I don't think anyone on this forum wants to see that.

[star2city]

No one is suggesting that we go back to the Old Ralph (it would require a lot of renovations to use again). But you can't blame all the financial problems on the ND Legislature (which I have a very low opinion of, by the way). The fact is that when this palace was being built, it was promoted as a cash cow for UND and UND athletics. It was supposed to make the athletic department more financially secure. That hasn't happened. Somebody is making money off of this arena and it isn't my alma mater.

It is actually serving as a cash cow: the REA is paying off the bonds used to finance the Betty. The REA is also responsible for greatly increasing the funding the the Fighting Sioux club. The REA has also made the land around the REA extremely valuable, which is giving the University as a whole a substantial revenue stream from long-term rental agreements that the athletic department does not receive. Nor does the athletic department receive the royalities from the sale of Fighting Sioux merchandise, which have also increased substantially. The utiility costs that the REA pays UND also helps UND by marginally reducing its total costs. Finally, just the presence of the REA on campus benefits UND immeasurably.

I would agree that much of the benefits of the REA do not directly help the athletic department as much as it benefits UND as a whole.

I can't remember a time in the past (during the days of the Old Ralph) when the athletic department was swimming in this much red ink. I know the cost of college athletics has gone up over the years, but that still doesn't explain the increasing deficits in the athletic department while REA continues to sell out almost every night and sell overpriced food and beverages (both alcoholic and otherwise). This isn't a conspiracy theory. It is a fact.

Practically every major arena and theater in the country sells overprices food and beverages. The REA is no different. The deficit everyone refers to which this athletic department has is because of tuition waivers - no "real" money is exchanged. With UND benefitting as much as it does from the REA, UND should be offering tuition waivers to the athletic program. What's been forgotten since the REA construction is that tuition has been going up by ~15% annually, which means that the scholarship requirements have been climbing at that rate too. If tuition increases hadn't been so steep, the athletic department finances wouldn't be nearly as stretched. The athletic department budget is nearly double what it was five years ago. How in the world would UND athletics have managed if it still only had the Old REA and Hyslop to generate more finances?

There is the viewpoint among some in Grand Forks and the UND community in general that you can't criticize REA no matter what they do. The idea is that the arena is a wonderful gift (which is it) and any criticism equals being an ingrate. The fact that REA is privately-owned is also used to promote this viewpoint. I disagree with both ideas 100%. Being a gift and being privately owned doesn't make REA immune from legitimate criticism. As stakeholders in this great enterprise that we like to call UND sports, we have a right and a responsibility to criticize institutions and decisions that we think are detrimental to the health of our programs. If we can't criticize REA, then let's just make the REA General Manager the AD and be done with it.

The AD probably gets more criticism on this board than the REA manager (at least in this thread), so not sure of the last point. Constructive criticism is great, but all too often, that is lacking.

The bottom line is this: If we don't find a solution to this financial situation, we will soon be talking about roster caps and scholarship cuts. I don't think anyone on this forum wants to see that.

Actually, some believe that UND does need to look at what sports offerings are best suited for what our facilities and weather offer. That should be on the table.

[The Walrus]

This just in... The REA attracted over 440,000 people last year...

5 year totals over 2.2 million have attended events there...

No mortgage..all those people... no profit ?

[fightingsioux4life]

It is actually serving as a cash cow: the REA is paying off the bonds used to finance the Betty. The REA is also responsible for greatly increasing the funding the the Fighting Sioux club. The REA has also made the land around the REA extremely valuable, which is giving the University as a whole a substantial revenue stream from long-term rental agreements that the athletic department does not receive. Nor does the athletic department receive the royalities from the sale of Fighting Sioux merchandise, which have also increased substantially. The utiility costs that the REA pays UND also helps UND by marginally reducing its total costs. Finally, just the presence of the REA on campus benefits UND immeasurably.

Paying off the bonds is good. I thought the Fighting Sioux Club was funded mainly by individuals and businesses at various levels in exchange for benefits (parking, tickets, etc.). I didn't think REA had anything to do with it. The REA is a positive for UND; I'm not promoting the idea that it shouldn't have been built. I just think that a facility that is home to our main revenue sport (Men's Hockey) should benefit the athletic department more than it does.

I would agree that much of the benefits of the REA do not directly help the athletic department as much as it benefits UND as a whole.

This is the heart of my argument.

Practically every major arena and theater in the country sells overprices food and beverages. The REA is no different.

You are right; my point is that if they are selling all this stuff (and there is no shortage of people standing in line between periods to buy this stuff, believe me), they are probably making a lot of money off of it. Especially beer sales. And if they are making all this money, why doesn't more of it end up in UND athletic coffers? That is the central question here.

The deficit everyone refers to which this athletic department has is because of tuition waivers - no "real" money is exchanged. With UND benefitting as much as it does from the REA, UND should be offering tuition waivers to the athletic program. What's been forgotten since the REA construction is that tuition has been going up by ~15% annually, which means that the scholarship requirements have been climbing at that rate too. If tuition increases hadn't been so steep, the athletic department finances wouldn't be nearly as stretched. The athletic department budget is nearly double what it was five years ago. How in the world would UND athletics have managed if it still only had the Old REA and Hyslop to generate more finances?

Thanks for the info on tuition waivers and the increasing cost of tuition (thanks to the backwater/bush-league Legislature we have in this State , but that's another topic). I didn't consider that in my original posting. If UND administration is soaking up the benefits from REA and not giving some back to athletics, the blame for that would be on President Kupchella.

The AD probably gets more criticism on this board than the REA manager (at least in this thread), so not sure of the last point. Constructive criticism is great, but all too often, that is lacking.

The point I wanted to make is that in the past whenever someone criticized REA, Inc. for something (student section management, charging to tour the arena, etc.), they were told to stop complaining about it, to be grateful for the gift of having this arena, that REA is privately-run so they can do whatever they want and so on. I feel that this viewpoint is being used to justify anything that REA does whether its good for UND athletics or not. This is why REA doesn't come up in discussions about the athletics deficit. And I think that is wrong. Some serious questions have to be raised about this stuff before irreversable damage is done to our programs.

Actually, some believe that UND does need to look at what sports offerings are best suited for what our facilities and weather offer. That should be on the table.

Cutting sports such as baseball and softball won't put a dent in the budget; it's like pocket change compared to hockey and football. But it is a good idea to look at it anyway; especially with the D-I move coming up.

My overall concern in all of this is this: REA was supposed to make the athletic department financially self-sufficient with all the revenue streams it would produce (concessions, suites, merchandising, concerts, etc). And according to WDAZ tonight, 2.2 million people have attended events at REA over the past 5 years. So if the arena is a financial success, how come the athletic department is in the red? Some of it is tuition costs, as you pointed out above. But I still don't believe that REA is giving UND the best deal it can. I have a hard time believing that expenses are eating up all the revenues from this arena. And since REA was built to benefit UND athletics, that is unacceptable.

[Nucleus]

One major thing that must be considered here is that while the REA is busy hosting UND practices and events, its utilization is still very minimal to hosting other events such as concerts, other sporting events, even wedding receptions and trade shows. If you want to look at how a professional venue should be run take a look at Ford Field in Detroit. Yes, Detroit and Grand Forks are different, but the venue usage idea is essentially all the same. Why isn't REA hosting concerts and banquets and a million other things during the summer when the UND sports are not in season? Or any other facilities on campus? Would it be unreasonable for them to put an effort into making some extra cash? From the REA standpoint it would, because if they put on all of these events and staff then with people and pay the intangible expenses of hosting an event, they still wouldn't see any of the profit because theoretically it would go the Athletic Deparment. So why try? Why make an effort? Nothing in the agreement says anything about "sporting event related" profit, it just says profit.

This brings me back to my original statement that the REA/Athletic Department agreement MUST be redone into more of a collaborative effort rather than a "I'll do this if and if you do this" agreement. UND has 13,500? undergraduate students, most of which probably have some sort of part-time job, why not use a resource that we have? Or find some high school kids or someone to staff an event in the off-season? Plan the event early, market it during your hockey games and basketball games, and put on a show. All the capabilities and resources, but NONE of the drive and motivation.

For example, the Toby Keith concert. Huge success! Even if the Ralph draws 3-4 big names a year, imagine the inflow of money to the Ralph, the community, and the most important entity---the one REA is here to "serve"---the Athletic Department

[LeftyZL]

One major thing that must be considered here is that while the REA is busy hosting UND practices and events, its utilization is still very minimal to hosting other events such as concerts, other sporting events, even wedding receptions and trade shows. If you want to look at how a professional venue should be run take a look at Ford Field in Detroit. Yes, Detroit and Grand Forks are different, but the venue usage idea is essentially all the same. Why isn't REA hosting concerts and banquets and a million other things during the summer when the UND sports are not in season? Or any other facilities on campus? Would it be unreasonable for them to put an effort into making some extra cash? From the REA standpoint it would, because if they put on all of these events and staff then with people and pay the intangible expenses of hosting an event, they still wouldn't see any of the profit because theoretically it would go the Athletic Deparment. So why try? Why make an effort? Nothing in the agreement says anything about "sporting event related" profit, it just says profit.

This brings me back to my original statement that the REA/Athletic Department agreement MUST be redone into more of a collaborative effort rather than a "I'll do this if and if you do this" agreement. UND has 13,500? undergraduate students, most of which probably have some sort of part-time job, why not use a resource that we have? Or find some high school kids or someone to staff an event in the off-season? Plan the event early, market it during your hockey games and basketball games, and put on a show. All the capabilities and resources, but NONE of the drive and motivation.

For example, the Toby Keith concert. Huge success! Even if the Ralph draws 3-4 big names a year, imagine the inflow of money to the Ralph, the community, and the most important entity---the one REA is here to "serve"---the Athletic Department

Just an FYI - The Ralph as well as The Betty are both used during the summer months(June and July) for summer camps. They are not sitting there un-used. Memorial Stadium is used for football during the summer for football camps.

I also don't understand your last paragraph. Since I used to work at The Ralph, there is a list of people available all year round. The issue is not having employees/staff on hand as you state. It's a matter of time and space. The Ralph isn't "dead" as often as people think it is. It also gets used during the school year for hockey classes(phy-ed) through UND. If you take away all of the hockey/basketball/volleyball camps, as well as all the other stuff going on there, the only available time when the arena is being un-used is in August. It's tough to schedule big-time concerts/events around a somewhat loaded schedule.

You're also making comments about the administration/staff that are untrue and completely off-base. Your comment of "All the capabilities and resources, but NONE of the drive and motivation." Where did you come up with that? Everything anyone does in a business takes time. The larger the event, the longer the prep time. The Toby Keith concert was announced in January-ish this year I believe. The concert was in February. They began planning for that event in November of 2005. The Ralph got all of the revenue from concession and beer sales. All of the ticket sales went to Toby Keith. How much money do you think they made after staffing 50-60 people for 5-6 hours? That's 250 man hours minimum for an event like that. The cost at that is well over $1500 just for the staffing of the "part-time" crew. What about all of their other bills? Granted, I'm sure it was a pretty good chunk of change, but not as much as people on here or anywhere assume. Did you know they came up with the idea of the motorcycle raffle 2 YEARS AGO? They sent it to a company to see what kind of potential the idea it had. It took the motorcycle company 2 months to build that bike. You also can't get big-time concerts events anytime you want. Especially during the winter, which is not the "touring" season as everyone probably knows. You can't come up with an idea and have it done at the snap of your fingers or at your earliest convenience. Everything takes time. That's what people forget sometimes.

[Riverman]

We all know that a "budget" is to project what it may cost.

Couldn't a "budget" be less than projected??

IMHO, not likely but I try to think positive.

If this is a projected"budget", we all know that there will be plenty of travel for all

sports as we travel down the D1 and D1AA road.