Richard

You're very quick to pick apart the DCI press release and business plan, especially considering you were encouraging the DCP community to be more open to the G7 proposal. As usual, it comes down to trust in DCI leadership, of which you apparently have none. I'll be the first to admit that I was perhaps over-trusting of the entire DCI leadership, and was faced with that harsh reality during this G7 fiasco. But the 2009 numbers and the 2010 business plan have somewhat validated my trust. What would DCI leadership have to do to gain your trust in their decision making abilities? Invite you to every board meeting so you can check in on their ideas, plans and progress? As strictly a fan of the activity, you appear to ask an awful lot. However, I understand and respect that your thirst for information is driven by a concern for the health of DCI, which is something we all have in common. Lastly, doesn't it concern you that the insistence of the necessity of the G7 proposal was predicated upon what has been revealed to be a blatant falsehood - the unsustainability of the current DCI model?

Maybe DCP catches wind of these things because there are more connected/involved people than you think. Why did audiodb continually ask for proof that DCI was in trouble financially? Maybe because he knew, or at least was close to sure, that there wasn't any? BOBSMYTH also posted up the new board before it was made public. Jeff Ream knew something about the G7 proposal prior to any public knowledge of what really happened. Even I caught wind of it. DCP is made up of more than fans, I can assure you of that. Anything monumental that happens will at the very least be whispered around, and if it sounds bad enough, those whispers will get very loud very quickly, as they did in this case. I think you're downplaying the whole incident far too much, but what do I know. The power point also paints a picture of doom for DCI...surely the G7 were fully aware of the finances of DCI (as the public now is). And if they were not, how could they possibly suggest such staggering changes without even attempting to do their due diligence? And the entire G7 made a public statement when they tried to get out in front of this mess by putting Fiedler's write-up on each of their websites. Also, if they weren't on board with it, why did only the Cavaliers make an attempt to distance themselves from it (and why did the DCW article mention specifically the Cavaliers had concerns prior to that statement)? They knew the job was dangerous when they took it. You're kidding yourself if you think they just said "yeah ok George, do what you want and we'll sign off on it".

I think Hop thought that with 7 on board he could garner enough followers by throwing bones to the AA class (e.g. slightly increased show revenue for that group). Or maybe he was banking on Weinstein or Sposato to think "oh hey I could be that 8th corps and hitch myself to that gravy train!" We're talking about someone who is very strong in his convictions, so it wouldn't surprise me to learn that he really beleived he could get enough support (through incentives or fear) to ram through his vision. I don't see this going away though and it concerns me. Hop proposed it in 1997 and here he is again with practically the same thing. I think the longer The Cadets (and throw the Blue Devils into that mix as well) are part of DCI, this will never be a dead issue. Maybe he waits until 5 years from now so he can point out any shortcomings of the 2010-2014 strategic plan and try and get supporters through doing that, or maybe he just bolts next year. Regardless, I don't think he will be very popular among his peers for a few years.

Likewise. I'd wager the potential for some interesting news in this thread is pretty high.

Well his program is YEA as a whole, I don't think they do separate balance sheets or P&Ls for the separate entities to say "oh well Cadets is operating at a net loss". Overall, YEA appears to be pretty stable. And there's clearly more to it their income than operating income, such as donations, grants, investments and sponsorships, but the fact remains if you look at the operating expenses versus the operating income for YEA, USSBA is bringing in the bulk of the revenue.

You're right on Jeff. I pulled the YEA 990 for the 2008 calendar year. Here's the program service revenue breakdown (i.e. the revenue they make from their NFP activities): USSBA Shows: $1,583,522 - 65.7% Tour/Camp/Training Fees: $412,297 - 17.1% Drum Corps Shows: $219,954 - 9.1% Appearance Fees: $194,728 - 8.1% Total: $2,410,501 So less than 10% of what YEA makes is from DCI shows. Compare this to the program expenses: USSBA: $1,210,365 - 53.6% The Cadets: $1,017,638 - 45% Urban Arts Center of Lehigh Valley: $31,406 – 1.4% Total: $2,259,409 I guess you could argue that YEA is running a band circuit to subsidize its drum corps. No wonder Hop thinks the money is in the marching band activity.

This already exists but without the labels. "Hey I wonder if Boston or Blue Stars will make top 6 this year?". The questions and anticipation already exists - who will win? who will make top 6? top 8? top 10? finals? There are maybe 8 or 9 different corps that could make top 6 without shocking anyone. There are 16 or 17 corps that could make finals in the same manner. Do assigning labels to the tiers really make it that much more fun?

Oh, you're right, I forgot how easy it was. And what if corps decide to place importance on the experience they provide to members over competitive placement? I'm not saying they're mutually exclusive, but a corps could well feel that they're fulfilling their mission by providing a great experience to their members while putting a quality product on the field. [sarcasm] But you're right, those corps need to nut up. [/sarcasm]

Fair enough. I just went through your recent posting history so maybe now I have a more accurate view of where you stand. Your posts contain many "may"s and "maybe"s related to the intent of the proposal, what was said during the actual presentation and all the "to be determined" details that were omitted. I'm all for being skeptical, but you're looking rather hard for the silver lining when there is absolutely no evidence of one. And your presumption that the "bad" parts of the proposal could just be voted down and removed is, in my opinion, naive. The tone of the powerpoint was very clear: we are going to make this happen.

Equating excellent on-field performance with good management principles is a dangerous game to play. I'll cede that Gibbs and Hopkins have run their organizations very, VERY well, but you can't make that determination just because they have good shows every year.

Well it's a worthwhile question. You appear to support this proposal (correct me if I'm wrong) and maintain that you acknowledge the impact of it on all aspects of the activity, so the only conclusion I can draw is that you could care less about the members/staff/volunteers/administrators in smaller corps and the experience being provided to those kids and by those people. At least be honest about it instead of trying to skirt the issue: you just don't care.

Ok, I guess you just haven't demonstrated that very well thus far. Also, this:

lolwut? Who was talking about rights? I was merely questioning your perspective and consideration of how this proposal of which you seem to be largely in favor would impact the entire activity including all it's participants. Also, I was a card carrying BD nutswinger prior to all this nonsense. My favorite corps by far. I also defended many progressive changes in DCI on these boards, and my posting history will show it. But my whatever allegiance my fandom may carry gets thrown out the window when the future of the activity is so obviously at stake. And so we're clear, you're saying you could just care less, right?

I think the issue is that you (and corpsband) come off a corps parents that are pretty detached from the actual activity and either aren't acknowledging or don't fully comprehend the consequences of this proposal. If your son was in, say, Velvet Knights or Gold instead of BD, I bet you would feel differently. You're either failing to see the perspective of a non-G7 corps member/instructor/volunteer/fan, or you just could care less. Progression and change can be very good things, but you really have to consider all the consequences of such a monumental upheaval.

Saying that "it's only a proposal"doesn't carry a lot of weight with me because of the divisive nature of it. The damage has been done. The way you write it, it's just extra shows on the schedule which is pretty mundane. There was no outrage over the Triple C show prior to the G7 debacle. The show format its not the sticking point here, the money/power grab is, and that's the part of the proposal that it's proponents choose to either ignore or downplay as something that can simply be removed in the next draft.

I believe the G7 directors have the best interest of their own organizations at heart, as well they should. But this proposal promotes those groups at the expense of other organizations in DCI, which I cannot support in any form. They didn't accidentally include the effective dismissal of Open Class corps in their proposal, it was done very deliberately. What else can you infer when the proposal clearly says they believe that DCI cannot support the current number of corps? I can pretty confidently say that your opinion would be very different if your kid was in an Open Class corps that was being threatened by this proposal. As someone who marched and remains heavily invested and active in Open Class, I think the outrage its warranted and completely appropriate. I was a fan of those top tier corps, but I never thought they would go this route. I guess I was being naive.

As I understand it, and audiodb has a firmer grasp on this than I, the OC directors elected to have revenue sharing be their payout instead of receiving appearance fees (and I believe they do receive appearance fees at WC shows, but it's nominal). They pool the funds from OC shows throughout the season and divide it thereafter. I don't know how they do or what percentage of their revenue it is. I do know that the proposal would effectively eliminate Open Class, relegating those groups to "regional touring", which is pretty impossible given the geographic distribution of the current OC groups as I mentioned in an earlier post. Regardless of how much they receive, what burden is this placing on DCI that the G7 feels it to be unsustainable? That's what I don't understand. Is the Open Class circuit really bogging down the G7 that much where they feel they need to "trim the fat"? Lastly, how can you defend a proposal of which you don't understand the implications?

Hmmm..revenue sharing, show coordination, a national championship...they're losing an entire circuit. Your naivete about Open Class shows just how uninformed you are in this discussion.

But the proposal is about selling tickets (and increasing show revenues for the G7) and effectively eliminates the Open Class leaving hundreds of current marching members without a circuit and consequently without a season. The proposal would be taking the experience away from those kids. All in the name of increasing revenue for groups that already have fairly steady revenue. I don't agree with Kyle that the successful corps should prop up the weaker ones - they're in the financial position they're in because they've earned it on and off the field - but I can't even begin to support something that would cripple Open Class so, especially when it's done because they're not "the draw". Perhaps the "mob" had more insight into what went on prior to most? Sure, there are some out-of-hand posters that quite frankly make it harder for me to argue this side, but for the most part the people making the most salient points are VERY well informed, as was born out by the disclosure of the proposal. I see four parties in this discussion: those that are going out of their way to crucify the proposal, those that are going out of their way to defend it, those that are trying to look at it rationally but don't know any better, and those that are close to it, well-connected and well-informed that continue to make very telling statements. I have no idea who CorpsFan. and audiodb are, but I'm POSITIVE they are better informed than you or I based on what they've written and references they've made. I don't get that same impression from anyone that feels the proposal is meritorious. I was merely pre-emptively defending myself.

Well you're being decidedly vague about the parts you support and the parts you don't. Then when I asked if you were ok with effectively disbanding Open Class, your attitude appeared to be "those are the breaks. No fans, no corps!" Am I wrong? I mentioned in a previous post that there are good ideas for increasing the entertainment value at the show in this proposal, but bundling it with a coup of DCI is a ####-poor execution of those ideas.

But Open Class corps and non-G7 corps are performing their mission, and the assertion of the G7 is that those groups DON'T sell tickets. And the G7 groups are performing their mission right now without demanding additional show revenue!! When you look at some of the things these groups spend money on, you have to wonder why they feel the need to reduce the number of corps in DCI to make ends meet... What further debases yours and other's argument is pre-proposal it was "well let's just see the details, surely those corps directors wouldn't propose something that would hurt the smaller groups so much", but now that you can blatantly read that they did propose something like that, the crux of the argument is "well, those groups just don't attract enough fans, so they should be gone from DCI." Shifting your viewpoint as facts come to light does not give you credibility. And before you say that I'm automatically anti-Hopkins/G7/what-have-you, you can ask people like audiodb and Jeff Ream about my previous pro-DCI and pro-decisions made by the board of directors discussions. I could defend those decisions because I thought they were not harmful to the activity. This one is decidedly so, and I don't understand how anyone can not see that.

Uh...and the drum majors and staff in critique would just catch up later? So you're willing to back a proposal that would eliminate the activity for a majority of the current junior corps in DCI based on "what you can gather". I'm pretty thankful you're not voting on this one. And define "activity". If the "activity" were losing so much money, individual corps would start dropping out at a much quicker pace. Is Crown about to fold up because they're not making enough per show? Nope. Are the Colts? Doubtful. Where are you "gathering" this dying activity story beyond what was in the proposal?

YEA's mission statement: "TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIFE SKILLS IN YOUTH THROUGH THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE PERFORMING ARTS. " BD's mission statement: "Music and the performing arts connect youth with their culture through a common language crossing generational, social, and racial barriers. The activities that a young person pursues influence the type of person he or she becomes. The experience that comes with participation in a performing arts organization builds discipline, character, pride, and self-confidence at a crucial age and forms the springboard to even greater achievements in adulthood The Blue Devils Parents' Association performing arts programs permanently enrich the lives of young people through a commitment to youth development and performance excellence while providing enjoyment for our local community and audiences worldwide. " Crown's mission statement: "Developing lifelong excellence in young people through a superior and challenging performing arts education experience." Not ticket sales. Not audience numbers. An experience for young people. The proposal suggests taking that experience away from hundreds of current and thousands of future Open Class members (which you're ok with, and I consider disgusting, for the record) in the name of selling more tickets. You're seriously ok with that? Huh? I can't even comprehend that.

Uhh...what about the members of those corps and the experience they're being provided (remember, members are paying customers of this activity too)? I guess we just tell them "sorry, not enough people watch you, so you can't be in DCI. You don't have the time or money to march in the G7? Too bad. Go home." Yeah, great proposal for an alleged youth activity. There's more to drum corps than fans. That keeps getting forgotten here.

Wait...what? You make it sound like the G7 are propping up Open Class. Do Open Class corps receive any funds what-so-ever from World Class shows? What services does DCI render Open Class that are being paid for by the Blue Devils? Show coordination? I always thought the Open Class payouts were mostly based off of the revenue generated by Open Class shows. Is this wrong? You say "DCI cannot fund those hundreds of corps alone"...How much does DCI contribute to funding ANY corps?