Jump to content

G7 part 2, Eletronics Boogaloo


Stu

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Stu said:

 

From the report:

 

“In the opinion of these corps… it is not wise, or appropriate, that each of the current World Class corps have a vote that holds equal influence. Those who sell tickets, those who generate sales, those who are most marketable [G7] need to also control a larger portion of the vote on business and adjudication issues… A reclassification to AAA [G7], AA, and A will also play into governance, fascial remuneration, and overall control of the future”

 

If that had actually been implemented, do you really think that Boston would be where they are at today?

 

Of course not.  They would be a multiple DCI champion.

8 hours ago, Stu said:

I just want to stay with the parameters of the proposal.

By the parameters of the proposal, the G7 would have left DCI and run their own separate tour.  Precisely how many DCI titles Boston, Blue Knights and others would have accumulated since then would depend on how quickly the G7 tour devolved, and whether any of the former G7 corps survived, reconciled with DCI, and could still assemble as competitive a team as before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

Of course not.  They would be a multiple DCI champion.

By the parameters of the proposal, the G7 would have left DCI and run their own separate tour.  Precisely how many DCI titles Boston, Blue Knights and others would have accumulated since then would depend on how quickly the G7 tour devolved, and whether any of the former G7 corps survived, reconciled with DCI, and could still assemble as competitive a team as before.

Splitting off from DCI into Music In Motion (MiM) was the original concoction of the seven. The idea to split was similar to what had happened in 1972 when DCI was split off from the VFW. However, the seven discovered a split would not work in post Y2K for two main reasons: 1) The revenue stream from DCI was and is vital, and was not something they could generate apart from DCI; and 2) They found out they needed the DCI branding for marketing.  So, the G7 proposal was a hijack attempt to take full control of DCI instead of splitting off, as you seem to think was the case.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Stu said:

Since this is the Stu-not-Stu-but-is- Stu thread I want to clarify something.  As directors of their respective ‘individual corps’ I have had and still have great admiration for the leadership of BD, Cadets, The Cavaliers, SCV, Crown, Bluecoats, and Regiment.  All, especially BD, are run as successful individual businesses with great efficiency and productivity.  That is to be highly commended, and all other corps can learn from those individual business practices.  Where the problem lies is two-fold:

1) These directors, with the proposal, flew against their own agreements to the collective mission of DCI in which they ‘voluntarily’ agreed to uphold and support; and 2) The governance structure of DCI written in 1972 also was a direct pipeline that fed into this situation. DCI as a corporation should be a separate entity from the corps; because when what is best for an individual corps is not what is best for the governing organization, or when what is best for the governing organization is not what is best for the individual corps, a person who is both a director of the corps and a director of DCI is placed in a huge conflict of interest.  And that conflict of interest was a big part of the G7 vs. DCI situation.

This aspect of it all could be an interesting topic of discussion in itself.

By your assertion that DCI has been an ongoing conflict of interest from its inception 45 years ago, one could question whether the activity could have been better off under different governance.  Maybe the DCI structure just needed to delegate more of the power away from corps directors to avoid the inmates-running-the-asylum syndrome.  Perhaps a larger number of member corps would have been more democratic.  Or if the corps had partnered with major event sponsors like World Open, U.S. Open, etc., they could have established much of the rules and logistics with less conflict of interest.  Even VFW or American Legion might have been the answer, if the right person was put in place as drum corps commissioner.  (I know, this is all water under the bridge now... but it opens the mind to possibilities.)

So how about now?  What could be done now to alleviate this conflict of interest going forward?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

well maybe. Thats when Boston started making the large changes in how they run the organization. 

But least ye forget that If implemented, the G7 would currently have the majority control of DCI revenue, the majority of control of all other DCI resources, the majority control of DCI voting, the majority control of DCI adjudication rules, and the majority control of DCI show dates and line-ups, the .  The minds of those ‘agreeing’ to such a document are the same type of minds that would place a sentence concerning the three year deal as a false tease, an illusion carrot; placed in the proposal in hopes that enough corps would help implement the plan.  Do you really believe that altruism, especially in the aspect of revenue sharing, would somehow kick in where the seven would create competitive rules favorable enough to any corps but themselves that would allow another corps to actually enter their club, and share their revenue, with a three year stint in eighth or higher?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stu said:

Splitting off from DCI into Music In Motion (MiM) was the original concoction of the seven. The idea to split was similar to what had happened in 1972 when DCI was split off from the VFW. However, the seven discovered a split would not work in post Y2K for two main reasons: 1) The revenue stream from DCI was and is vital, and was not something they could generate apart from DCI; and 2) They found out they needed the DCI branding for marketing.  So, the G7 proposal was a hijack attempt to take full control of DCI instead of splitting off, as you seem to think was the case.

 

No, I agree that is very likely... which is why confining discussion to "the parameters of the proposal" does not work.  Thank you for proving my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

This aspect of it all could be an interesting topic of discussion in itself.

By your assertion that DCI has been an ongoing conflict of interest from its inception 45 years ago, one could question whether the activity could have been better off under different governance.  Maybe the DCI structure just needed to delegate more of the power away from corps directors to avoid the inmates-running-the-asylum syndrome.  Perhaps a larger number of member corps would have been more democratic.  Or if the corps had partnered with major event sponsors like World Open, U.S. Open, etc., they could have established much of the rules and logistics with less conflict of interest.  Even VFW or American Legion might have been the answer, if the right person was put in place as drum corps commissioner.  (I know, this is all water under the bridge now... but it opens the mind to possibilities.)

So how about now?  What could be done now to alleviate this conflict of interest going forward?

 

The voting corps have had the governance power since 1972, they are not going to give that power up now.  Thus the conflict of interest shall remain.  And while I despise the G7 plan, least we forget that there have been many times 'most all' voting corps have dumped hard on non-voting corps for their own agendas; especially in the area of distributing DCI revenue (example: increasing competitive payout for WC by 'eliminating' payout for OC)

Edited by Stu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

No, I agree that is very likely... which is why confining discussion to "the parameters of the proposal" does not work.  Thank you for proving my point.

A MiM type split is still not feasible. And do you think that the leadership of the seven, including their boards, have had a deep down altruistic change of heart from their proposal?  Well, their behavior and attitude since 2010 still seems rather contemptuous not apologetic to me; it is just muted now due to the surprise vote which knocked them down. Nevertheless, that desire to switch DCI into something for their own agenda would likely publicly emerge again very quickly if given the chance. All they need to do is woo five more voting members into their mindset and bingo! That is why sticking to the attitudes presented in the proposal is necessary.

Edited by Stu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

I have no fondness for the actions of the G7, but I don't think this quite right. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, if a corps finished in the top eight for three years' straight, the G7 proposal called for that corps to be elevated into the top group. There was, however, no mechanism that I recall for demoting an original G7 member who failed to finish in the top eight for three consecutive years, if that should ever happen.

you are correct, Blue Stars would have been the first to be in having made top 8 three years in a row, 2008, 09, 10, we all know how that worked out.  Also, is the pay out for attending tour of champion shows today the same as for the non G7 corps who attend?... not sure it is.  The 7 are still in force with their scheming ways, just much more quiet about it. We will know for sure there is a crack when a G7 corps is allowed to drop below 9th place....and one of the power broker corps is allowed to drop below 7th.  as it is now, the G7 will always get the benefit of the doubt in a big way,... will let corps get to within 1-2 tenths but that's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...