So it's the big week

[audiodb]

4) The last paragraph states that any corps that wishes to propose alternatives to the "currently approved" strategic plan can do so at the July MN meeting.

Putting it in that context, it appears that the newly elected Board [edit] reviewed their own DCI strategic plan on May 26, post G7 blow-up, and has sort of thrown down the gauntlet to allow the G7 to come back to the table with either a more detailed or changed proposal, as well as allow any other non G7 corps to propose any alternative plan.

No. As I read it, the article is referencing a specific agenda item to entertain a more detailed proposal from the G7. Remember, the working BOD voted to give further consideration to the proposed Cirque du NASCAR events and tour schedule alterations. Since that idea impacts a tour schedule they'd like to have formulated by September, they need to make a decision on this prior to September.

[audiodb]

I think your timing is off, Stu, although I'm not sure the end result is different.

The DCI plan was drafted last September. It's reasonable, therefor, to assume it was presented to the board at the January meeting (the "Janual").

No. It was presented in September, and ratified in September.

It's feasible that all of the G7 voted against the DCI plan at the Janual and set about to craft their own plan.

No - the DCI 5-year business plan was passed in September by a vote of 8-1....and we should all know who the one dissenter was.

It's also possible that they approved the plan then something, subsequently, convinced them that the DCI was not adequate and they built their own plan.

Yes. Three G7 directors approved the DCI business plan in September. Yet, a few months later, they joined with the G7 to plot a different course.

[garfield]

Thanks, audiodb, but be careful with your semantics (hat tip to Stu. ).

My suspicion, as is yours, is that during the time since September the one No vote was able to convince the others of a better plan. (BTW, my opinion is that the one dissenting view was not necessarily from Hopkins, but I have no evidence what-so-ever to back it up.)

I still don't get the rationale for the timing. The DCI plan is passed, with consternation from the one NO. All the other G6 passed the development of the plan and accepted its results as a plan to proceed. One guy said No. Then, over the ensuing months, that one guy got to each of the others an began a systematic plan to change their mind and steal them away from DCI.

Are we to believe that the other 6 hadn't seen the G7 proposal, as presented? Did the other 6 go along based solely on the verbal and "back of the napkin" thoughts they shared?

What could be so wrong with the existing plan, other than the less "generous" payouts to the corps, that it was attacked by "The One No" so convincingly as to cause the others to change their viewpoint? Did they give DCI a "mental" timeframe and, when DCI failed to deliver the initial steps of the plan, begin to initiate their alternative?

If we knew that piece of the puzzle, we'd know more clearly how to attack the assertion.

[Matt_S]

garfield, that's been my question all along. In September, at least three of the four G7 directors approved DCI's current business plan. By May, they were all endorsing a new plan, one so different than the previous plan that the board was reshuffled. Even after that, the two G7 directors who remained on the board - Fiedler and Valenzuela - resigned their positions. That level of dissatisfaction seems striking to me, and I'm skeptical that it was simply politicking on the part of the one "no" vote from September. We still don't know what led to this desire for a change of course. Until we do, I think it's premature to say yea or nay to any proposed changes.

As an aside, I doubt strongly that any final proposal will match exactly what we saw in the powerpoint presentation. That presentation was intended for a select audience, one that had the appropriate background, and was never meant for public consumption. It wasn't complete. Here on DCP we've attacked that proposal as though it were a fully formed business plan, but it's not. We don't even have any hint of the context in which it was presented. Of course, if you hear that a certain idea is being considered, and you disapprove of that idea, then you are free to voice your displeasure. I just think it's worth keeping in mind that the only official announcement we've had from the G7 was Fiedler's article, posted to multiple corps' websites.

[MikeN]

And I'll be willing to bet this time that the security on their presentations will be ... slightly... tighter this time around.

Mike

[audiodb]

I still don't get the rationale for the timing. The DCI plan is passed, with consternation from the one NO. All the other G6 passed the development of the plan and accepted its results as a plan to proceed.

No. Once again, only four G7 directors were on DCI's working BOD, so only three of them voted in favor of DCI's business plan in September. One voted against. Of the other three, it certainly seems like two of them would have opposed the DCI business plan as well. It's not just one guy.

[Jeff Ream]

garfield, that's been my question all along. In September, at least three of the four G7 directors approved DCI's current business plan. By May, they were all endorsing a new plan, one so different than the previous plan that the board was reshuffled. Even after that, the two G7 directors who remained on the board - Fiedler and Valenzuela - resigned their positions. That level of dissatisfaction seems striking to me, and I'm skeptical that it was simply politicking on the part of the one "no" vote from September. We still don't know what led to this desire for a change of course. Until we do, I think it's premature to say yea or nay to any proposed changes.

As an aside, I doubt strongly that any final proposal will match exactly what we saw in the powerpoint presentation. That presentation was intended for a select audience, one that had the appropriate background, and was never meant for public consumption. It wasn't complete. Here on DCP we've attacked that proposal as though it were a fully formed business plan, but it's not. We don't even have any hint of the context in which it was presented. Of course, if you hear that a certain idea is being considered, and you disapprove of that idea, then you are free to voice your displeasure. I just think it's worth keeping in mind that the only official announcement we've had from the G7 was Fiedler's article, posted to multiple corps' websites.

you're right it wasn't meant for the world to see, but to come armed with a proposal that full of holes is just stupid business

[corpsband]

In terms of what will happen this weekend, if anything, I imagine you'll see some form of the G7 "special shows" on the schedule for next year, just to see what happens with the format. Past that, every other element of the G7 proposal was dead as of a couple months back.

This is exactly what I expect as well. There will 2 or 3 "new format" shows.

No one leaves DCI.

Reformers revert back to their incremental strategy.

Things mostly stay the same.

[Pamaho]

Ya' know, this is interesting. The original "presentation" didn't mention anything about the DCI plan (in fact, I wonder how many of US would have known about the DCI plan, otherwise). Not "we don't think it'll work", or "we don't think it's aggressive enough", or "Dan A.'s past performance leads us to believe that he can't accomplish the plan as presented".

Nothing.

I realize it's just supposition on any of our parts (short of first-hand conversation with a G7 director), but I'm really curious why they ignored it completely.

Now's your chance - speculate away.

[Pamaho]

The "original presentation" DID mention the DCI plan.

from page 15 of the power point.

The current plan and implementation of that plan, though voted and agreed to, lacks the vision to bring forth success.