audiodb Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Companies don't have to be for sale in order to be sold. Example... had a guy simply call my office one day say he'd like to talk to me about a company that was interested in getting into the space my startup was in. A couple of the things he said was a bit interesting, so... agreed to take a meeting. It turned out that he was engaged to scout and evaluate companies for Mitsui. Three days later, I had 2 guys from Japan and a guy from a big US consulting firm in my office starting due diligence... within about 10 days I had the CEO of the US unit acquiring and a VP from Japan in my office signing a term sheet. I wasn't for sale... the idea wasn't even on my radar... but they were suddenly very convincing at selling me on being for sale. Anyway, for sale or not for sale.. generally doesn't mean much one way or another. No difference. At some point, or some price, your startup was for sale. Is DCI for sale? Perhaps the phrase "can be bought" is more appropriate. Can DCI be bought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 No difference. At some point, or some price, your startup was for sale. Is DCI for sale? Perhaps the phrase "can be bought" is more appropriate. Can DCI be bought? Seems anything is possible. But, this is definitely not what I am proposing.... not even close. No harm in exploring ideas that might get people thinking in a bit different way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) Seems anything is possible. But, this is definitely not what I am proposing.... not even close. No harm in exploring ideas that might get people thinking in a bit different way. Yore right..IF..the right people are listening,people who can actually do something, people who are caring and not laughing ,otherwise it's like most news groups on line..talk for the sake of talk or entertainment...and thats ok also. Edited January 10, 2012 by GUARDLING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Who said anything about throwing them all out of DCI? I simply suggested there could be some benefit in restructuring classes. Some organizations at certain stages might find stronger support outside of DCI or through support of another organization. There is a more effective solution for this... really. Patience. What do you call limiting the DCI moniker and the DCI support, both guidance and financial, to just 17 corps other than a system which throws out all other corps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) If I am focused on something that will happen in say 2015 and beyond.... what happend in the 70's is absolutely irrelevant to any business decisions. Dunkin Doughnuts was acquired by Bain Capital with the aim to refine the operations of the company, improve efficiency, set on a path to growth and then to an IPO. Do you think when Bain was evaluating the opportunity and when JP Morgan, Barclays, Morgan Stanley, BofA Merrill Lynch, and Goldman were all prepping for the IPO that they gave a #### about the founding of the company or how the company was organized in the 1970's? Past is cool, but only the present and the plan for the future are what keep an organization going. If you consider the past to be relevant (a difference between revenant and important), you run the risk of remaining only a part of the past. Again, present and future are all that matters.... past is important, but giving it relevance is a careful luxury. A contract made by a business entity with an another organization in the past is absolutely still relevant if the business is still under contract with that organization; and just because the DCI commitment was made in the '70s, and some people have died, does not make that DCI commitment null and void. Edited January 10, 2012 by Stu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Seems anything is possible. But, this is definitely not what I am proposing.... not even close. No harm in exploring ideas that might get people thinking in a bit different way. Are you forgetting the harm to Pacific Crest, Mandarins, etc... if you actually implement your ideas for just the 17? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 What do you call limiting the DCI moniker and the DCI support, both guidance and financial, to just 17 corps other than a system which throws out all other corps? even back in the day corps werent treated the same. NEVER. I dont care what line we were fed back then or what we wanted to believe BUT certain corps have always had more perks so to speak..even today Look at WGI Independent WC compared to any A class and the money that is made actually comes mostly from High School A guards and they arent treated quite as well. Is it right? no, is it the way it is and has been ..YES at the same time do the ones who draw in the money and by nature of excellence deserve additional perks? well one can determine that for themselves BUT do they? YES YES YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 A contract made by a business entity with an another organization in the past is absolutely still relevant if the business is still under contract with that organization; and just because the DCI commitment was made in the '70s, and some people have died, does not make that DCI commitment null and void. I think you read way to much into what was said back in the day..even our own constitution says All MEN..hmm women?, minorities? NO IT DIDNT. All I'm saying is ..it was words on paper back then and thats it. I'm also saying that even if you want to follow word for word it has to be addapted to 2011 and not stuck back in the 70s. It doesnt serve the same type of person or corps as it does now. JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 I think you read way to much into what was said back in the day..even our own constitution says All MEN..hmm women?, minorities? NO IT DIDNT. All I'm saying is ..it was words on paper back then and thats it. I'm also saying that even if you want to follow word for word it has to be addapted to 2011 and not stuck back in the 70s. It doesnt serve the same type of person or corps as it does now. JMO 2011 is SO last year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 2011 is SO last year! got me there..lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts