G7 Update

[bawker]

So many unfounded speculations here. If I grant you all your assumptions, I agree with you.

I'm not so sure the G7 would be willing to start a circuit with just seven corps.

Nor do I think marching WW's are inevitable.

Nor do I think DCI will forcibly kick the G7 out of DCI.

IMO if and when the G7 breaks completely, they'd do so in such way that ensures the new circuit replaces DCI as the acknowledged center of drum corps -- not competes with it.

Fine, I'm speculating.

All of us are at this point, unless you know something everyone else doesn't.

[corpsband]

Ways to reduce costs include eliminating equipment that corps must pay for out of pocket (i.e., electronics, multiple guard uniforms and flags, props, etc.), changing the length of the season (either limiting the amount of time corps can spend in spring training - impossible to police - or limiting the length of the season by cutting off time from the end of the season), or reducing the size of the corps.

Members do not pay even 50% of the cost of their participation, so increasing headcount increases costs. So long as their are empty seats on busses, the logic has been that filling them with members increases revenue. This is only partially true, and it is primarily due to bus leases of 55/56 passenger busses (the most expense). If we truly want to cut costs, reduce corps size so that the corps could travel on 44/45 passenger busses, which are MUCH cheaper. Further, the argument has been that if kids do not get a spot in the corps they tried out for, they do not march. This may be true, but increasing the size of corps to allow more of these kids to march has a very direct increase to the cost for the corps.

Reduce corps size to 128, so we can lease smaller cheaper busses, and shave the last week off the season to reduce costs - these would result in very significant cost savings to all corps.

+1 to you sir!. Refreshing to see real content instead of just more mob theater.

Please elaborate on the 44 pax vs 55 pax bus leases. As I recall when the member size was bumped up to 150, the clear rationale was that bus companies were replacing most of their coaches with 55 pax vehicles. Corps at that time were effectively paying for empty seats in their leases/fuel costs, so why not increase the membership to 50x3 coaches and at least get some income back from those empty seats.

I'd also like to see you elaborate on the savings a corps might incur in food,etc... vs. the additional dues income received per member. While clearly uniforms and instruments are 1:1 linear costs, one might conclude that net increase in food cost is far outweighed by the increase in dues income for those empty-seat members.

Edited January 11, 2013 by corpsband

[corpsband]

Why 16-23?

And why is corps that was 8th pre-split suddenly the same corps post-split when the "name of the game" has changed, so-to-speak?

See the GP .

Edited January 11, 2013 by corpsband

[corpsband]

Fine, I'm speculating.

All of us are at this point, unless you know something everyone else doesn't.

Well it's apparent (to me at least) that most posters in this thread are completely unaware of the number of "assumptions" they're making. In fact many of them belong right on the psychic friends network!

[bawker]

Well it's apparent (to me at least) that most posters in this thread are completely unaware of the number of "assumptions" they're making. In fact many of them belong right on the psychic friends network!

So, you don't know either, then?

[corpsband]

So, you don't know either, then?

Nope. In fact I'd wager that most of the corps directors have no clue how this is all going to shake out.

Artistically-inclined folks having dramatic arguments over the direction of their organization!

Who'd have ever guessed *that* could happen.

Edited January 11, 2013 by corpsband

[garfield]

Please elaborate on the 44 pax vs 55 pax bus leases. As I recall when the member size was bumped up to 150, the clear rationale was that bus company's were replacing most of their coaches with 55 pax vehicles. Corps at that time were effectively paying for empty seats in their leases/fuel costs, so why not increase the membership to 50x3 coaches and at least get some income back from those empty seats.

I'd also like to see you elaborate on the savings a corps might incur in food,etc... vs. the additional dues income received per member. While clearly uniforms and instruments are 1:1 linear costs, one might conclude that net increase in food cost is far outweighed by the increase in dues income for those empty-seat members.

There are still lots of leasing companies that lease the 47-passenger MCI and Prevost coaches. The choice to lease the 56 passenger Prevost H45 is just that- a choice.

As to more kids making up some incremental cost imbalance, the argument is pretty much hogwash. If a corps has $800m in annual program service expenses and gets $200m per year in membership dues then, no matter how you slice it, for each dollar that the corps spends to put that kid on the field it only gets 25-cents from the marching member. Economies of scale are no more linear than are instruments or unis.

[UNCGQ]

If corps' wanted to save money, their staff wouldn't ride on entertainer coaches.

[corpsband]

There are still lots of leasing companies that lease the 47-passenger MCI and Prevost coaches. The choice to lease the 56 passenger Prevost H45 is just that- a choice.

Could be my faulty memory but I seem to recall the empty-seat argument was the one put forward when the rule was changed. And the membership voted to approved the change. Guess they were just not intelligent enough vote correctly.

Edited January 11, 2013 by corpsband

[UNCGQ]

[/size]

Could be my faulty memory but I seem to recall the empty-seat argument was the one put forward when the rule was changed. And the membership voted to approved the change. Guess they were just not intelligent enough vote correctly.

That was the argument yes.

The question is, were those supposed empty seats transporting other folks, who, when the membership size was matched to bus size, now need to be transported in other ways.

Volunteers, staff, etc.

Lots of other people roll down the road than members and it all costs money (buses probably being more cost effective at certain break-points than the RVs and 'small vehicles').

In order to completely max-out cost-effective transportation costs, you have to stay right at your break points, and for a touring corps, with lots of staff, volunteers, etc. in and out, yes, you can save money by tying member and bus numbers, but many corps throw away money in other places that would offset this savings.

All of the G7 corps' could save money if they truly wanted to. There's tons of excess in certain areas and it would improve their organizations financial long-term outlook substantially, but they're too afraid not to keep up with each other's spending.

If any of those corps' went on a true 'do we have to have this to survive' financial diet, it would be a huge cost savings, much more than seats on a bus.

Edited January 11, 2013 by UNCGQ