Minneapolis Corps Directors Meeting

[garfield]

Peripherally, meaning the G7 would have their exclusive shows and the rest of DCI could play along on "off" nights.

I don't have time at the moment to track down the exact wording, but it was said that they will pursue this plan whether DCI is on board with it or not. If you can think of another interpretation...

Again, my only point is that this has all been done before, and not with the "best interest of the activity" as a result.

This may seem as picking a nit, but I believe it affects several aspects of this discussion...

I've read and re-read the G7 proposal and nowhere does it say that if DCI doesn't agree to this plan that the G7 will exit DCI and pursue it on their own. That kind of black-and-white presumption changes the character of what they ARE saying, and it's with those words that we best postulate about what potentially may happen in any future circumstance.

Slide 47 is the first to allude at an ultimatum. On it they write:

If not approved –G7 to decide next steps

Then, on page 48 they say two things:

The G7 are committed to change. We have agreed to pursue this shift within DCI … and we are hopeful that a solution can be reached.

AND

AND … we are agreed that in 2011 these new events need to occur; we will act as necessary to enable a change.

That last seems to be a veiled threat but, after reading it several times and considering the "sophomoric" layout of the presentation, it could mean something else entirely.

What if the sentence was meant to suggest that, if DCI goes along with the plan, that the G7 would do everything they need to do to affect that change? Meaning it's a recognition that much work would need to be done to pull it off and the G7 stand ready to "roll up their sleeves" and work hard to get it done?

Interesting...

I think it's important to keep in mind that, while they say they are committed to change, there's nowhere in the document that I can find where a firm ultimatum is given or any indication for that matter that the G7 intend to strike out on their own. This detail would seem important in the instance that the BOD rejects the plan and the G7 don't renounce their membership.

My opinion of this plan is not a secret, and I was initially guilty of making the assumption that the sentences above actually state an ultimatum. That admission doesn't at all change my opinion that the prime players are nefarious in their intent and actions.

But in fairness to all, I would not be pleased to see these men labeled something akin to "gutless" if the Board turns the plan down and they hang around.

Fences will need mending if they stay. Starting with their words and not our assumptions is a good thing.

Edited July 31, 2010 by garfield

[BRASSO]

This may seem as picking a nit, but I believe it affects several aspects of this discussion...

I've read and re-read the G7 proposal and nowhere does it say that if DCI doesn't agree to this plan that the G7 will exit DCI and pursue it on their own. That kind of black-and-white presumption changes the character of what they ARE saying, and it's with those words that we best postulate about what potentially may happen in any future circumstance.

Slide 47 is the first to allude at an ultimatum. On it they write:

Then, on page 48 they say two things:

AND

That last seems to be a veiled threat but, after reading it several times and considering the "sophomoric" layout of the presentation, it could mean something else entirely.

What if the sentence was meant to suggest that, if DCI goes along with the plan, that the G7 would do everything they need to do to affect that change? Meaning it's a recognition that much work would need to be done to pull it off and the G7 stand ready to "roll up their sleeves" and work hard to get it done?

Interesting...

I think it's important to keep in mind that, while they say they are committed to change, there's nowhere in the document that I can find where a firm ultimatum is given or any indication for that matter that the G7 intend to strike out on their own. This detail would seem important in the instance that the BOD rejects the plan and the G7 don't renounce their membership.

My opinion of this plan is not a secret, and I was initially guilty of making the assumption that the sentences above actually state an ultimatum. That admission doesn't at all change my opinion that the prime players are nefarious in their intent and actions.

But in fairness to all, I would not be pleased to see these men labeled something akin to "gutless" if the Board turns the plan down and they hang around.

Fences will need mending if they stay. Starting with their words and not our assumptions is a good thing.

The G-7 proposal is DOA . The G-7 will have to accept the G-7 proposal defeat and get back in line. Or go to a Plan " B " if they have one. " Change " has already occurred. There is a new DCI Board of Directors in place now. They are prepared to move DCI forward in a manner consistent with it's Charter, and with the wishes of the Corps that are member Corps.

[garfield]

The G-7 proposal is DOA . The G-7 will have to accept the G-7 proposal defeat and get back in line. Or go to a Plan " B " if they have one. " Change " has already occurred. There is a new DCI Board of Directors in place now. They are prepared to move DCI forward in a manner consistent with it's Charter, and with the wishes of the Corps that are member Corps.

I appreciate your conviction and optimism, Brasso, really I do.

But, while I was not in on the Minn. meeting, the clear and distinct impression given to me by one who was is that it's full steam ahead for the G7 plan.

What, exactly, that means is yet to be seen but the new numbers presented clearly suggest their plan is workable and they will push hard and use their status as the 'elite' to force the change.

"Getting back in line" doesn't appear to be their intention at all.

Mine is second hand information but, of course, it's an impression based on one meeting.

[BRASSO]

I appreciate your conviction and optimism, Brasso, really I do.

But, while I was not in on the Minn. meeting, the clear and distinct impression given to me by one who was is that it's full steam ahead for the G7 plan.

What, exactly, that means is yet to be seen but the new numbers presented clearly suggest their plan is workable and they will push hard and use their status as the 'elite' to force the change.

"Getting back in line" doesn't appear to be their intention at all.

Mine is second hand information but, of course, it's an impression based on one meeting.

The G-7 does not have the votes to push through this policy proposal as put forth on the Power Point presentation. Not even close to the votes neccessary, from what my sources told me. Now, should they strip in all down, and put together a secondary proposal with elements most of the Corps could agree with, then who knows what might happen with that proposal. I'm also hearing that if the G-7 is adamant and non cooperative, and sees no other recorse but to leave, my knowedgeable source told me that he'd ( quote ) " not lose any sleep over it ". Another source told me he doesn't think that when push comes to shove," they'll be going anywhere". But who really knows, as they've supposedly said they'd be meeting behind closed doors to hash out their proposal and future plans some more.

Edited July 31, 2010 by BRASSO

[MarimbasaurusRex]

I've read and re-read the G7 proposal and nowhere does it say that if DCI doesn't agree to this plan that the G7 will exit DCI and pursue it on their own.

The spirit of those statements is obvious, and not just to me. Perhaps they are trying to gain leverage with idle threats. But, if DCI doesn't go along with it, they will have to exit DCI or eat their words. I think the former is more likely, but that's just my opinion. From the DCW article...

...reportedly emphasized at the Rosemont meeting that the G7 corps have the backing of their boards and that they were “united in their goals.”

...Ironically, that same rhetoric was used by corps... in 1971 to establish DCI.

...there’s still the threat of more action -- and possibly even a greater division -- in the not too distant future.

I thought it interesting he chose to use the word "threat" several times in that article. Steve Vickers has never been a sensationalist, so I tend to accept his measure of the situation.

He also says... "Notable: at the time of the formation of the “Combine,” ... There was, however, no underlying, sustaining organization that they were threatening to overtake by this action back in 1971."

The VFW, AL, CYO and others were indeed sustaining organizations, but they were not united. Perhaps more accurate, there was no ONE sustaining organization.

[GMichael1230]

They arent going anywhere......simple as that, and its not "wishfull thinking"

............Money, money, money........gotta have it to spend it, gotta spend it to reap its benefits.

G

[Pamaho]

I appreciate your conviction and optimism, Brasso, really I do.

But, while I was not in on the Minn. meeting, the clear and distinct impression given to me by one who was is that it's full steam ahead for the G7 plan.

What, exactly, that means is yet to be seen but the new numbers presented clearly suggest their plan is workable and they will push hard and use their status as the 'elite' to force the change.

"Getting back in line" doesn't appear to be their intention at all.

Mine is second hand information but, of course, it's an impression based on one meeting.

A couple of questions here.

1) You refer to "new numbers" . Was this something presented at the meeting? I do remember that the original presentation included an attempt to show that (for 20111?) DCI might lose a net of $100,000 in revenue, but claimed to make that up in the reductions in overhead DCI is now spending.

2) What would prevent The G7 from remaining in DCI, and still adding 6-10 new exclusive shows along their model. I know that last year two of them participated in the non-sanctioned show in Las Vegas. I was there, and enjoyed the show and I have heard that the corps there benefited financially far more than they would have at a sanctioned show.

[KeyboardGuy]

I am very late coming to this discussion, and I am probably woefully ignorant of many of the more salient points of this discussion, but when I first started reading about this issue, two things came to mind:

First, in an interview many years ago, Gail Royer was asked about the future of the Vanguard. He replied that they had made a lot of fortunate investments that would allow the corps to continue for many years despite whatever changes in leadership might occur. I seems to remember Jerry Seawright making a similar comment at another time. Who knows, the Cadets might be in the same boat. I'm not sure about some of the newcomers such as Crown and Bluecoats, or some of the corps in more competitive markets such as Phantom and Cavies. So, a few G7 corps could survive on investments and do their own things until the new venture caught on, while several may not. If the "G7 thang" isn't an immediate hit, they might be struggling.

Second, a huge percentage of the fans attend shows simply because "their corps" is performing. The vast majority of the folks that I visited with in Atlanta were not there because of the top five or six corps, but for the bottom twenty. The people sitting around me were obviously long-time drum corps fans but, to a person, they admitted that drum corps has passed them by, with some of the esoteric show themes and story lines. There were no raucous standing ovations for them as in years past. They concluded their shows and everyone was left staring at one another and wondering "What was THAT all about?" In Atlanta in 2008, I was hoarse from yelling. This year, I still had my voice when I left the Georgia Dome.

This past week, a bunch of local high school band kids attended a show featuring four of the G7 corps. The only one of these that any of them have raved about is Carolina Crown. One of them commented that the Blue Devils show was like a bad dream. Cadets were "cute". Phantom "wasn't as good as in years past". They loved Troopers, Mandarins, and Teal Sound, not because of their scores, but because their shows were fun and "reachable". Reachability is part of what draws new people into the activity. Some of them talked about how cool it would be to be in Crown, or Troop, or Teal Sound.

I may be completely off base here, but I think this "lesser majority" of fans would spend their money to attend the midweek shows where they can see their favorite corps, and forgo the elite performances.

Edited August 2, 2010 by KeyboardGuy

[KeyboardGuy]

Here's another thought - what do you think that Royer, Seawright, and other founders or early G7 leadership would think of this proposal? To a man, I think they were in drum corps for the good of the kids and the advancement of the activity. I can't tell you how many stories I have heard through the years of these men "rescuing" a corps who was stranded because of equipment problems or making monetary and other contributions to help other corps stay afloat.

Seems to me that this elitism flies in the face of eveything they stood for...

[Jeff Ream]

This may seem as picking a nit, but I believe it affects several aspects of this discussion...

I've read and re-read the G7 proposal and nowhere does it say that if DCI doesn't agree to this plan that the G7 will exit DCI and pursue it on their own. That kind of black-and-white presumption changes the character of what they ARE saying, and it's with those words that we best postulate about what potentially may happen in any future circumstance.

Slide 47 is the first to allude at an ultimatum. On it they write:

Then, on page 48 they say two things:

AND

That last seems to be a veiled threat but, after reading it several times and considering the "sophomoric" layout of the presentation, it could mean something else entirely.

What if the sentence was meant to suggest that, if DCI goes along with the plan, that the G7 would do everything they need to do to affect that change? Meaning it's a recognition that much work would need to be done to pull it off and the G7 stand ready to "roll up their sleeves" and work hard to get it done?

Interesting...

I think it's important to keep in mind that, while they say they are committed to change, there's nowhere in the document that I can find where a firm ultimatum is given or any indication for that matter that the G7 intend to strike out on their own. This detail would seem important in the instance that the BOD rejects the plan and the G7 don't renounce their membership.

My opinion of this plan is not a secret, and I was initially guilty of making the assumption that the sentences above actually state an ultimatum. That admission doesn't at all change my opinion that the prime players are nefarious in their intent and actions.

But in fairness to all, I would not be pleased to see these men labeled something akin to "gutless" if the Board turns the plan down and they hang around.

Fences will need mending if they stay. Starting with their words and not our assumptions is a good thing.

the document, as I understand it, is a lore thinly veiled in terms of ultimatum language than what was actually said in the room