rayfallon Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Ray, the letter is not that big of a deal. Only the future of DCI hanging in the balance. :tongue:/> Fran, If I didn't know better I would suspect you of mocking me. Not sure about the future of DCI hanging, but then I've seen it hanging in the balance a few times in the past. I hope it will continue and prosper as my 12 year old grandson is doing very well on the trombone and I'd love to see the torch passed yet again. As to George's actual letter, unless I mis-read it seems to be about forcing the board of DCI to be comprised of representatives of top-12 DCI corps. I know I'm not as bright as a lot of folks on this forum but that doesn't make my head hurt. The Top-12 corps do take the largest share of the risk for the activity, why not have the lion's share of representation? I have long since gone past the point of being put off by George's brash rhetoric. a) he's a snare drummer - it's the way they're built. b) why not? It has gotten him this far. Point of fact - Garfield was running out of gas in 1981 or there-abouts. Now look at the whole YEA ball of wax. Like him or not, gotta be impressed. I haven't even had the time to follow this stuff (as I said) so I probably don't deserve much of an opinion. At this point I'm sort of hoping my daughter plays with Crossmen and the whole activity lasts long enough for her to age out and maybe some of my grandkids get to march. Hard for me to look 10 - 20 years down the line. Live that to you smart guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I have long since gone past the point of being put off by George's brash rhetoric. a) he's a snare drummer - it's the way they're built. b) why not? It has gotten him this far. Point of fact - Garfield was running out of gas in 1981 or there-abouts. Now look at the whole YEA ball of wax. Like him or not, gotta be impressed. George is a great person to run the Cadets and YEA. But he's not the right person to set the agenda for DCI. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emc2 Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 It has been delivered, disseminated, read, reviled & debated. The only question NOW is who will be the 1st corps to DISOWN Hopkins and his "Ultimatum Letter". Care for a poll? :-) No ones cares 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 As to George's actual letter, unless I mis-read it seems to be about forcing the board of DCI to be comprised of representatives of top-12 DCI corps. I know I'm not as bright as a lot of folks on this forum but that doesn't make my head hurt. The Top-12 corps do take the largest share of the risk for the activity, why not have the lion's share of representation? If it were a good idea for judges to pick the members of DCI's board; if "the 7" hadn't resigned from the board in 2010 and not run for a board position since; and if "the 7" hadn't indicated in their 2010 proposal that they planned to give themselves permanent elite positions,* restructure the fee payment schedule further in their favor than it already is, prevent other corps from performing in the more lucrative weekend shows; then maybe it would make sense to give them control of DCI. *Even Bloo and Crown, who would have been on the outside looking in at Boston just seven years ago, if this stunt had been tried then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyboy Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 None of them... even the poor Cavaliers that tried to play victim the first time around in 2010 haven't tried to play that card again. The other G7 will continue to try and take and take, because they figure there are no negative ramifications. Worst case scenario is status quo. This is why the other corps should heavily consider punitive action if this doesn't stop. I'm glad someone else remembers this. What's lamer than being G7? Sitting on the fence and pretending be confused by everything. As far as disowning the G7, not one of the corps involved will do so. I'm kinda hoping BAC and Madison will bust open the top 7 and put two of the Gs into 8th and 9th. If then invited by Gibbs and Hopkins, they can answer "NO" publicly. That would work for me. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 If you can't see George's writing style in that letter, you don't follow the activity as closely as I thought. Well... I am not sure -- exactly -- what you mean??? Maybe... you can explain. Just a bit more precisely. What you are getting at??? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 *Even Bloo and Crown, who would have been on the outside looking in at Boston just seven years ago, if this stunt had been tried then. and would still be on the outside looking in if Boston had been consistently better. Just sayin.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 soccerguy315, on 20 January 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:None of them... even the poor Cavaliers that tried to play victim the first time around in 2010 haven't tried to play that card again. The other G7 will continue to try and take and take, because they figure there are no negative ramifications. Worst case scenario is status quo. This is why the other corps should heavily consider punitive action if this doesn't stop. I'm glad someone else remembers this. What's lamer than being G7? Sitting on the fence and pretending be confused by everything. As far as disowning the G7, not one of the corps involved will do so. I hate to play coy, and be that guy who says something with no context, legit reference, and little/no real information. But man, there is a story behind the above that is pretty amusing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 (edited) And would still be on the outside looking in if Boston had been consistently better. Just sayin.... But that's just the point! Bluecoats had been "consistently better" than Boston for a long time, and then slipped, so that for a while, Boston had a better record. If SE7EN had formed during that period, Boston would be permanently instilled as one of the elite--that's what the 2010 proposal called for. It wouldn't matter how many times Bluecoats beat Boston after that, and it would be much harder for Bluecoats to have a shot of doing so anyway, given that their funding would be cut both directly through reduced payouts and indirectly through being forbidden from playing in weekend shows. Edited January 21, 2013 by N.E. Brigand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perc2100 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 But that's just the point! Bluecoats had been "consistently better" than Boston for a long time, and then slipped, so that for a while, Boston had a better record. If SE7EN had formed during that period, Boston would be permanently instilled as one of the elite--that's what the 2010 proposal called for. It wouldn't matter how many times Bluecoats beat Boston after that, and it would be much harder for Bluecoats to have a shot of doing so anyway, given that their funding would be cut both directly through reduced payouts and indirectly through being forbidden from playing in weekend shows. 1st of all, I don't think anyone is being forbidden from playing in weekend shows. Don't try to make up hyperbole in order to make up your point: in the end it only weakens it.2nd, it seems pretty clear that Boston has zero intentions of wanting to do something like what the seven have in mind. Regardless of their placement, either Boston doesn't want to get involved (as expressed by some Boston folks on here), or maybe the 'seven' don't want to include Boston for some reason. 3rd, Boston, and any other corps, seems free to do whatever they want. Not making enough money in appearance fees? Do something about it: perform paid clinics, start your own series of shows with other corps, etc. Some might gripe about the Seven looking to make more money for themselves, and I turn that around and say why doesn't Boston, or Scouts, or some other corps wanting to make more money do something about it? Instead of naively thinking money will come your way without changing anything, sometimes you have to be proactive and figure out new ways to increase revenue. I would say at best I'm a "casual drum corps fan," with no allegiances to anyone at this point (my corps folded awhile back because they were unable to figure out ways to keep revenue at a point where they could sustain a competitive corps). I don't necessarily care one way or the other for Cadets, or BD, or Crown, or whomever and conversely I don't really have a huge passion for Scouts or BAC or Troopers, or Crossmen, etc. I love the activity, support my students who march & friends who teach. I subscribe to FN every year, watch everyone all season long, and have fun following the activity. But I don't see a need, at this time, to draw lines in the sand and condemn corps for coming up with new ways to make money. Right now we basically have leaked emails that are essentially "work product" of ideas. No one is saying they're leaving DCI, regardless of not-so-subtle posturing in leaked emails. Life's too short to have so much disdain for what is essentially a youth marching band: after all, a man FAR greater than any of us on this board once said, "I've decided to stick with love; hate is too big a burden to bear." 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.