brians Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 sounds like a power grab to assure the top 7 coprs right now stay at the top, for fear they my get beat by up and coming corps thus making less and making recruting etc.. more difficult for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifuarian Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 The proposal doesn't have to be "benign and forward-thinking" to reflect the financial realities of DCI today. It's entirely possible that all the players have seen their own interests clearly, and those interests conflict. If I were the executive director of a non-G7 corps, I'd absolutely oppose this as it's going to reduce the amount of money I make, and possibly cause my corps to fail if the audience and sponsors go elsewhere. I don't have any insider knowledge, but the various 990s make it clear that the financial situation of junior corps is pretty precarious - there are definitely going to be some losers as it shakes out. All the corps directors, G7 and non-G7 alike, have good reason to be scared. They are responding to their fears differently because their situations are different. I agree on all points. This is what I've been trying to say myself. The G7 directors are looking after their best interests of their organizations in an activity that always been financially precarious. They're doing the job they were hired to do, just like the non-G7 groups are doing theirs in fighting this. But we have many, many people in a complete state of denial about this fact, and are clinging to the ludicrous claim that this proposal was made in the interests of "all drum corps", that these altruistic organizations are somehow sacrificing their time and money to create super shows in which they get all the money and all the marketing visibility, since this will somehow make people want to give more money to -- and join -- the corps that are not at these shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 I agree on all points. This is what I've been trying to say myself. The G7 directors are looking after their best interests of their organizations in an activity that always been financially precarious. They're doing the job they were hired to do, just like the non-G7 groups are doing theirs in fighting this. But we have many, many people in a complete state of denial about this fact, and are clinging to the ludicrous claim that this proposal was made in the interests of "all drum corps", that these altruistic organizations are somehow sacrificing their time and money to create super shows in which they get all the money and all the marketing visibility, since this will somehow make people want to give more money to -- and join -- the corps that are not at these shows. I think you've nailed the point here - which is why the board got "restructured" this past weekend. Which also shows the pitfall in making the various units of the activity responsible for the impartial forward outlook of the shared activity. But, that's just me... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorpsFan. Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Yes really. Hopkins, Fielder, Valenzuela and Glasgow were all members of the DCI Board of Directors that voted in favor of the G7 proposal. That is 4 people who are part of the G7 proposal that sat on the Board that voted in favor of continued develpoment of the G7 proposal. I'm sure. Point was not which members voted, but which of them are still on the BOD. 2 of the directors were removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexL Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 I think you've nailed the point here - which is why the board got "restructured" this past weekend. Which also shows the pitfall in making the various units of the activity responsible for the impartial forward outlook of the shared activity. But, that's just me... Mike Anyone remember which groups were pushing the scaled down board size? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2000Cadet Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 (edited) Arrogance Ahh, there we go. So there is no need for you to say "no offense" when clearly you were trying to offend me. Just stand by it. It's cool with me. It's no problem that you feel that way, really. You only have what I post on DCP to feel the way you feel, which is fine with me. But I don't really think you can say for sure that's the attitude those corps directors who proposed this idea were trying to reflect. But like many people have said before, its better to get more details before you try labeling people. So call me arrogant if you wish, doesn't really matter to me buddy. Edited May 20, 2010 by 2000Cadet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurf Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 I know I'm probably going to get a lot of heat for this, and I don't say I agree with this, it's just a thought. As controversial as he is, it can't be argued that he's at the foundation of a lot of these changes. What if they restructure the board... ...and Hoppy wasn't on it? Just a thought. Doubt it'll ever happen, no one's denying how much he's done for the activity. But with that help, a lot of controversy has come as well. I'm scared to even post this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickhaltsforlife Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 All I know is that the Cadets organization has COMPLETELY lost my respect. Starting with the weekly calls to my mother begging for money (after she has asked many times to be taken off the contact list) and now this proposal. All of the other corps in the proposal have also lost much respect. Cavies still have it though, since they actually made a separate statement, showing they weren't completely on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 Let's take it ALL THE WAY! Let's assume all dark predictions come true, and within 5 years, NO CORPS ARE LEFT...except 5... and they all happen to be 5 of our consistent best. (kick out Bloo and Crown, for being "too new" lol) Just imagine the talent. The 750 best. Forget about the 8000 who auditioned and failed. I'd pay $100/week to watch that kind of excellence. MMmmm...I just got goosebumps. you might not know this... but you can already watch Cadets, Cavaliers, Phantom, BD, and SCV. You would prefer a situation where you can only watch those corps? Instead of those corps and a bunch of others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyboy Posted May 20, 2010 Share Posted May 20, 2010 (edited) I've slept on this. I think DCI needs to decide what it is, a governing body for multiple corps, or a pawn for 7 corps to further there own agendas and financial interests. I would love to to see DCI let the "G7" go do their own thing, on any nights they wished, all season long. Don't offer support and don't let them use the DCI brand. DCI should also tighten the raines on this arms race of dollars. Set a reasonable move in date for all corps, lets say June 15. Set up regional tours for the first half of the season. Keep promoting the activity, and heck, even guide the activity as they are currently doing. On top of that, I would love to see DCI let any corps go (aka "you're fired") that wants to commit full time to the G7 concept. It would be a power play and wouldn't sit well with many fans, but what if DCI gave The Cadets and the Blue Devils their walking papers? Room for growth, shake up the base. Call their bluff and let them walk. They are strong organizations outside of DCI and can and do stand on their own without DCI's help. I would even submit that any corps that wants to team up with them can do so and start their own concert tour. The will be missed and talked about fondly for years, but they are mearly catipillars and must be allowed to morph into butterflies. I saw Blast and was not particularly impressed. I would not choose to go see 7 "Blasts" compete against eachother. (edit: morp into morph...ugh) Edited May 20, 2010 by jonnyboy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts