danielray Posted October 26, 2011 Author Share Posted October 26, 2011 You forgot a few other very important points: Budgeting expenditures according to revenue. Do not allow your organization to go into the red by creating outlays you cannot cover. Good catch. In simply stating profit, those points (revenue and expenditures) are never really considered. Forgive me.... I'm a bit new to this sort of thing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Stu, I get what you're trying to say, but it makes no sense in light of the "status" of the various non-profit orgs. DCI is listed as a A6C (Music Groups, Bands, Ensembles) subcategory (notice that it doesn't say "youth" anywhere), but individual corps have subcategories such as: A68 (music) [Jersey Surf], and A60 (Performing Arts) [blue Devils Parents Association], among others. In context, DCI was never a "youth" organization. It was an organization put together to serve the interests of youth organizations. Each individual corps could very well be a non-profit and yet DCI could be a for-profit organization. I understand your angst about DCI no longer having its central mission to help kids with nothing else to keep them off the streets and out of trouble (with today's opportunities, how many of those kids are there actually?), but even DCI no longer refers to themselves in that way. The closest they get (publicly) is: "...a powerful, nonprofit, global youth activity with far-reaching artistic, educational and organizational influence." (source: DCI.org). Again, I understand you angst, but contending that their IRS designation is contrary to their actions is not a convincing fact that proves why the activity is constantly struggling for money. Again, about $250,000 comes into DCI in the form of donations. Individual corps can't possibly survive on donations even in a stripped-down version. Garfield: To make something clear here. I like the Major League non-profit PGA (adult professionals, large payouts to the winners, local charities receive support, etc..); I also like non-profit Charitable Youth Arts Organizations (where youth competition is a tool but not the first and foremost goal). And I really do not mind if DCI wants to move into the actual realm of Major League just like the PGA. But my angst, if you will, is when a non-profit organization attempts to claim both youth-oriented status and Major League status at the same time. Why? Because a youth-driven activity cannot in any way shape or form ever procure enough revenue to sustain Major League type expenditures; plain and simple. Many of Danialray's ideas would work in the professional major league (again look at the PGA), and I will be more than happy to support such a move into that adult world for DCI; but there needs to be a huge scale-back in expenditures if DCI wants to continue dwelling in a youth-oriented environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Good catch. In simply stating profit, those points (revenue and expenditures) are never really considered. Forgive me.... I'm a bit new to this sort of thing. Ahhh... maybe a slight opening here. While I agree that raising more and more capital is a requirement for any business to expand; if most DCI organizations would follow the axiom of budgeting according to means, never creating expenditures higher than known revenue, even if it meant scaling back on touring and the lofty Major League status, could not DCI function quite well on the current revenue steams while planning for bigger and higher goals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted October 26, 2011 Author Share Posted October 26, 2011 Ahhh... maybe a slight opening here. While I agree that raising more and more capital is a requirement for any business to expand; if most DCI organizations would follow the axiom of budgeting according to means, never creating expenditures higher than known revenue, even if it meant scaling back on touring and the lofty Major League status, could not DCI function quite well on the current revenue steams while planning for bigger and higher goals? I am not sure capital makes a difference when you are wanting to expand, I mean.... sometimes the biggest city is not the capital. For example, Scouts are in the capital and that seems to work out, but Cadets and Blue Devils are not really even near the capital and they do ok. Crown is in kind of a smaller city. Mandarins are in the capital... so, shouldn't they be the best in the state using your logic? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Brace Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Ahhh... maybe a slight opening here. While I agree that raising more and more capital is a requirement for any business to expand; if most DCI organizations would follow the axiom of budgeting according to means, never creating expenditures higher than known revenue, even if it meant scaling back on touring and the lofty Major League status, could not DCI function quite well on the current revenue steams while planning for bigger and higher goals? DCI is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I am not sure capital makes a difference when you are wanting to expand, I mean.... sometimes the biggest city is not the capital. For example, Scouts are in the capital and that seems to work out, but Cadets and Blue Devils are not really even near the capital and they do ok. Crown is in kind of a smaller city. Mandarins are in the capital... so, shouldn't they be the best in the state using your logic? I hope for your sake this was a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 (edited) DCI is. So, DCI is scaling back on the quest for Major League? DCI is contracting and downsizing to keep expenditures below revenue intake? DCI is eliminating multiple shows to keep tour costs at a minimum? DCI is limiting tour millage to keep corps from overextending their financial resources? Edited October 26, 2011 by Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitedawn Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I hope for your sake this was a joke. WHOOSH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 WHOOSH (hand slices clean over his head.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) Ahhh... maybe a slight opening here. While I agree that raising more and more capital is a requirement for any business to expand; if most DCI organizations would follow the axiom of budgeting according to means, never creating expenditures higher than known revenue, even if it meant scaling back on touring and the lofty Major League status, could not DCI function quite well on the current revenue steams while planning for bigger and higher goals? Daniel's quip not-withstanding... Clarify, Stu. Do you mean to suggest that the balance sheet of DCI stay the same and any gains made are "pulling back"? (Implications of "gains" and "pulling back" are opposite, no?) What happened to the supposed axiom that all the changes made over the yeasr would increase revenues? Does pushing the envelope with new and, sometimes, un-affordable additions actually broaden attendance and revenues or not? Edited October 27, 2011 by garfield 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.