cixelsyd Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 If you look at the 990's thread, it shows exactly that has already happened. Not sure what you are referring to. Appearance money has risen for the TOC participants, but not the other corps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Not necessarily. The funds for the appearance fee raise can be obtained from reducing post season revenue sharing. The DCI budget can remain balanced without raising the cost of the show contract. I'm not certain that your math works. It seems you're mostly saying revenue should be paid out over the season instead of the end, and that somehow "balances". I don't think you've got it right, but I don't think it matters much to the corps, and I'd bet it matters even less to the G7. How can it be that a corps that spends $2million on programs is willing to break up the activity to get a potential 10% more? I don't think money is the biggest driver of the discussion. I think it's frustration at having "contributed" to the overall activity (Fan Network, TOC, etc), at having had suggestions ignored, being vilified for being able to produce the product they deem best, only to have the final "thanks" be ejection from the BOD. I think it's a lack of growth ideas that are substantial and not subject to screw up by the DCI staff, or watered-down into ineffectiveness by the group think. There are lots of things that a part of this rift but, somehow, I can't believe it's centered on money. I could be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Raise appearance fees? That puts the squeeze on show sponsors and spectators. Probably lessen the amount of both. In the end, making it more expensive for "newbies" to discover this wonderful activity, in this not so wonderful economy, is a significant risk. However, all ideas are worth consideration and I'm glad you put this on the table. Well, isn't this the part of the G7 plan that's already been implemented? Except that it's only to raise the fees for the G7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 This Forum is nothing more than a modern day Barber Shop where some of the community folk gather on Saturday to banter And right now our Shoppe, by comparison, seems a bit more civil compared to whats going on at the moment down the street at the current DCI Saloon. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) I don't think money is the biggest driver of the discussion. I think it's frustration at having "contributed" to the overall activity (Fan Network, TOC, etc), at having had suggestions ignored, being vilified for being able to produce the product they deem best, only to have the final "thanks" be ejection from the BOD. I think it's a lack of growth ideas that are substantial and not subject to screw up by the DCI staff, or watered-down into ineffectiveness by the group think. I agree with some of this, but as far as I know we have no evidence of any recent constructive proposals that have been ignored or watered down to pointlessness, save the big deal over the new sheets, which came from Chris Komnick's Entertainment Effect caption proposal. Probably we don't hear about a lot of things (DCI Next?), but since electronics were approved the publicized votes have been over minor details. Prior to that, Hopkins' proposals pretty much got approved one by one, year after year (he had to try for years on each, but he got every significant thing he's proposed). Has he (and whoever is aligned with his vision) gotten tired of having to fight for years for each inch of change he wanted, and decided trying to change the DCI governance would be the easier path? Honestly, I don't think clarity of vision will improve if the G7 gets control of the board. There are a few things the G7 agrees on and those changes might get enacted, but beyond that there would still be contentiousness and confusion again, just with a different set of people. Edited January 17, 2013 by skywhopper 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobrien Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) Cutting this down from a much longer post... The business of DCI is selling tickets to events and merchandise related to drum corps performances. That's it's ONLY real purpose. It's not unreasonable to expect that the most visible teams in the league would want a voice in how that's done. The existing Board holds some cards; they can extract some concessions from the 7 in exchange for accepting their proposals, related to helping fund an expanded corporate sponsorship and marketing department for DCI and agreements that DCI will retain a brass and percussion only identity (it would kill Hopkins to sign off on that, but he would if that was made the peace). But just find a way to get it all done and get back to focusing on increasing public awareness and expanding the audience, because without that, they're all just fighting for space on the fantail of the Titanic. Edited January 17, 2013 by mobrien 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Excellent post! I would like to add a couple of thoughts. The same is true in drum corps. If a 21st place corps gets BD and SCV to appear at their home show, those two corps will have helped that corps' bottom line by providing them with a much more attractive ticket than they would have had otherwise. It doesn't seem unreasonable to respect that unique position by giving them a seat at the Board table again. Unlike MLB, though, not every corps has a "home" show to get helped by that attendance bump. And as Garfield (I think it was) posted on here - his show's attendance didn't jump all that much when a top corps was added. I'd hope that the current Board and membership recognize that the same thing is true here, and accept the proposal of the 12-member board (or bump it to 15, going down to the 15th place corps, if you want, but no outside directors, unless said directors are bringing with them significant connections and influence in the corporate world, which doesn't appear to be the case right now). To be fair, though, none of the G-7 corps have even run for election on the Board. They're demanding it be ceded to them in a block vote... why does it have to be all or nothing? And why does it need to be via competitive placement? On field success has little to nothing to do with financial acumen. Heck, from looking at the 990's, I'd much rather have Pacific Crest and The Academy running things than Regiment or Crown. I'm totally on board with you about growing the activity, though. I just think that the DCI Board has gotten the business and the art of drum corps completely twisted together in an artificial and damaging way. Mike 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowtown Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 These are the facts. Indisputable. This is the real root of the problem. No, statements like that are the problem. ‘The facts’ are very disputable and interpretive. There are a lot of ideologues using ‘the facts’ in a faith based mean to push their agendas. Sides show a lack consideration for other options by stating ‘facts’ It’s nice that some are having this kumbaya moment and want to be all positive but in many ways, being all positive is part of the problem. Accountability is lacking, too many want to throw their hands up and say it just is; they did the best they could. No, there were options, other ways; this course was set years back and now its coming due This thread is a reflection of the stress caused by the uncertainty of the situation. It shows some of the damage that has already been caused. This thread should act as fodder for a resolution to the situation now. This thread also shows how powerless we are as fans and how as fans we’ve been abused….and that many people’s loyalties to ‘their corps’ allow for such abuse further empowering even more abuse If you think through the economics and dynamics of a circuit of 7, you begin to see what this really is about and it’s all rather rank. I’m so sick of hysterical fear mongering, I’m so sick of the G7, do it or shut the **** up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobrien Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) And as Garfield (I think it was) posted on here - his show's attendance didn't jump all that much when a top corps was added. I'd say that's a credit to how well he and his group must be marketing his show. However DCI could set, as a priority, making sure that those corps who are in the 'developing' stage DO get A-list corps to come do their home shows, as a way to help those younger, smaller corps build a local base of support. While there's no guarantee that a few past champions on the bill will increase the ticket sales, I suspect most of us would rather have that to sell than not. Edited January 17, 2013 by mobrien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowtown Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 This thread = Just substitue G7 for Jehovah and you've pretty much got it. Funny And all prompted by a letter from those that wish to lead Seriously, that letter is a text book example of poor leadership 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.