Jeff Ream Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Money, either a lack of or a sudden windfall, does not create new or unique problems, but may simply amplify pre-existing ones. More money doesn't suddenly give someone a gabling addiction or cocaine problem, but simply gives them more resources to apply to their poor choices. Again, money doesn't create problems... but can solve many. A cash infusion, used right, by a reasonable stable organization with decent management can resolve loads of minor problems get it humming like a machine. Increase cashflow to an already stable and well managed organization and something incredible happens. Yet, a decrease in cashflow to even the most stable or well managed organization could bring it to its knees. It's only about the money. This is all DCI board should be focused on. having money doesnt create problems huh? Man, we needed you instead of Paulson 3 years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 It's about where the money comes from, who controls it. If DCI is generating revenues outside of sources tied to corps' performance... it's their piggybank and they decide how to spend it. The influence of individual corps becomes diminished. Without corps directors on the board, individual corps directors are focused only on their individual corps (as it should be)... with no ability to cause DCI to spend more or less. ok, so say this board of independent people decides on how money is spent....and it's extremely detrimental to DCI and the corps. Then what? Who suffers? the folks you took power away from. the guys on the BOD will still get their going away gift packages full of cash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 ok, so say this board of independent people decides on how money is spent....and it's extremely detrimental to DCI and the corps. Then what? Who suffers? the folks you took power away from. the guys on the BOD will still get their going away gift packages full of cash I don't know how I ended up arguing Dan's side here , but you're waaay simplifying. Let's face it, the board of a $9M revenue organization (as DCI is now) is hardly going to be generating back-breaking golden parachutes. Which doesn't really have much to do with the point here, though - I still am not convinced that having band teachers, even very talented ones - run a show event and management company is the best idea ever. (That said, I'll go ahead and put out there before others that I realize my opinion counts exactly squat.) Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 But the NFL is made up of true franchises, individually subject to financial controls, sale restrictions and all sorts of other nifty little walls put up to narrowly direct how the franchise operates. The owners give up substantial amounts of control in the name of collective security and profit, which DCI corps do not. In fact, it seems the only true collective action that DCI corps take is sign over their rights to be shown on a championship CD and DVD. (And only for the one performance - note that many of the corps no longer sell their "other" recordings through the Fan Network.) I guess my point is - you can't compare DCI to a sports league - different mentality, different setup. Even in broad terms. Mike DCI does have much more in common with concert tours. OK... I'll just tip the hand here.... DCI should establish the tour as a separate incorporated entity, an SPV jointly owned by DCI and a private investor. This investor would guarantee payments to individual corps (paid fully in advance of tour... cash paid in full in January could change the game for many corps out there) in exchange for various concessions. It would be the responsibility of the investor to secure relationships with various partners and sponsors.... with profits past a certain watermark paid back to the investor. There coud be minimum terms of say 5 years locked in for such an experiment. Corps get more stability and certainty (rainouts mean nothing... could be a provision to compensate for lost merchandising in case of rainout as an opt in in exchange for certain licensing rights, etc.).... DCI gets greater predictability and more focus. Private investor gets an opportunity to leverage their investment and contacts to hopefully create a sort of perpetual motion machine.... that would... after the initial period... allow revenues above watermark to guarantee following year seed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 having money doesnt create problems huh? Man, we needed you instead of Paulson 3 years ago What is Paulson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 ok, so say this board of independent people decides on how money is spent....and it's extremely detrimental to DCI and the corps. Then what? Who suffers? They need to keep performing groups happy in order to have a tour. There is no issue here. the folks you took power away from. the guys on the BOD will still get their going away gift packages full of cash I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. Who is getting what cash for going away and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 I can't disagree with this. Given the chance, the headliners will always think they're worth more than all the others. The emphasis should be on modifying the attitude, and paying based on "draw" only emphasizes that they are correct. I'm still not sure how changing the board structure to exclude the corps directors will prevent another G7-type upheaval, but I'd sure be willing to give it a shot while, at the same time, working the but-ts off to make the tour so good that the corps wouldn't want to leave and do their own thing. Nothing can change a G7 thing from happening if the 7 or 8 or 10 or whatever truly want it to happen and are supported by the public after it's been done just as when DCI was formed. Now the 7 wanting to stay and for them having a good reason to stay can be another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 I think you misunderstood me. My comment was that if cash was everyone's sole priority, none of us would be running a drum corps. Indeed, "self-supporting" would be nice. But that's not what this thread is about. This thread, like the other Daniel Ray threads, is about raising money to support drum corps by running a non-drum-corps business. For drum corps to be self-supporting, we would need to increase revenue and decrease expenses. I don't think drum corps should spend less money at all. I want them to spend more.... A LOT more. In fact... I would LOVE to see what a $30M drum corps looks like. That would be incredible, no? Corps should definitely not decease spending, though I do think some corps could spend a bit more wisely. I've harped on here about some things like trying to do things in house like fulfillment (with things like Amazon fulfillment services now... doing this in house is irresponsible).... or MAILING ####... as in dead trees!!! Corps should also be making more INVESTMENTS in activities that could generate new sources of revenue. Again, corps should focus on: 1) Increasing revenue 2) Investing in activities that could establish new independent revenue streams 3) Spend existing revenues in a smarter way Reducing spending should only happen if they #### up 1 through 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 28, 2011 Author Share Posted November 28, 2011 What is Paulson? Boy, you have been gone a while, haven't you? He's the dude, along with a few key others, who crafted the $700-billion bailout in '07 that saved the banking industry from collapse and the country from armageddon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 What is Paulson? the guy in charge of the Fed when everything went haywire in 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts