garfield Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 By unit, Dan is referring to DCI Holdings and Events, not individual drum corps. True, but the "shareholders" in Holdings pays their revenues to Congress and is then distributed to the member corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 Dan's travelling today, and I don't have time to review more until tonight, but if "the whole point" is to remove directors from running DCI, Dan's plan falls quite flat in that goal. It seems that Holdings, LLC is, in fact, a business-generating unit of DCI, run by corps "members" according to his plan. And Congress' decisions directly impacts the fan experience and that, too, is staffed with "shareholders" made up of member corps. While I agree with the general idea of separating roles, I fail to see how Dan's plan accomplishes that goal. Just back in.... I think I clarified this issue in the last couple of posts. Perhaps you might consider knocking out a better structure to accomplish this and share it with us? As I mentioned... I think this is just something to jump start a discussion.. and already see some flaws in what I initially proposed (as I mentioned in the last post). Note to Dan: You didn't mention "Outside" opportunities much less your desire that the member corps generate 30% to 40% of their revenue "outside" of the show circuit. Don't forget that there are limits placed on corps on what types of "outside events" in which they can partake. For instance, running an exhibition with 3 other corps (presumably to generate extra income) is forbidden specifically to protect the intellectual property of DCI. You can see how each corps, or a group of them under "Holdings", would not have free reign and would have to clear performances with the intellectual rights-holder, i.e. DCI. If it were so easy to do why are the corps not generating 30% of their revenues outside of the tour NOW? Addressed in another post. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 True, but the "shareholders" in Holdings pays their revenues to Congress and is then distributed to the member corps. No corps should have any equity stake in DCI or any DCI subsidiary. DCI Congress should not be a subsidiary of DCI and should act more like an association. Again, bad idea on my part to suggest that any individual corps should be shareholders... that's what I get for drinking beer on a Sunday afternoon and trying to think. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Brace Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Would all of this lead to an Occupy DCI movement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 The whole point is to remove corps directors from running the business aspects of DCI, which is in my opinion an excellent idea. Frankly, most corps directors shouldn't even be running the business side of their own corps, nor should "Executive Directors" get to basically mandate their will to the Board of Directors unless they happen to know what they are doing. (See also "Cook, Bill.") As for this being a "large" reorganization... well, I could knock 75% of this out *this afternoon* on the legal side of things. Bill Cook actually proposed that DCI have a Commissioner, much like the NFL. He even brought in someone like that to speak at a DCI Annual Meeting. I wish I could remember who it was. Does anyone out there remember? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 Well, let me be of help here. 1. Paying fans are contributors to one of most corps' chief fundraising efforts...their show. This is the fundamental weakness of current sources of revenue... on top of the fact that these revenues do not cover the full bill... which is the whole motivation for this discussion in the first place. 2. Daniel Ray has all the earmarks of a troll. She/he is searching for that topic where she/he can be the anti-christ of drum corps to incite highly charged discussions. Yep, troll. I have no idea what I am talking about. She/he? Um... you definitely know absolutely nothing about me (ex: I am of pretty unambiguous gender... and post under my real name). If you have Google and less than 3 minutes on your hands... you could easily verify anything you wanted. I'm not much of a mystery. Wait... don't you have me on ignore? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Bottom line: Would this proposal... 1. Put more fans in the seats? 2. Reduce operating expenses for corps? 3. Reduce the cost of being in a corps for members? 4. Help generate new corps and financially strengthen existing corps? 5. Foster innovation while honoring traditions? 6. Put corps managements on the same page by not favoring one corps over another? 7. Provide incentives for corps that want to do something more? 8. Offer something for everyone to embrace and be happy? 9. Reduce travel requirements to save on fuel and other expenses? 10. Make the early season more regional in scope? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 Bottom line: Would this proposal... 1. Put more fans in the seats? 2. Reduce operating expenses for corps? 3. Reduce the cost of being in a corps for members? 4. Help generate new corps and financially strengthen existing corps? 5. Foster innovation while honoring traditions? 6. Put corps managements on the same page by not favoring one corps over another? 7. Provide incentives for corps that want to do something more? 8. Offer something for everyone to embrace and be happy? 9. Reduce travel requirements to save on fuel and other expenses? 10. Make the early season more regional in scope? 1-8: Yes (or that would at least be the goal) 9-10: Not equally applicable to all corps. If it makes financial sense for some groups to travel further distances or more travel earlier, not doing this is leaving money on the table. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 1-8: Yes (or that would at least be the goal) 9-10: Not equally applicable to all corps. If it makes financial sense for some groups to travel further distances or more travel earlier, not doing this is leaving money on the table. Well...there you have it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorpsBuff Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 I'm just happy someone remembers that Delaware is a state... 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.