TerriTroop Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Well, this is one of those cases where the 990's are telling a story, but not the whole story. There are a lot of ways in which things might be categorized or classified that technically correct from a reporting picture, but do not reflect the operational reality. Nothing wrong with that, really, as the 990's are not really about sharing operational reality. 990's also do not show info in real-time or reflect what changes may soon occur (say 2014, for example), which could possibly paint a different picture. So, will you tell us your version of the story? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 So, will you tell us your version of the story? The way these types of disclosures are set up, information that the organization must disclose to the public is included. Any information beyond this is up to the organization themselves to choose to disclose. I am not connected to any organization in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Dan, although our discussion is not off-topic by any stretch, it is pertinent and your viewpoints are worthy of discussion. Would you be so kind as to copy your comments over to the 990's discussion thread so we can continue the discussing? I'll reply to your last over there. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Dan, although our discussion is not off-topic by any stretch, it is pertinent and your viewpoints are worthy of discussion. Would you be so kind as to copy your comments over to the 990's discussion thread so we can continue the discussing? I'll reply to your last over there. Thanks I just brought up a couple of points, to maybe provide a bit different perspective, but not really my place to discuss any further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) Nobody seems to have replied to this post, which I think should not be overlooked. If DCI is doing as well for SE7EN as garfield's information seems to indicate, why are they agitating again? Feel free to bump as you like; I'm anxiously awaiting some comments on this central theme of the supposed justification for the G7's 2010 proposal. While DanRay suggests that all is not as it seems, for many of us the 990's results show that DCI did exactly what they were asked with both corps payout and building a reserve. It is interesting that the G7's recent email mentions nothing about DCI's competence - a missed opportunity to be magnanimous, IMO - but instead focuses its emphasis on governance. It could be that they privately congratulated and thanked DCI for it's gains in 2011. It could be that DanRay's connotation is right and that there really was no gain in '11, or one that was not as impressive as the filings represent. Edited January 20, 2013 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) Well, this is one of those cases where the 990's are telling a story, but not the whole story. There are a lot of ways in which things might be categorized or classified that technically correct from a reporting picture, but do not reflect the operational reality. Nothing wrong with that, really, as the 990's are not really about sharing operational reality. 990's also do not show info in real-time or reflect what changes may soon occur (say 2014, for example), which could possibly paint a different picture. You make a "couple of points" that referred to my post suggesting the 990s show considerable gains in 2011's operations. You suggest all is not as it seems presented by the 990 data. I'll go ahead and copy that question to the 990s thread with the implication that one underpinning of the G7's contentions is no longer true as of 2011. My understanding from several sources is that the 990 discussion is widely followed by directors. I'm not asking you to make further comments, only the favor of letting me reply over there, where the odds are greater that they'll be those who can provide actual proof and validation/explanation that the 990s aren't telling the full, or a valid, story. Your first paragraph above contains a broken sentence so it's not perfectly clear, but I agree with the point of it - in fact, I said as much and more in the first post of the 990s thread. Your second paragraph is false and obvious at the same time. The 990s do share the operational reality of 2011, IMO, and I again invite you to show otherwise (with specifics, please). And, obviously, 990s can't reflect either the current day financial picture or a future one, most obviously because we're reviewing data that's over 12 months old. Again, I was pretty specific in the first post about what could be surmized and what could not. Having stipulated that the data presented does not reflect the current situation, and considering my profession, I was and am unwilling to suggest that the data portends anything at all about the future. Based on the feedback that I've gotten I'm convinced that 990s are more representative of the situation in 2011 than they are not. Edited January 20, 2013 by garfield 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Nobody seems to have replied to this post, which I think should not be overlooked. If DCI is doing as well for SE7EN as garfield's information seems to indicate, why are they agitating again? If DCI is making more money, then they want some of that. If not... their original proposal involved gutting the DCI staff in any case, to free up more revenue for them (on the presumption that DCI's staff does nothing to generate that revenue, I guess). So... there's always a reason to agitate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 When you get into the deeper numbers and how things are structured, there are clearly some issues... a large line of credit used to putty over the cracks, for example. Or, for example, that certain leaders of the Chicago mob are drum corps vets and have an understanding of the "deeper" numbers that allows them to siphon off substantially all of DCI's revenue and funnel it to their primary foot soldiers, the G7 corps directors. Believe it or not, DCI actually generated nearly $100-million dollars in revenue in 2011 but, because of the "mystery" of 990 filings we mere mortals will never know the actual, true deeper story that the mob protects. That sounds as silly as your example. For someone who has posted a disdain for the cooky, unsubstaniated rumor-mongering that, supposedly, makes up so much of DCP, you sure enjoy stoking the embers that allows rumors to reach full-flame. Opposing the rhetoric was one of the goals of the 990s thread. Maybe that's what you're really opposed to? :tongue:/> 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 So, will you tell us your version of the story? The way these types of disclosures are set up, information that the organization must disclose to the public is included. Any information beyond this is up to the organization themselves to choose to disclose. I am not connected to any organization in any way. Well, that answers that. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Haring Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Mike: I'm hoping that by now we can all agree that when we talk about DCI, a whole set of criteria, experiences and fan reactions sweeps us in a unique manner that is (to us at least) a special and cherished thing to embrace. So, no matter what taxonomy we apply to our niche of the marching activities, when we say "drum corps" instead of "marching band," we have this notion in our minds that makes us reflect fondly on the past and anticipate the coming season with impatience and speculation. Taken as an activity from sea to shining sea, we are a lot closer to each other as fans than people who follow marching bands, simply because we aren't basically a localized activity for more of the season with a couple major events at the end that groups from around the country may or may not attend. Drum corps, on the junior and senior level, aims towards the last show of the season knowing that for the most part, all the top groups will get together in a festival of excellence unlike anything else on earth. And if it isn't unlike anything else on earth...that's our prerogative as well. That's how we think, that's how we roll. So...drum corps is not just a marching band circuit, it is an unquantifiable essence in our hearts and souls that transcends simply classification as nothing more than marching band. And those who feel that will always stand up and proclaim that we simply can't be pigeonholed in with every proud group that goes out there in the fall and plays their school victory song every time their team scores a touchdown. Translation: "Mike, you suck for referring to drum corps as 'marching band.'" 1 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.