charlie1223 Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) No, it is not. These directors are supposed to be serving together in the governance of their common activity, not issuing demands as a negotiation tactic. I see. In that case, I suggest DCI respond with an email detailing their intent to ban the 7 from DCI permamently, sue them for every last penny, and take that money and split it among the remaining DCI corps. Of course, that will just be part of the negotiating process, so that permanently banning the 7 from DCI will be seen as a "compromise". So we do have common ground? The responses to G7 proposals/demands here are reactionary because these proposals/demands are so disingenuous. If the 7 had the requisite sincerity to put forth a cohesive point of view, we could debate it on the merits. That will never happen if they mask such a viewpoint in double talk about how much they want to help the lower corps (by reducing their pay), work together (as long as they get all the votes), and how they want to make their changes happen within DCI (while they incorporate their own separate circuit). Based on only 2 leaked (and for Garfield i am making the likely assumption the g7 email was not posted by a G7 director or affiliate) pieces of information in 2 years I'm not sure we are able to understand what the G7 even want currently. Is the original proposal still relevant? Are there changes? I feel we are missing a lot if detail not because its not been discussed with the parties involved but because it hasn't been leaked (and shouldn't be). The assumption that G7 want to purposefully hurt the other corps for their personally financial gain can't be adequately proven just by one e-mail. Without any official announcements, or more information and without knowing what DCI thinks and what the other non-G7 corps think it would hard to make judgment? Isn't it possible to assume there is more information being discussed behinds the scenes than this one e-mail? Edited January 21, 2013 by charlie1223 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 The assumption that G7 want to purposefully hurt the other corps for their personally financial gain can't be adequately proven just by one e-mail. but it can be proven by the ppt presentation Without any official announcements, or more information and without knowing what DCI thinks and what the other non-G7 corps think it would hard to make judgment? Isn't it possible to assume there is more information being discussed behinds the scenes than this one e-mail? we know what DCI thinks... DCI thinks the G7 should shove it, that's why they voted them off the executive board. And we know what the G7 thinks, they think they can't get what they want from DCI, that's why they quit the DCI executive board and are now threatening to leave DCI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Based on only 2 leaked (and for Garfield i am making the likely assumption the g7 email was not posted by a G7 director or affiliate) pieces of information in 2 years I'm not sure we are able to understand what the G7 even want. I feel we are missing a lot if detail not because its not been discussed with the parties involved but because it hasn't been leaked (and shouldn't be). The assumption that G7 want to purposefully hurt the other corps for their personally financial gain can't be adequately proven just by one e-mail. Right. "The G7 Report" from 2010 contains that information. Without any official announcements and without knowing what DCI thinks and what the other non-G7 corps think it would hard to make judgment? Isn't it possible to assume there is more information being discussed behinds the scenes than this one e-mail? Sure. It is possible that "The 7" have also called ahead to demand larger chairs for themselves at the head of the conference room table this weekend, and a tablecloth embroidered with their new logo, a hand with the middle finger extended in the shape of a 7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tekneek Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 The drum corps lower down the ladder, at least historically, attracted two kinds of people: (1) those who love a particular corps and would be happy to stay with it forever; (2) those who are looking to use it as a stepping stone to the top corps. I've known both kinds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Based on only 2 leaked (and for Garfield i am making the likely assumption the g7 email was not posted by a G7 director or affiliate) pieces of information in 2 years I'm not sure we are able to understand what the G7 even want currently. Is the original proposal still relevant? Are there changes? I feel we are missing a lot if detail not because its not been discussed with the parties involved but because it hasn't been leaked (and shouldn't be). The assumption that G7 want to purposefully hurt the other corps for their personally financial gain can't be adequately proven just by one e-mail. Without any official announcements, or more information and without knowing what DCI thinks and what the other non-G7 corps think it would hard to make judgment? Isn't it possible to assume there is more information being discussed behinds the scenes than this one e-mail? Charlie, this may not have occured to you, but I think it's safe to presume that some (many?) posters on these boards have had personal conversations with people you and I would consider to be on the "inside" of the activity. And that, while it's safe to also presume that some parts of those discussions can't come out due to confidentiality, it's also reasonable that some of the opinons here are based on more than just the 2 pieces of information you reference. I say this because back in 2010 I initiated conversations with several directors and was pleasantly surprised at their willingness to talk with me, and because I hope you'll take the opportunity to do the same thing. Your viewpoints may (or may not) be changed based on what you find out, and you might be a little less dogmatic in your contention that none here know more than you do about the G7 situation. I, personally, don't believe for a second that the G7 intentially wants to hurt any other corps despite their obviously saying so in the 2010 document. I believe they see their activity crumbling around them (whether or not that's true is secondary) and, after years of trying to get others to listen to them with little success (again, their viewpoint), they feel their backs are now against the wall (even if it's their wall). And I suspect they believe there's no other way to fix the problems they see without the collateral damage inflicted on the corps that have refused their solutions. I'm choosing to believe that they don't intentionally want to hurt any other corps - if there were a way to accomplish their goals any other way they'd choose it - but they are out of ideas and don't see another way (again, their perspective). Then egos, feelings, and emotions take hold - even in response to leaked documents - and rational adults are reduced to exasperated human beings with a sense of no way out. In all, by standing in their shoes, it's not hard to imagine what prompted them to publish the 2010 ultimatum even if I strongly disagree with the content and methods of their proposal. I, personally, believe it might be time to take the control of the activity away from all of them by bringing in a leader (with TEETH!) who can allow them to do what they do best by focusing their attention on putting on spectacular drum corps shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickhaltsforlife Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Do "the rest" care about the solvency of the G7? Probably not at this point but "the Rest" have lost a couple corps this past year. Maybe it's time they counter G7? There is much being discussed that you and I know nothing about. Maybe G7 plans have changed? Maybe not? How would "the Rest" counter the G7 demands? Why do we feel tgey are powerless when they have DCI on their side? The tables aren't all that lopsided. I would expect Crossmen to only worry about Crossmen and Cadets to onlyworry about Cadets. If Crossmen are worried that the G7 asking for more votes threatens their bottom line or competitive mission then they have the right to counter and G7 owe Crossmen an explanation. What I meant by having a voice is having a seripus debate about what's up with the G7 demands and how that effects DCI. Even G7 I'm sure realize this. Those men aren't radicals, they are highly competent business people as are the people at DCI. I imagine DCI is sending the G7 e-mails that don't get leaked. And who knows what has been discussed since the deadline set in the e-mail? I reality people only know PART of one side Of the story (the leaked G7 parts). Huge stretch....(bold) If this were true.. we wouldn't be in this mess. It's really a bunch of artists pretending to be business people. And the G7 proposals do nothing to change that problem. It's up to the G7 and "the Rest" to admit that they aren't the people to make the business decions of DCI anymore. It's time to open it up to people who have had business success outside of running a drum corps. Because this obviously isn't working. These artists and their egos are getting in the way of me enjoying my drum corps. Concentrate on entertaining the fan... that might be a start at some better business right there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickhaltsforlife Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Charlie, this may not have occured to you, but I think it's safe to presume that some (many?) posters on these boards have had personal conversations with people you and I would consider to be on the "inside" of the activity. And that, while it's safe to also presume that some parts of those discussions can't come out due to confidentiality, it's also reasonable that some of the opinons here are based on more than just the 2 pieces of information you reference. I say this because back in 2010 I initiated conversations with several directors and was pleasantly surprised at their willingness to talk with me, and because I hope you'll take the opportunity to do the same thing. Your viewpoints may (or may not) be changed based on what you find out, and you might be a little less dogmatic in your contention that none here know more than you do about the G7 situation. I, personally, don't believe for a second that the G7 intentially wants to hurt any other corps despite their obviously saying so in the 2010 document. I believe they see their activity crumbling around them (whether or not that's true is secondary) and, after years of trying to get others to listen to them with little success (again, their viewpoint), they feel their backs are now against the wall (even if it's their wall). And I suspect they believe there's no other way to fix the problems they see without the collateral damage inflicted on the corps that have refused their solutions. I'm choosing to believe that they don't intentionally want to hurt any other corps - if there were a way to accomplish their goals any other way they'd choose it - but they are out of ideas and don't see another way (again, their perspective). Then egos, feelings, and emotions take hold - even in response to leaked documents - and rational adults are reduced to exasperated human beings with a sense of no way out. In all, by standing in their shoes, it's not hard to imagine what prompted them to publish the 2010 ultimatum even if I strongly disagree with the content and methods of their proposal. I, personally, believe it might be time to take the control of the activity away from all of them by bringing in a leader (with TEETH!) who can allow them to do what they do best by focusing their attention on putting on spectacular drum corps shows. What he said! Posted my last one before I read this post... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scout9193 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) As someone very who is now very much on the outside of this activity at this point in my life... good bad or otherwise maybe it SHOULD happen...Could it --and would it be so bad-- to have this somehow lead to a renewal of "locally based" neighborhood organizations--if for no other reason due to financial constraints possibly teaching/showing organizations how to live within their means as opposed to keeping up with the Jones and spending money they don't have? Forcing them to reconnect or develop further local/city/county relationships with citizens, businesses and government? Could it lead to a "reboot" of an activity that has drifted so far away from what I loved growing up?? I suppose it is huge stretch to think this is possible...would be kind of neat to see though...and I'd be a lot more inclined to provide financial and other assistance. Just some ramblings at 11pm from a self professed "old fart"... CM Edited January 22, 2013 by scout9193 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Haring Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I feel we are missing a lot if detail not because its not been discussed with the parties involved but because it hasn't been leaked (and shouldn't be). Oh, but it should be, my friend. And will be. Actually, I have no idea. I just thought that sounded quite cryptic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 The Proposal is outdated now and full of incomplete thoughts. There was no discussion of those ideas just fear. of course there was no discussion. the other corps basically replied " #### you" 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.