Stu Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 the archives are right there. Wow...i feel like I'm back on RAMD Show proof (or was that a RAMD thing also) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Show proof (or was that a RAMD thing also) well, for arguments sake ( tho really I'm doing this to entertain myself) I'll say to you what was said on RAMD to others who also took such combative positions such as yourself.....you need no proof, because you'll refuse to disclose, and you'll make demands anyways regardless fow hatis and isn't said. Oh and have a nice day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) MATH! (Hey, you boys stop fighting! Dang! We're trying to have a conversation here! If I have to stop this car...!) Quick thought than can use some speculative information... It's likely that the Gx (I like that better. Thanks Audio.) would be inclined to bolt if they believed they could cull more from their own circuit than they can from DCI. If we presume that the top 5 corps bolted (you can use any number), they'd have to "make up" 50% or 60% of the DCI pie, we can keep it simple and presume they'd have to replace about $1mm in DCI revenue. To keep it round and even, let's say it's $200m per corps, with maybe a wide margin of error. Somewhere along the line they had to figure at least the odds of their first season or two as just breaking even. Looking at the 990's of several corps, there's not much cash-reducible assets to live off of while the circuit gets it's footing. Some corps have $50m in cash assets available... Edited January 27, 2012 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 So the Founders limited their thinking to: "Come on in and play in our sandbox. We'll keep 80% or more of what you generate, but come on in!" Really? No. That number is way off. So the attraction to the other non-founding corps was that they'd have a sandbox to play in to boost their exposure and attract recruits and, maybe, build to be a big corps?Is that really what was envisioned? Maybe....but I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here. How did you get there from my previous post? What I was referring to in my previous post was that the founding DCI corps were: - interested in national touring - finding it difficult to sustain on prize money of the day - established circuits to provide more paydays and higher % pay from tour events That was a basic principle of the Midwest Combine, as well as DCI. Anyway, once committed to these touring habits, the top touring corps depended on this Combine/DCI revenue to make their own touring budgets viable. That was what my previous post was referring to. Now, you ask about the other 400+ corps that weren't founding members of DCI. They were involved in various ways for an assortment of reasons. The primary one, as I've said here recently, was that the league required open competition with the rest of the activity to establish it's marketing position as "showcasing the finest corps". Additionally, individual show lineups couldn't be filled by the 13 original member corps alone, so others had to participate there too. From the other 400+ corps, they found several willing to fill those open spots in show lineups for less than the guaranteed pay/benefits the member corps received....so pretty soon, much of the DCI operating model took advantage of, er, leveraged the availability of cheaper non-member corps in this manner. It is analogous to how our nation maintains a minimum wage law, but relies on foreign labor sources for low-priced manufactured goods and food. So, to defend the founding corps (or the current-day G-?) the BOD have to prevent supporting those smaller corps financially by keeping all (or most) of the nickels for themselves?But, but... Now DCI is in the hands of the "others", the non-G-?. Why not change the rules on payout? Sounds good to me....but I don't expect any of the powers that be to propose such a change now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 MATH! (Hey, you boys stop fighting! Dang! We're trying to have a conversation here! If I have to stop this car...!) Quick thought than can use some speculative information... It's likely that the Gx (I like that better. Thanks Audio.) would be inclined to bolt if they believed they could cull more from their own circuit than they can from DCI. If we presume that the top 5 corps bolted (you can use any number), they'd have to "make up" 50% or 60% of the DCI pie, we can keep it simple and presume they'd have to replace about $1mm in DCI revenue. To keep it round and even, let's say it's $200m per corps, with maybe a wide margin of error. Somewhere along the line they had to figure at least the odds of their first season or two as just breaking even. And along those lines, I would be skeptical of their ability to do that without a reasonably large number of events. Even with the premise of bigger paydays, they'd still need 20 of them to make a viable Gx tour. They don't automatically have that many just from among their own corps hosting shows. Please continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) No. That number is way off. Maybe....but I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here. How did you get there from my previous post? What I was referring to in my previous post was that the founding DCI corps were: - interested in national touring - finding it difficult to sustain on prize money of the day - established circuits to provide more paydays and higher % pay from tour events That was a basic principle of the Midwest Combine, as well as DCI. Anyway, once committed to these touring habits, the top touring corps depended on this Combine/DCI revenue to make their own touring budgets viable. That was what my previous post was referring to. Now, you ask about the other 400+ corps that weren't founding members of DCI. They were involved in various ways for an assortment of reasons. The primary one, as I've said here recently, was that the league required open competition with the rest of the activity to establish it's marketing position as "showcasing the finest corps". Additionally, individual show lineups couldn't be filled by the 13 original member corps alone, so others had to participate there too. From the other 400+ corps, they found several willing to fill those open spots in show lineups for less than the guaranteed pay/benefits the member corps received....so pretty soon, much of the DCI operating model took advantage of, er, leveraged the availability of cheaper non-member corps in this manner. It is analogous to how our nation maintains a minimum wage law, but relies on foreign labor sources for low-priced manufactured goods and food. Sounds good to me....but I don't expect any of the powers that be to propose such a change now. Just to clarify here, I used your post as platform to advance the idea. Wasn't referring to your post beyond your first sentence. Edited January 27, 2012 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 (Hey, you boys stop fighting! Dang! We're trying to have a conversation here! If I have to stop this car...!) He started it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 He started it did not 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.