redwing77 Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 So is Steve Hallstrom going to do another expose' on UND's athletic department, like he did last May when he practically assured distraught bison fans that UND would not be going DI? It is a well known public fact that UND has been using tuition waivers for women's hockey. It is also known that UND, as an institution, uses fewer tuition waivers than NDSU. Consider also that UND's leadership has been open and communicative with the North Dakota University System. You and a few other sorry but fearful bison fans are just desperately hoping that some type of scandal will derail UND's DI move. How much of this "new found" Bison resentment stems from the end of the rivalry? I mean, we spurned NDSU by turning our backs when they asked to play us while being DIAA and us DII. That breeds resentment. Then, when UND declares it is going to move, it only seems logical to take out that resentment by hoping we fail? Really, when NDSU made the move to DI I thought of it as a dumb move and I was vocal about it, HOWEVER, I not once stated that I hoped they would fail in their endeavor. There is a difference. I doubt many NDSU fans would think (if they think much at all about UND) that the move to DI is a good deal. I would expect them not to be, in fact, because it once again puts UND in the same playing field as NDSU in many facets even off the athletic turf. However, hoping we fail is a rather petty thing to do. As for shooting the messenger, if the messenger is delivering the message that there is a fire in the barn and cannot furnish any bonafide proof that there is said fire, why shouldn't we contemplate "shooting" that messenger? Seriously Sioux goo and DI, please furnish proof. If not, kindly shut the hell up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bison Dan Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 How much of this "new found" Bison resentment stems from the end of the rivalry? I mean, we spurned NDSU by turning our backs when they asked to play us while being DIAA and us DII. That breeds resentment. Then, when UND declares it is going to move, it only seems logical to take out that resentment by hoping we fail? Really, when NDSU made the move to DI I thought of it as a dumb move and I was vocal about it, HOWEVER, I not once stated that I hoped they would fail in their endeavor. There is a difference. I doubt many NDSU fans would think (if they think much at all about UND) that the move to DI is a good deal. I would expect them not to be, in fact, because it once again puts UND in the same playing field as NDSU in many facets even off the athletic turf. However, hoping we fail is a rather petty thing to do. As for shooting the messenger, if the messenger is delivering the message that there is a fire in the barn and cannot furnish any bonafide proof that there is said fire, why shouldn't we contemplate "shooting" that messenger? Seriously Sioux goo and DI, please furnish proof. If not, kindly shut the hell up. I don't see any where that Bison fans are hoping the sioux fail? That's your own paranoia talking. If you remember alot of sioux fans and some members of the legislature were asking about finances and how NDSU will fund the move. (with many of those saying we'd fail) At the time NDSU was even or in the black, so I don't think you can find it unreasonable that people want to now how UND is going to do it with 850,000 of red ink (if true) BEFORE the move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Might want to watch the news at ten tonight on our Home team channel 8. KVLY-TV 11 reported the first meeting of UND's "detailed plans" 27-person committee was held. Where are the newspapers covering the details? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeauxSioux Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 I don't see any where that Bison fans are hoping the sioux fail? That's your own paranoia talking. If you remember alot of sioux fans and some members of the legislature were asking about finances and how NDSU will fund the move. (with many of those saying we'd fail) At the time NDSU was even or in the black, so I don't think you can find it unreasonable that people want to now how UND is going to do it with 850,000 of red ink (if true) BEFORE the move. You're joking right? I could find 10 threads in a matter of minutes over at B'ville where they are either predicting or hoping that North Dakota fails in the jump to DI. As IowaBison has stated in the past they are probably a minority of the overall Bison fans, but to say you don't see any is nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 As for shooting the messenger, if the messenger is delivering the message that there is a fire in the barn and cannot furnish any bonafide proof that there is said fire, why shouldn't we contemplate "shooting" that messenger? Seriously Sioux goo and DI, please furnish proof. If not, kindly shut the hell up. I'm not agreeing with what they are saying, but I really don't understand this type of response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux goo Posted August 30, 2006 Author Share Posted August 30, 2006 I'm not agreeing with what they are saying, but I really don't understand this type of response. Wow....I hope this person was giving a warning from the moderator....far less things written have been given a warning....but perhaps all the buddy buddy with the moderator gives a person more liberties....no fire in the barn....lol....or the head in the sand....but when your bread is buttered from a place...i guess one chooses....last time I checked...this is a message board....and this is the USA...freedom...first amendment...people can write what they choose....either that or all those young men in Iraq are fighting for no reason at all!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux goo Posted August 30, 2006 Author Share Posted August 30, 2006 As for writing anything that is not the truth....go to the Chester Frizt Library...4th Floor....collections...has all the salaries in there....all the raises....etc....there is your proof....open record As far as the budget....call 777-4111 Acounting Dept...Twamley...open record again...this information is given to any tax payer....because this is your tax money...as well as mine...if you want a name to ask for...pm me I will give you a contact person....more proof....wow...pudding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csonked Out Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 As for writing anything that is not the truth....go to the Chester Frizt Library...4th Floor....collections...has all the salaries in there....all the raises....etc....there is your proof....open record As far as the budget....call 777-4111 Acounting Dept...Twamley...open record again...this information is given to any tax payer....because this is your tax money...as well as mine...if you want a name to ask for...pm me I will give you a contact person....more proof....wow...pudding Sioux Goo, I personally have nothing against your information in an economic sense, as i have expected a bigger debt this year, and the next 4 or 5 years. The thing I dont agree with is the reasonings behind the deficit came across as very unknowledgeable and therefor made your inside info hard to believe, but yes you are correct about the debt. Although I hardly doubt that the 5-10% raises for 5-10 people is the reason for the debt. Most colleges accept the fact that their athletic departments will almost always lose money year after year, which is often times and especially on here looked at way to much. look at minnesota They have roughly a $50 million athletic budget, and they are roughly $50 million in the whole, so should minnesota drop athletics. Absolutely not, because while that is a lot of money to lose, athletics is a big reason many students go to a college, and is an excellent way to not only represent a school, but also advertise what a school has to offer. How can a school such as this support a debt like that? Well 45 to 50,000 students each pay tuition, they make hundreds of millions of dollars off research, theres alumni donors, state money, etc... My point is yes it would be nice to turn a profit but i would estimate that only the top 2-3% of college athletic departments even break even. Also UND has $9 million left of a donation to use as it see fits, which was said in the dakota student would go mostly towards scholarships, and what a coincidence, in the next 5 years scholarships will increase by quite a bit. Trust me, a University this size would not jump into something without figuring out the budget. If they know they wont pull even, but will be under $1 million a year in debt, they may not think its a big deal if the University can make up for it, which by the expansion around campus obviously appears that it can. Folks, don't get pulled into the small scheme of things, in the bigger picture the deficit is by no means a huge deal, and will be overcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux goo Posted August 30, 2006 Author Share Posted August 30, 2006 I am not saying that it was all on raises for certain people...not at all...the real problem lies within the contract with REA....that is the problem....has been for the last 5 years..even though some people believe its the way of the future...sometimes the way of the past was ok....when the athletic dept had a 200,000 surplus...when we played hockey, hoops, football in our own buildings...paid no rent...received all the concessions...etc...as opposed to now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn-O Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 What exactly is the financial arrangement with REA? Where do the profits/surplus generated by the building go? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersioux Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 I am not saying that it was all on raises for certain people...not at all...the real problem lies within the contract with REA....that is the problem....has been for the last 5 years..even though some people believe its the way of the future...sometimes the way of the past was ok....when the athletic dept had a 200,000 surplus...when we played hockey, hoops, football in our own buildings...paid no rent...received all the concessions...etc...as opposed to now. I agree that not owning your own facilities does hurt some revenue, but it also makes it possible to have and operate a first class facility. The one item that makes sense from REA is that WHEN IT TURNS A PROFIT THE REVENUE GOES BACK TO UND ATHLETICS. The facility that I beleive is a money drain is the Alerus. What do we get from them? IMHO at least with the REA and the Betty our teams have offices there, practice there, and when there is a profit the money goes back. Does anyone know what we pay to play in the Alerus? and do we get concessions there? I think our FB team even has to pay to practice there and pay for the visiting team to practice there. Don't get me wrong both are great facilities, and I don't know the contract but from what I do know the REA has the most potentail to increase UND Athletic's revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Is this "850" number for the budget for the year that just ended (FY 06), or is this the fiscal year 2007 (FY 07) budget they are currently operating under and the $850k is a projected deficit for FY 07? Which year do the consultants on a long term facilities plan get paid under (FY 06 or FY 07)? Was there a "golden parachute" clause for Rich Glas or was it straight resign and go? What kind of bonus incentives have kicked in for a mens hockey coaching staff that's gone to two straight Frozen Fours? Any? None? What kind of bonus incentives have kicked in for a football coaching staff that's gone to the playoff how many times in a row? Any? None? What kind of bonus incentives have kicked in for a womens BB coaching staff that set a school record for wins at the start of a season? Any None? What's the status of REA's books and when does their fiscal year end*? There's lots of stuff going on. I'd love the details, not just a statistic. * Any REA profits come back to UND. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star2city Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 ...the real problem lies within the contract with REA....that is the problem....has been for the last 5 years..even though some people believe its the way of the future...sometimes the way of the past was ok....when the athletic dept had a 200,000 surplus...when we played hockey, hoops, football in our own buildings...paid no rent...received all the concessions...etc...as opposed to now. The real issue is that the state of North Dakota will not subsidize the operation of the Ralph, like they did for the Hyslop, Old Ralph, and like they do for the BSA. The Ralph has to pay its way entirely, down to the sanitary sewer bills. If the Hyslop and Old Ralph had to pay for utilities and support personnel, UND athletics would have continually run deficits. Live in the past if you choose, but the REA and the hockey tradition that now lies within it will take UND athletics, soon, to a place no one dreamed possible ten years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiouxMeNow Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 The real issue is that the state of North Dakota will not subsidize the operation of the Ralph, like they did for the Hyslop, Old Ralph, and like they do for the BSA. The Ralph has to pay its way entirely, down to the sanitary sewer bills. If the Hyslop and Old Ralph had to pay for utilities and support personnel, UND athletics would have continually run deficits. Live in the past if you choose, but the REA and the hockey tradition that now lies within it will take UND athletics, soon, to a place no one dreamed possible ten years ago. I can't disagree!..and you know what a pain in the *ss I am about details! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxrunner Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 I am not saying that it was all on raises for certain people...not at all...the real problem lies within the contract with REA....that is the problem....has been for the last 5 years..even though some people believe its the way of the future...sometimes the way of the past was ok....when the athletic dept had a 200,000 surplus...when we played hockey, hoops, football in our own buildings...paid no rent...received all the concessions...etc...as opposed to now. Holy ellipsis party Batman! sioux goo, i hope...you don't talk...the same...way...you type. It...would be annoying to...talk...to someone who...paused every five...seconds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucleus Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 I didn't even knew that Siouxgoo had access to any sort of electronic equipment! As far as the reason for the budget shortfall, siouxgoo had it nailed. The contract with REA is absolutely unfair and unjust to the athletic department. Yes, if they make a profit it comes to the athletic department, but they don't, they have no incentive to? Why would they go through the pain of hosting or booking events knowing that the potential profit won't come back to them? The athletic department became so overwhelmed with this excellent facility that they agreed to litterally, take in up the #&@ in order to use it. Just because its there, doesn't mean it is the best thing for us. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the Ralph and the atmosphere it has, but as far as a money-maker for UND athletics? Absolutely not. In 30 years when it gets turned over to the University, what a clusterf*&^ that will be with two sets of employees and a out-of-date deteriorated building to drain on the University? Lets face it, stadiums and facilities don't last that long anymore. I.E. the Metrodome which is thought to be so out of date and primitive, but yet it was built in the 80s (only 20 years ago). The agreement needs to be redone, but also there needs to be discipline to the individual coaches to stick to their allotted budget. For example, the average overbudget for the Mens and Womens BB program combined for the past 5 years is nearly $15,000 combined over budget every year, which flucuations. The only sports to stick to their orginal allotted budget for the year is the cheer team and the baseball program. Congrats to those groups, you understand your role and work your butt off to make up the difference (selling 50/50, etc.) I also agree that their should be incentives for the coaches and programs that do well. Why should VB and softball and Mens BB consistently get huge chunks of money when they do nothing with it? Its stupid from a financial standpoint and yes I understand that athletics isn't all about the money made and money lost, but face it, the business of professional and collegiate sports is exactly that....a business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersioux Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 I think that you may be missing a few sports that stick to their budget. I've heard that XC and Track hasn't been over budget in 15 years. I beleive that M and W Swimming and W Soccer all were within budget last year. I understand your frustration with REA and I will admitt it isn't ideal, but it is more ideal than the Alerus. We pay unreasonable amounts of money to use it for games, pre game practice and anything else. With no hopes of getting any profits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux goo Posted October 2, 2006 Author Share Posted October 2, 2006 So I guess the question is....why do the powers that be....let this to continue?? with the Ralph, Betty and the Alerus??? Some have assumed out sourcing is the wave of the future...I am not buying that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted October 2, 2006 Share Posted October 2, 2006 So I guess the question is....why do the powers that be....let this to continue?? A guess: Because there's a contract? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sioux goo Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 To quote someone in a meeting....just because we have a agreement with REA...does not mean its a good agreement!!!! Needless to say...those words didnt sit well with the boss!!!...but they were true irregardless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 A guess: Because there's a contract? PCM, And just how long are these contracts that are signed with REA? I know the lease is 30 years, but how long are the contracts for maintenance, revenue sharing, etc? I have always wondered that. Maybe someone on here knows? What REA doesn't seem to understand is that REA exists to serve UND, UND does not exist to serve REA. This arena was promoted as a big money-maker for UND athletics and the greatest thing since sliced bread when it was being built in 2000-2001. That hasn't happened. Ralph Engelstad built this arena to benefit his alma mater and to display his gratitude for what this institution did for him. He didn't build it so that a small group of corporate wanna-be suits could cash in on our #1 sport at our expense. I wonder what he would think about the current situation between UND and REA? I don't think he would approve of it. I think Roger Thomas allowed REA to dictate too many terms during the initial contract negotiations. That was one of his weaknesses; he was just too darn nice of a guy! Tom Buning seems more of a no-nonsense type of administrator. Let's hope this helps us get a better deal in the future. This is just my opinion and feelings on the matter. Some on here will disagree with it, but that is what I think. Fire Away! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Last time I looked (may not be 100% accurate), this is the structure that controls REA (board members listed with each): The umbrella organization: ARENA HOLDINGS CHARITABLE (this govers the following) Owner of the arena: UND SPORTS FACILITIES INC (Appointed by President, UND): Tom Clifford, UND President Emeritus Earl Strinden, former UND Foundation CEO Aron Anderson, Lakota State Bank and the UND Alumni Association Management of the arena: UND ARENA SERVICES INC (UND and Engelstad Family Trust representatives): Tom Clifford, UND President Emeritus Earl Strinden, former UND Foundation CEO Aron Anderson, Lakota State Bank and the UND Alumni Association Owen Nitz, Engelstad family attorney Jeff Cooper, Engelstad family accountant Bob Gallager, UND Vice President of Finance and Operations John Cook, a longtime friend of Engelstad and a retired banker. Operations of the arena: RE ARENA INC (day-to-day management of the arena): Tom Clifford, UND President Emeritus Earl Strinden, former UND Foundation CEO Owen Nitz, Engelstad family attorney Jeff Cooper, Engelstad family accountant REA General Manager (by position) I struggle to even try to believe that Earl Strinden and Tom Clifford (much less Bob Gallager(!) and Aron Anderson) are out to "get" UND. Is the agreement perfect? Can't be. Great? Probably not. Does The Betty debt need to be paid off to free cash-flow for a DI move? "Nobody knows everything." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choyt3 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Not sure what sort of leverage UND/Buning would have regarding the REA. Short of building another new arena, where are they going to play? Purpur? The Alerus on the other hand... there might be some other options on that front in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Not sure what sort of leverage UND/Buning would have regarding the REA. Short of building another new arena, where are they going to play? Purpur? And what would REA do without our hockey programs? Bring in a Major Junior team? Not trying to be a wise guy, just asking the question. The arena was built to support the University of North Dakota in general and Division I hockey in paticular. It could not survive without those programs, no matter how many cheesy garage bands, tennis matches and curling tournaments they bring in. Most things are open to negotiation in business and in life. You just have to have the backbone and guts to get your fingernails dirty once in a while. But since REA and UND have such a symbiotic relationship, it shouldn't come to that. I will admit that the solution to the revenue problem is not easy to come by. I'm just concerned that we aren't getting the deal we were told we were getting when this arena was being designed and built. I want our athletic department to have the resources to make this D-I move a success. I want us to have successful programs at the next level, not just the D-I name. I hope that our leaders (Buning, Kupchella) have a game plan to make it happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 PCM, And just how long are these contracts that are signed with REA? How the heck would I know? I just posed what seemed like a realistic possibility. Maybe we could get some of those mind-reading forensic accountants from NDSU to figure it all out and report back to us. 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.