dckid80 Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 If the G7 is as strong as they claim, why would they need to piggy back their show dates around DCI events? Clearly they are looking to use DCI to help establish their brand and then break away completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOBSMYTH Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 At first glance, the San Antonio/Dallas dates do not make a lot of sense until you realize BD and SCV would most likely join up with and be part of the opening season shows in Albuquerque and Phoenix area on their way back to Cali. It is quite a long haul for Cadets, Crown and Blucoats to head down to Texas earlier than normal. Their profit margin has to be decreased with the added fuel expense, food costs and driver reimbursment etc.. I guess the others not headed to the west can justify that added cost by staying out on the road and participating in some other opening shows in the midwest.Omaha looks like it was planned so the G7 corps at DATR and Kalamazoo could meet up there. But if fans are on a limited budget and want to see all G7 corps compete, wouldn't this hurt the local shows within a few hours drive who normally have 2-3 G7 corps? Namely the Sioux Falls and Ankeny shows. And when the Austin show is scheduled for Friday July 22nd, I assume the DCI has already decided to do away with the Friday Houston and Lake Highland shows or there wouldn't be any G7 corps at either site? The interesting week though is July 31st thru August 7th. Three G7 shows in eight days with Allentown on the 5th and 6th. Well, Hop's West Chester show on the 4th shouldn't be affected. The question again though is, how many people would rather go to Akron and see all G7 corps perform than attending the Centerville and Massillon show with 2-4 G7 coprs in the lineup?. This could affect attendance in Rock Hill, Salem and Fairfax as well with the Charlotte G7 show close by and fans who are willing to travel to see all G7 corps. Not a good thing for the local shows we love to attend. These G7 shows are like parasites, sucking the life blood out of the DCI tour, IMO. It will have major negative impacts on many tour shows as you point out. And when the Austin show is scheduled for Friday July 22nd, I assume the DCI has already decided to do away with the Friday Houston and Lake Highland shows or there wouldn't be any G7 corps at either site? DCI still has two night events in both Dallas and Houston on those dates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOBSMYTH Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 (edited) If the G7 is as strong as they claim, why would they need to piggy back their show dates around DCI events?Clearly they are looking to use DCI to help establish their brand and then break away completely. The G7 does not have the critical mass to break off on their own. They are too geographically diverse. You hit the nail right on the head - they are using DCI as a way to establish themselves until they are strong enough to make the break. Note that this proposal we are looking at is only for 2011. Beyond that they don't say. Edit: either they make the break once they are strong enough - or they have taken over DCI for their own purposes. One way or another its FYWW. Edited August 10, 2010 by BOBSMYTH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexL Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 These G7 shows are like parasites, sucking the life blood out of the DCI tour, IMO. It will have major negative impacts on many tour shows as you point out.DCI still has two night events in both Dallas and Houston on those dates. Parasitic was the exact word i was thinking of. They will use dci to create their product, and once that product is mature, dump dci. Might as well rip off the band-aid now.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobrien Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 By cherrypicking dates and locations around the DCI tour, these 9 shows take away performance opportunities for all non-G7 corps. Not unless the other corps agree to not play on those nights - something they shouldn't (and wouldn't, I imagine) agree to. The directors of the other corps have already shown that they're able to stand together and defend their interests. There's no reason to think that just because the G7 have put together their proposal that the thing, if implemented, wouldn't undergo some changes. If the other corps can't come to some sort of compromise, then maybe it'll just have to be a showdown and they have to invite the 7 to leave, which would give both sides a chance to make their case in 2011 in the court of public opinion. But I'd like to think there are enough reasonable heads out there to work up some sort of third-way option that would allow the most popular corps to retain a greater percentage of the money they bring to the table without forcing the issue of two competing tours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexL Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 But.. they already *do* receive more. Its not like theyre on a level playing field as is.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daave Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Interesting, in a kumbaya moment, that Mr Zing leaves the other discussion soon after this all breaks? (Daave thinks to himself... channelling Oliver Stone) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOBSMYTH Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Not unless the other corps agree to not play on those nights - something they shouldn't (and wouldn't, I imagine) agree to. The directors of the other corps have already shown that they're able to stand together and defend their interests. There's no reason to think that just because the G7 have put together their proposal that the thing, if implemented, wouldn't undergo some changes. If the other corps can't come to some sort of compromise, then maybe it'll just have to be a showdown and they have to invite the 7 to leave, which would give both sides a chance to make their case in 2011 in the court of public opinion. But I'd like to think there are enough reasonable heads out there to work up some sort of third-way option that would allow the most popular corps to retain a greater percentage of the money they bring to the table without forcing the issue of two competing tours. I hope you're right about a third-way compromise option. BUT - it would need to be a win-win for all parties. This second G7 document is win for the G7, lose for everyone else involved - from what I can see. The problem is - I just can't see any compromise solution right now. The G7 have been so aggressive with their proposals and actions that it makes it difficult to see how. (Is Henry Kissinger available?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 (edited) The G7 does not have the critical mass to break off on their own. They are too geographically diverse.You hit the nail right on the head - they are using DCI as a way to establish themselves until they are strong enough to make the break. Note that this proposal we are looking at is only for 2011. Beyond that they don't say. This will all be decided this off season as the other Corps no doubt see the same potential for abuse of the DCI name here as we do. Would anybdy here be surprised if both sides arn't already talking with their lawyers behind closed doors? ( or soon, will be ?) Unless I'm mistaken, the negotation with show sponsors by Corps needs to follow the precise guidelines set up, and agreed to, by all the member Corps. I would expect DCI to hold these G-7 Corps feet to the fire to see if they deviate one iota from those agreed to guidleines. From what I can gather, it looks to me like the G-7 is about to emark on some unilateral moves without the expressed permission of DCI. If I'm right on this, then it would seem to me that before too long, the lawyers enter the picture here, and an injunction will be slapped on these Corps if they proceed in a manner that violates previously agreed too DCI policies and procedures. The lawyers are about to enter the field for competition, imo. " Counselor.... is your Corps ready " ? .... " You may enter the field for Competition ". Edited August 10, 2010 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dckid80 Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 (edited) Not sure an injunction would work unless some type of non-compete agreement is already in place. Of course, both sides could choose to tie themselves up with the time and expense of litigation such that there would be no funds available to put ANY shows on the field next year... Edited August 10, 2010 by dckid80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.