BRASSO Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) we must acknowledge that if it wasn't for them, the activity would not exist at all anymore... done.... finished... over. . I don't accept this premise at all. The fact of the matter is that the activity might have even been finanancially healthier and more vibrant had 2 or 3 of these G7 Corps Directors not been around. Bill Cook, the brains and the money behind the Star of Indiana, was not tied at the hip philosophically on what direction DCI should take in future years... neither was Scott Stewart of the Madison Scouts, and others on what George Hopkins vision was. Cook, Bonfiglio, Stewart, and others of like mind all left DCI. Hopkins emerged, and his vision of the future of DCI took hold over the others... and the results re. growth, finances, etc were not at all that stellar under his watch when he and others of like mind were on the DCI BOD and drove the agenda from that position on the BOD. Now he's got the nerve to criticize the financial health of DCI when he is as culpable ( if not more so ) for this than anyone else in DCI. Edited January 12, 2013 by BRASSO 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOSMarcher Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 Ditto Phantom OK, they can afford the $3,250 price of admission, but God help them if a freezer unit blows up on the food truck. Phantom Regiment Net Revenue (Loss) 2009: $146,131 2010: $42,735 (minus $103,396 [7.07%] from 2009) 2011: $10,892 (minus $31,843 [75%] from 2010, minus $135.239 [92.5%] from 2009) They have reserve funds thathave been built up over decades (for some). I am not saying they could spend more than make each year, but that is what discretionary funds are for (the unexpected expense). This is not me saying that I support them, but isn't that why they want to leave DCI? The feel they can survive better on their own when they receive all the revenue from shows? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 They have reserve funds thathave been built up over decades (for some). I am not saying they could spend more than make each year, but that is what discretionary funds are for (the unexpected expense). This is not me saying that I support them, but isn't that why they want to leave DCI? The feel they can survive better on their own when they receive all the revenue from shows? Unless there is a separate organization that has reserves, any reserves would show up in their 990s and be counted as assets. There are none. Even restricted reserves, such as grants, are reported. Yes, they have been convinced that they'll make more by doing their own shows. The question is whether those assumptions are "priced to perfection", because it won't take much bad luck to throw them into the insolvent category. (Note: The above is based on the 2011 numbers. It's possible that they built up a sizable reserve during the 2012 season.) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) They have reserve funds thathave been built up over decades (for some). I am not saying they could spend more than make each year, but that is what discretionary funds are for (the unexpected expense). This is not me saying that I support them, but isn't that why they want to leave DCI? The feel they can survive better on their own when they receive all the revenue from shows? They don't want to leave DCI. They want to control DCI. If they thought they would thrive outside DCI they would not hesitate to leave. They know DCI's existing infrastructure of TEPs, established shows, brand awareness, and legacy are all huge assets, but they want more of DCI's revenue stream (even though they already receive the lion's share). That's why they are trying to establish a parallel circuit of their own shows within the DCI schedule until they are well enough established to split off on their own, if DCI doesn't give in. And that's why those of us who whine about the G7 all the time want DCI to draw a hard line against moves like the MIM shows. IMO, those shows shouldn't be on the DCI schedule. Edited January 12, 2013 by skywhopper 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitedawn Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 This morning I got the concepts incorporating each group's requirements. They are horrible in comparison to the original. But, no one is really unhappy... while no one is really happy.This is design by committee... dulling brilliance, making no one happy, but no one really unhappy. MORE TEAL 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 D-Ray: The G7 directors are mainly looking out for 'their own' interests as opposed to the interests of the entirety of DCI. That in of itself is fine; Hopkins must look out for the best interest of The Cadets and Gibbs must look out for the best interest of BD. However, what is best for DCI (as a whole) is not always what is best for an individual corps. Therefore a person who has decision making authority for an individual corps should never be placed in charge of making powerful decisions for an entire activity; that creates a huge conflict of interest when the needs of the group conflict with the needs of the individual corps. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwmoore001 Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 A man who runs a performing arts non-profit has no moral compass leading him... lulz Just because he runs a non-profit doesn't mean he is a morally sound person. One must look at how he runs the organization and the mess he leaves in his wake along with the lengths that he, and others will go to cover-up his misdeeds. All is not as it seems to the outside world. IMO this man has no business working around impressionable young people. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 (edited) Good for G7 for making difficult decisions and doing what they feel is best for the resilience if the activity. You can't say nothing needs to be done when you don't have a Glassmen or Teal sound on the field in 2013... they are atleast doing something about it. Carry on! What does the G7 plans say about anyone but themselves? All I see is the G7 planning for the G7 and doesn't really matter to them what happens to the corps remaining in DCI. IMO they are trying to save their own bacon... Teal and Glassmen who? Edited January 12, 2013 by JimF-LowBari 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 What does the G7 plans say about anyone but themselves? All I see is the G7 planning for the G7 and doesn't really matter to them what happens to the corps remaining in DCI. IMO they are trying to save their own bacon... Teal and Glassmen who? MiM doesn't bother me and G7 doesn't bother me. It's not a political or massive corporate take over. It's non-profit band. The non-G7 have the power to do what they wish and they aren't as helpless as people would like to think. People get defensive because of already instilled hate for George Hopkins and nothing more (even though Hop isn't the only one). I wonder if it was the bottom 7 corps that wanted to create their own circuit if people would be so against it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 MORE TEAL Now you're confusing people. :) 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.