Daave Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 Indeed. And, I stand corrected. I found the thread. It was the 2013 Jannuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 13, 2017 Author Share Posted September 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, brians said: 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. My contention is that if the G7 had majority control of the DCI vote, control of the DCI adjudication rules, control of the DCI revenue, control of show line-ups, like they proposed in the document, there is no way they would have allowed another corps to be in a position to have a three year in a row stint in the top eight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c mor Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 (edited) 16 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? I've not heard that term before. Sounds scary. Strother Martin: "What we have here is failure to remunerate." ($1 to Jim Varney) Edited September 13, 2017 by c mor edited it , isn't that fun to say, "edited it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 5 hours 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? See: Don Pesceone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 13, 2017 Author Share Posted September 13, 2017 7 minutes ago, c mor said: I've not heard that term before. Sounds scary. Strother Martin: "What we have here is failure to remunerate." ($1 to Jim Varney) I just rechecked page 8 of the proposal; the word used is 'remuneration'. I suppose it is supposed to sound more educated than 'compensation'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiga Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Jeff Ream said: well maybe. Thats when Boston started making the large changes in how they run the organization. Jeff, I have made this assertion before on another thread. Knowing many of the movers and shakers on the BAC board personally (I marched with some and taught with others) I can tell you that a turning point in Boston's trajectory came in the year when BAC DID, in fact, qualify to be in the TOC shows but was not let in. There were some people in Boston who were so angry, so furious at this obvious block that they literally committed to do WHATEVER it would take financially to thrust the organization into the upper tier. That anger was harnessed and became known as "Building A Champion". While some outsiders scoffed, the BOD was doubled in size, community based educational programs were acquired and grown, the formidable resources of the corporate/financial sector within the City of Boston as well as the city itself were brought into play, and the BAC/Inspire Arts budget was quintupled in 3 years. As I have said before, the G7 proposal ignited the fire. And, here's what is NOT common knowledge....more than a few of BAC's current board members who are now extremely successful in their 50's and 60's remember a time many years ago when there were some forces in the activity trying to keep Boston out (then it was the top 12). In those days, these people were just struggling teenagers off the streets of various eastern Mass cities and towns....what could they do? I guess now they feel like they are empowered to do something about it. The summer of 2017 was just the opening salvo. Edited September 13, 2017 by craiga 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 6 hours ago, Stu said: 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. They did? Who said that? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 5 hours ago, Stu said: 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. How so? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Haring Posted September 13, 2017 Share Posted September 13, 2017 58 minutes ago, Stu said: I just rechecked page 8 of the proposal; the word used is 'remuneration'. I suppose it is supposed to sound more educated than 'compensation'. But what about the "fascial" part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 13, 2017 Author Share Posted September 13, 2017 7 minutes ago, Fran Haring said: But what about the "fascial" part? That was my dumb fat fingers trying to use a skinny smart phone!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts