Which will be the First "G-7" to Disown Hopkin's Letter?

[N.E. Brigand]

While I don't speak for the corps officially, my conversations with folks in Boston indicates their bigger concern is the stated intent by SOME of the G7 to insulate and institutional their "elite" status, which would be contrary to the DCI tradition of being able to move up through the ranks. As one of the board members put it to me last weekend in DC, "In 2000, when we were in 5th and Bluecoats were in 12th, putting a "G7" plan of some sort in place wouldn't have even been in our minds".

So much this.

Yet no one who support SE7EN has offered a cogent response to this point, which has been made here a few dozen times by different people over the past two weeks.

[perc2100]

raiga, on 22 January 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

While I don't speak for the corps officially, my conversations with folks in Boston indicates their bigger concern is the stated intent by SOME of the G7 to insulate and institutional their "elite" status, which would be contrary to the DCI tradition of being able to move up through the ranks. As one of the board members put it to me last weekend in DC, "In 2000, when we were in 5th and Bluecoats were in 12th, putting a "G7" plan of some sort in place wouldn't have even been in our minds".

So much this.

Yet no one who support SE7EN has offered a cogent response to this point, which has been made here a few dozen times by different people over the past two weeks.

While I don't think I would consider myself a "supporter" of the 7 (I'll wait until things are finalized before I make that decision), I'll give it a crack.

At this point, 13 years later, it's irrelevant.

In 2010, when we were a decade past Boston in 5th and Bluecoats in 12th. Bluecoats were sitting 3rd, Boston was sitting 9th, and directors were sitting around thinking, "we should be making more money: how can we make that happen?"

Boston wasn't thinking "how can we be making more money" in 2000. Maybe they're satisfied with their revenue and don't feel the need to try to create another revenue stream. If they are more concerned staying in the collective and pining all of their hopes that as a large organization they can right the ship: good for them. If Boston (or anyone else not in the 7) don't feel the need to explore either a new revenue stream, or trying to obtain a larger appearance fee, then that's their decision. Personally, while I disagree the holier than thou tone of the leaked G7 information, I can't fault the directors for trying to do what they feel is best not only for their organizations, but also for the activity. I may disagree with what they think is best, but at least they're passionately trying to (in their view) improve the activity.

Same with Boston: they are doing what they feel is best for themselves and the activity.

Conversely, if Scouts, BAC, Blue Knights, Crossmen, Spirit, Academy, and Colts want to form their own collective, where they do exclusive shows and keep all of the profit themselves, I would support that just as much as the 7. Just as I could care less that Blue Devils do a stage show to make extra revenue, or Academy do their own local events as a fundraiser, I don't care about any corps doing their own thing. Essentially, if Cadets are performing 30 shows in 2013, and 7 of them are the MIM shows, they are still mostly competing in DCI. If other corps want to do their own version of Music In Motion: so be it. If Boston becomes a perennial Top 6, and that means they get higher performance fees than the 7-25th placing corps? So be it. They've earned that pay increase by becoming competitively successful.

[drumguy50]

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?

:-)

I would guess Phantom and Bluecoats at about the same time time. Neither can afford the amount it would cost going on with out DCI. I doubt any will actually go because of the loss of fans and allumni support.

[cmathis]

I doubt any will because I suspect they support the proposal (which doesn't amount to an "ultimatum" in my reading).

As for this unfounded speculation that Hopkins wrote this letter alone and somehow forged, coerced otherwise misapplied the names of corps who didn't consent (never mind agree), there's no evidence to back so shallow a contention. The evidence we have shows the names of seven corps. And none of those seven has whispered any hint of disagreement, disapproval or even benign concern.

That some see signs of Hopkins' syntax in the letter isn't evidence of discord. Some see Hopkins tracks in everything they dislike about drum corps. Why should this be different?

Seven corps, not one, are behind this. That's why their names are there. I know some wish it were different. I know some would rather have a single villian. Unfortunately for y'all, that's not what's happening. A majority voted for Bb. A majority voted for A&E. I don't know where this proposal is going. All I know is seven names aren't the work of one.

HH

Without Hopkins spearheading this, I'm willing to bet it wouldn't have happened. Or at least it wouldn't have happened until much later.

This whole "G7" thing is Hopkins's baby that he got other corps to back so he could have more support to get it through.

[cixelsyd]

Once again, I am finding this -

Boston wasn't thinking "how can we be making more money" in 2000. Maybe they're satisfied with their revenue and don't feel the need to try to create another revenue stream.

- grotesquely inaccurate. I have no idea what makes you believe that the Boston Crusaders had/have no interest in improving their financial strength. Just because they did not include "take money from the other corps" as one of their ideas?

If they are more concerned staying in the collective and pining all of their hopes that as a large organization they can right the ship: good for them. If Boston (or anyone else not in the 7) don't feel the need to explore either a new revenue stream, or trying to obtain a larger appearance fee, then that's their decision. Personally, while I disagree the holier than thou tone of the leaked G7 information, I can't fault the directors for trying to do what they feel is best not only for their organizations, but also for the activity. I may disagree with what they think is best, but at least they're passionately trying to (in their view) improve the activity.

No - "The 7" are trying to improve their own outcome, not that of the activity at large.

Same with Boston: they are doing what they feel is best for themselves and the activity.

Conversely, if Scouts, BAC, Blue Knights, Crossmen, Spirit, Academy, and Colts want to form their own collective, where they do exclusive shows and keep all of the profit themselves, I would support that just as much as the 7.

I am so glad to hear that, because it turns out that the other corps do have a collective. It is called DCI.

I like your idea. The 7 keep their profits from those 6 MiM shows, and the other corps get all the profits from their collective (DCI). This is the most equitable idea I have heard yet.

Just as I could care less that Blue Devils do a stage show to make extra revenue, or Academy do their own local events as a fundraiser, I don't care about any corps doing their own thing.

There is a difference between one organization doing their own thing completely separate from the DCI tour, and seven DCI member corps colluding to run their own shows in lieu of DCI events.

[N.E. Brigand]

While I don't speak for the corps officially, my conversations with folks in Boston indicates their bigger concern is the stated intent by SOME of the G7 to insulate and institutional their "elite" status, which would be contrary to the DCI tradition of being able to move up through the ranks. As one of the board members put it to me last weekend in DC, "In 2000, when we were in 5th and Bluecoats were in 12th, putting a "G7" plan of some sort in place wouldn't have even been in our minds".

So much this.

Yet no one who support SE7EN has offered a cogent response to this point, which has been made here a few dozen times by different people over the past two weeks.

While I don't think I would consider myself a "supporter" of the 7 (I'll wait until things are finalized before I make that decision), I'll give it a crack.

At this point, 13 years later, it's irrelevant.

In 2010, when we were a decade past Boston in 5th and Bluecoats in 12th. Bluecoats were sitting 3rd, Boston was sitting 9th, and directors were sitting around thinking, "We should be making more money: how can we make that happen?"

Boston wasn't thinking, "How can we be making more money" in 2000. Maybe they're satisfied with their revenue and don't feel the need to try to create another revenue stream. If they are more concerned about staying in the collective and pinning all of their hopes that as a large organization they can right the ship: good for them. If Boston (or anyone else not in the 7) don't feel the need to explore either a new revenue stream, or to try to obtain a larger appearance fee, then that's their decision. Personally, while I disagree the holier-than-thou tone of the leaked G7 information, I can't fault the directors for trying to do what they feel is best not only for their organizations, but also for the activity. I may disagree with what they think is best, but at least they're passionately trying to (in their view) improve the activity.

Same with Boston: they are doing what they feel is best for themselves and the activity.

Conversely, if Scouts, BAC, Blue Knights, Crossmen, Spirit, Academy, and Colts want to form their own collective, where they do exclusive shows and keep all of the profit themselves, I would support that just as much as the 7. Just as I couldn't care less that Blue Devils do a stage show to make extra revenue, or Academy do their own local events as a fundraiser, I don't care about any corps doing their own thing. Essentially, if Cadets are performing 30 shows in 2013, and 7 of them are the MIM shows, they are still mostly competing in DCI. If other corps want to do their own version of Music In Motion: so be it. If Boston becomes a perennial Top 6, and that means they get higher performance fees than the 7-25th placing corps? So be it. They've earned that pay increase by becoming competitively successful.

Well, I appreciate your candor, so far as it goes.

You conveniently leave out the part where Bluecoats want to prevent Boston from performing two days a week. And the part where Bluecoats want Boston to get a smaller payout than they have been in shows where they do appear, so that money can go to Bluecoats. And the part where Bluecoats want to make the current top seven (well, top six plus eighth) into a permanent elite, so that even if "Boston becomes a perennial Top 6", as you say, even if Madison or BK or Spirit manages to climb into that range (despite the new challenges they'll face thanks to SE7EN, as previously mentioned), any stumbling SE7EN members will still get the big payouts and Friday/Sunday gigs that are denied to other corps placing as well. And no one will be able to do anything about it, because the bylaws will have been changed so only SE7EN have a vote!

How are things in the abyss, anyway? Where all that's "relevant" is what Bluecoats and the rest of SE7EN can get away with? Where Boston Crusaders are fools for not having taken similar action in 2000 to keep Bluecoats from succeeding?

Where your answer is its own refutation, or if you prefer: if Boston is, as you have said, "free to do whatever they want" to increase their revenue, then what they should want, and do is call for a vote for all tour fees for SE7EN corps to be cut in half, or worse, and soon: this year if possible.

[jonnyboy]

While I don't think I would consider myself a "supporter" of the 7 (I'll wait until things are finalized before I make that decision), I'll give it a crack.

At this point, 13 years later, it's irrelevant.

In 2010, when we were a decade past Boston in 5th and Bluecoats in 12th. Bluecoats were sitting 3rd, Boston was sitting 9th, and directors were sitting around thinking, "we should be making more money: how can we make that happen?"

Boston wasn't thinking "how can we be making more money" in 2000. Maybe they're satisfied with their revenue and don't feel the need to try to create another revenue stream. If they are more concerned staying in the collective and pining all of their hopes that as a large organization they can right the ship: good for them. If Boston (or anyone else not in the 7) don't feel the need to explore either a new revenue stream, or trying to obtain a larger appearance fee, then that's their decision. Personally, while I disagree the holier than thou tone of the leaked G7 information, I can't fault the directors for trying to do what they feel is best not only for their organizations, but also for the activity. I may disagree with what they think is best, but at least they're passionately trying to (in their view) improve the activity.

Same with Boston: they are doing what they feel is best for themselves and the activity.

Conversely, if Scouts, BAC, Blue Knights, Crossmen, Spirit, Academy, and Colts want to form their own collective, where they do exclusive shows and keep all of the profit themselves, I would support that just as much as the 7. Just as I could care less that Blue Devils do a stage show to make extra revenue, or Academy do their own local events as a fundraiser, I don't care about any corps doing their own thing. Essentially, if Cadets are performing 30 shows in 2013, and 7 of them are the MIM shows, they are still mostly competing in DCI. If other corps want to do their own version of Music In Motion: so be it. If Boston becomes a perennial Top 6, and that means they get higher performance fees than the 7-25th placing corps? So be it. They've earned that pay increase by becoming competitively successful.

So it is okay if the the "other 23" in an effort to "make more money" vote to cut the G7 corps pay out? We could rationalize that they already get enough money from souvenirs or donations. Maybe the DCI board could vote that all World Class corps get paid the same amount per show. Or they could vote that any corps making more than $X.00 dollars per season has to pay a fee to place the souvie wagon at a show. I'm sure if every corps that isn't G7 formed a collective and tried to take over control of DCI, people would have the same feeling about them as the current G7 players.

.

The G7 proposals aren't as much as making more money as they are about slicing the DCI pie into big slices for the G7 and questionable scraps for everyone else. The G7 aren't talking about a stage show, a local event or doing their own thing, they are talking about keeping other corps out of the mix for the DCI product, summer corps shows. No one seems to mind that the Blue Devils drumline is going to Europe or that a G7 corps does some local event to raise money or even that The Cadets do 30 shows during the summer. Go for it, but don't take from my slice of pie because you want a bigger piece.

Concerning MIM: When you host a summer show you do not get to pick what corps you have or even when your show date is. DCI works with you and your budget, and based on the summer tour and geography they set you up with a date and the corps you will have. The MIM shows are different in that they get to pick who comes to their shows, how much they get and when the show is (to some extent). I am growing partial to the idea that DCI chooses all shows and payouts, and anything a corps wants to OUTSIDE OF DCI EVENTS to raise money is up to them.

Edited January 22, 2013 by jonnyboy

[BRASSO]

nm

Edited January 22, 2013 by BRASSO

[BRASSO]

While I don't think I would consider myself a "supporter" of the 7 (I'll wait until things are finalized before I make that decision), I'll give it a crack.

At this point, 13 years later, it's irrelevant.

In 2010, when we were a decade past Boston in 5th and Bluecoats in 12th. Bluecoats were sitting 3rd, Boston was sitting 9th, and directors were sitting around thinking, "we should be making more money: how can we make that happen?"

Boston wasn't thinking "how can we be making more money" in 2000. Maybe they're satisfied with their revenue and don't feel the need to try to create another revenue stream. If they are more concerned staying in the collective and pining all of their hopes that as a large organization they can right the ship: good for them. If Boston (or anyone else not in the 7) don't feel the need to explore either a new revenue stream, or trying to obtain a larger appearance fee, then that's their decision. Personally, while I disagree the holier than thou tone of the leaked G7 information, I can't fault the directors for trying to do what they feel is best not only for their organizations, but also for the activity. I may disagree with what they think is best, but at least they're passionately trying to (in their view) improve the activity. You misunderstand the division between the G7 and the rest of the DCI Corps if you assume that one group wants to increase revenue streams, but the other does not. BOTH in fact do.

Same with Boston: they are doing what they feel is best for themselves and the activity.

Conversely, if Scouts, BAC, Blue Knights, Crossmen, Spirit, Academy, and Colts want to form their own collective, where they do exclusive shows and keep all of the profit themselves, I would support that just as much as the 7. Just as I could care less that Blue Devils do a stage show to make extra revenue, or Academy do their own local events as a fundraiser, I don't care about any corps doing their own thing. Essentially, if Cadets are performing 30 shows in 2013, and 7 of them are the MIM shows, they are still mostly competing in DCI. If other corps want to do their own version of Music In Motion: so be it. If Boston becomes a perennial Top 6, and that means they get higher performance fees than the 7-25th placing corps? So be it. They've earned that pay increase by becoming competitively successful.

I have no idea where you get this assumption that the Boston Crusaders, or any Corps for that matter, is not interested in finding new revenue streams for themselves. Of course they are. All Corps are. They have to in order to survive in the activity. There is no disagreement as near as I can tell among ANY of the DCI corps on the need to grow the activity's revenues, grow the revenue streams of each Corps, and grow the revenue streams of DCI. So I'm unsure why you believe that some Corps in DCI want to grow revenues and others are satisfied and do not feel the need to grow revenues. I've never met a Corps yet that was satisfied with their current revenue sources and revenue streams. You misunderstand the division between the G7 and the rest of the Corps in DCI if you assume that one wants more revenue streams and the other Corps do not and is somehow happy with the staus quo regarding revenues and revenue streams. BOTH in fact are on the same page regarding this anyway. This is not what separates the two camps at all.

Edited January 22, 2013 by BRASSO

[craiga]

I have no idea where you get this assumption that the Boston Crusaders, or any Corps for that matter, is not interested in finding new revenue streams for themselves. Of course they are. All Corps are. They have to in order to survive in the activity. There is no disagreement as near as I can tell among ANY of the DCI corps on the need to grow the activity's revenues, grow the revenue streams of each Corps, and grow the revenue streams of DCI. So I'm unsure why you believe that some Corps in DCI want to grow revenues and others are satisfied and do not feel the need to grow revenues. I've never met a Corps yet that was satisfied with their current revenue sources and revenue streams. You misunderstand the division between the G7 and the rest of the Corps in DCI if you assume that one wants more revenue streams and the other Corps do not. BOTH in fact do. And this is not what separates the two either.

This. And perc2100, I never said that Boston doesn't want to increase its revenue stream. Quite the contrary. The difference, however, is that they (and corps like Madison, Spirit, Crossmen, etc) don't intend to achieve this goal by financially eviscerating any other drum corps.

And again, I wonder..is this ONLY about money? I don't know for certain, but one does wonder what would happen if, say Boston and Madison were to come in 5th & 6th this summer? The "Elite" begin to look even sillier in their contention that THEY are the act.