garfield Posted November 30, 2011 Author Share Posted November 30, 2011 well.....then you create a situation where show sponsors only want name corps. Kind of like you see now with OC corps at WC shows. Also think back a few years....corps like Crown were benefitted by going against those corps and slowly moved up the ranks. Sure i'm talking 17 years ago, but 17 years ago, Pio was in D2, Cascades were d3, and corps like Surf and Teal didn't even exist. Someday they may be one of the players. Bluecoats has only been a top 6 corps within the last decade. so if you create a situation where those corps are frozen out of shows, you may eventually lead to them being killed off. There's no sense in it for them to go back to OC as it's currently mis-managed ( and not just by DCI, but the corps themselves) And this does, essentially, the same thing as... wait for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 well.....then you create a situation where show sponsors only want name corps. Kind of like you see now with OC corps at WC shows. Also think back a few years....corps like Crown were benefitted by going against those corps and slowly moved up the ranks. Sure i'm talking 17 years ago, but 17 years ago, Pio was in D2, Cascades were d3, and corps like Surf and Teal didn't even exist. Someday they may be one of the players. Bluecoats has only been a top 6 corps within the last decade. so if you create a situation where those corps are frozen out of shows, you may eventually lead to them being killed off. There's no sense in it for them to go back to OC as it's currently mis-managed ( and not just by DCI, but the corps themselves) If a show can afford to put on a top-tier lineup, then why shouldn't they? If they can't afford to put on a top tier lineup, then they'll fill it in with what they could afford. This likely does mean stratified shows, but again, there's no benefit in Pioneer and Cascades getting killed by Bluecoats and Phantom every show, either, both score and performance wise. Looking back on your examples, there, Pioneer, Cascades, Surf and Teal are all in the bottom of WC right now. Despite the fact you can argue (and I would) that they've gotten much better over that time. That suggests that at the end of the day they're just not in the same league with the top groups. (I know, hardly a revelation.) And don't get me wrong, I dearly love those groups. The only "new" group I can think of that really made a charge up the WC ranks is Crown, and even in '94 during their first year in Division 1 they placed 17th, then 11th and onward. That's... pretty much it. Boston, of course, made a move into Finals in '99 and has never looked back, but who else? I appreciate the flexibility of an open system, but 2 corps in 20 years have made a major move (while others have drifted in and out of the bottom of the Finals group, I can't think of any other corps offhand to move from Day 1 participant to upper-tier finalist). While I do not agree with the G7 particulars, and you and I have talked about that before, I do understand some of their frustration. Don't pay U2 the same as Kasabian at the festival just because Kasabian may one day be as popular. To tie this back in to the BoD, don't make band directors do the job of a tour management company - hire businessmen. Specialize. Square pegs in square holes and all of that. Don't put the Blue Devils in a Pioneer/Teal/Cascades-shaped hole - put them in a BD-sized hole. (Okay, that was a crap analogy. Sorry. :)) Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 There's no sense in it for them to go back to OC as it's currently mis-managed ( and not just by DCI, but the corps themselves) Sorry, and to respond to this point, but this would suggest that maybe the corps directors themselves aren't the best candidates for supervising a national outdoor concert tour. (Which is the point I'm really trying to make about the BoD.) Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 OMG, you're wading into my pool. So wait....are you saying that you're in favor of putting individual corps pay up for negotiation? I could have sworn someone with the exact same screen name was just insisting that corps need more predictable payments that they can budget on well in advance.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 So wait....are you saying that you're in favor of putting individual corps pay up for negotiation? I could have sworn someone with the exact same screen name was just insisting that corps need more predictable payments that they can budget on well in advance.... Well, with a negotiated contract for a specified term, that does mean predicitable payments... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 30, 2011 Author Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) So wait....are you saying that you're in favor of putting individual corps pay up for negotiation? I could have sworn someone with the exact same screen name was just insisting that corps need more predictable payments that they can budget on well in advance.... That was my evil twin, Garfield. He's known as Big-G, but don't listen to him. He's a jerk. Seriously, I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. (And, frankly, I didn't "insist", I suggested that they'd like to have predictability and BobSmyth confirmed that they now get that from DCI.) Negotiations between a corps and a private investment consortium would have the same effect as DCI guaranteeing their income, wouldn't it? Except if the private investor didn't earn enough to make the payments the investor would take the hit. As it is now, DCI still takes the hit and the corps directors can lobby to have the ED fired, to boot! Edited November 30, 2011 by garfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 30, 2011 Author Share Posted November 30, 2011 Well, with a negotiated contract for a specified term, that does mean predicitable payments... Mike Oh, yeah, he said it better than I did. Thanks Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Well, with a negotiated contract for a specified term, that does mean predicitable payments... ....predictable only for the (short) term. Here's another idea that's been done before. For many years, corps negotiated with show sponsors in the free market. It was called the pre-DCI era. For those who don't remember, one of the primary reasons DCI was formed was to replace that system with one that provided the corps with a bigger slice of the financial pie, and to do so in a pre-defined manner that would allow corps to plan a financially viable tour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 To clarify a point.... as I envisioned, the private investor would be seeding a chunk of cash at the beginning of the engagement and would not be putting into DCI, but into a new and separate SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) dedicated to the tour itself. The intent wouldn't be to necessarily return funds back to the private investor, but structure it in a way where the investor would essentially have say over how funds over a certain watermark were spent/reinvested. In effect, the mechanics of it would be that the funds would be returned to the investor, who would just basically choose to reinvest them back into the tour... or other revenue generating activities of DCI (as discussed in another thread). To create, as mentioned, a sort of perpetual motion machine. The mechanism of returning the funds to the investor is simply to separate priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 ....predictable only for the (short) term. Here's another idea that's been done before. For many years, corps negotiated with show sponsors in the free market. It was called the pre-DCI era. For those who don't remember, one of the primary reasons DCI was formed was to replace that system with one that provided the corps with a bigger slice of the financial pie, and to do so in a pre-defined manner that would allow corps to plan a financially viable tour. No. Corps would not negotiate with show sponsors, but tour operator (owned by DCI and a private investor). Show sponsors would negotiate with the tour operator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts