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

[jumpball15]

Right on!

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.

[perc2100]

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.

So do you think anyone is going to leave DCI?

[perc2100]

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.

That's kind of besides the point though, right? Hate one, hate all. Doesn't matter who spear-headed this thing, if you're against the ideals and concepts you should be equally upset with the directors of:

Cadets

Blue Devils

SCV

Phantom Regiment

Carolina Crown

Bluecoats

Cavaliers

ALL of them are complicit in the power grab; all of them are complicit in trying to get more appearance fees & all of them are complicit in trying to shut others out of shows.

[perc2100]

Once again, I am finding this -

perc2100, on 22 January 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

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?

I guess if you want to demonize one corps' ideas that's your prerogative. What you might see as "taking money from other corps" others see as "make more money by setting up our own shows + decide pay scale based on competitive success."

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

Now, I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you: but you are giving YOUR opinion of one side of a work-product correspondence. I would bet that if you talked to Hopkins (heck, lets pick a corps director who's not as berated on here) David Glasgow from Bluecoats, he would likely say that he thinks this idea is best for the activity in general. He might classify some aspects as "uncomfortable truths," and he agree that things sound harsh. But I bet he just might also honestly think this is, in the long run, is what's best for the activity.

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.

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.

Ha; that's one way to read what I wrote I guess...

Do you think DCI would be better off without Cadets, Blue Devils, Phantom Regiment, SCV, Cavaliers, Bluecoats, and Crown? Do you think DCI would thrive without those corps?

I'm not trying to stir up the hornets' nest, I'm curious what you think. You're clearly passionate about this activity, and I'm wondering if you're thinking logically or emotionally

[soccerguy315]

That's kind of besides the point though, right? Hate one, hate all. Doesn't matter who spear-headed this thing, if you're against the ideals and concepts you should be equally upset with the directors of:

Cadets

Blue Devils

SCV

Phantom Regiment

Carolina Crown

Bluecoats

Cavaliers

ALL of them are complicit in the power grab; all of them are complicit in trying to get more appearance fees & all of them are complicit in trying to shut others out of shows.

exactly.

and ALL of them will not get my applause or souvie money

[charlie1223]

Somewhat objective questions about this...

G7 wants top 12 Finalist to have a vote on the board as it was " back in the day". But what if a Finalist corps doesn't want to be on the board? How did that system objectively work back then?

If this was implemented is it really safe to assume that G7 will always individually cast their vote the same way every time? It really would only take 1 corps of the G7 to Disent for their to be a tie. And the email says they do not agree 100% on all the issues.

If we assume that this one demand is implemented does Dan A have the power of veto? (This wasn't in the letter)

Also are there laws about having a super majority etc. to pass certain things in the bylaws? Are there voting quotas when changing bylaws or is there always a simple majority rukes? Couldn't DCI as a counter state that if the make-up of the board was to change that they change tge viting quota for all business in order to be passed?

Besides the G7 just asking for this change what would physically need to happen, in accordance with the DCI bylaws for them to change the make up of the BOD and how positions are appointed? What would be the procedure?

Assuming that changing DCI bylaws is difficult could it be the case that if this change were to happen and then a G7 corps places out of finals this year would then not get a spot on The BOD? How quickly are changes in bylaws implemented?

What is the relationship between voting member corps and the BOD on how policy gets passed?

Edited January 23, 2013 by charlie1223

[soccerguy315]

charlie, you ask a lot of good questions.

the only thing I will offer is regarding the Dan A veto, and that is last time the G7 were in charge, they fired Dan A. He's only still employed by DCI due to actions taken by the other corps to reverse that decision.

[perc2100]

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

.

Sorry, is that part of the current proposal or the one from 2010 that has been changed?

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.

Are you talking about better pay for higher competitive placement? I'm for that no matter who it is: if BAC wins DCI should make more money than Colts, or another lower-placing group.

And the part where Bluecoats want to make the current top seven (well, top six plus eighth) into a permanent elite,

Again, is that part of the current pseudo-proposal from the leaked email, or are you talking about the 2010 powerpoint?

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!

lol; that's DEFINITELY not part of the current proposal of only seven having 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.

So, you think BAC show make proposals out of pure spite?

WOW

REALLY glad you're not running things. I appreciate your obvious anger about an activity you obviously have a lot of passion for. But when you start talking illogical, spiteful stuff it just makes it seem like you're running on emotion and lacking logic.

If I wasn't clear, what I meant to say is that we have seven directors who are thinking outside the box in order to not only better their own organizations' financial outlook (hint: EVER director of any organization is tasked with that job). They are also brainstorming for ways that they believe, long-term, will be best for the activity. Right now, as far as we know (DCI isn't exactly leaking any of their counter-strategy emails), this is the only serious proposal for changing what is apparently a flawed/broken. Obviously Boston has done and continues to do fundraisers and other activities to raise revenue, and I meant no slight on them. IF you want to call them noble for being "all for one/one for all" so be it: that certainly seems applicable based on the information we have available to us. What I meant was, in 2000 BAC wasn't concerned with starting a handful of shows with other corps, and neither was (apparently) anyone else. That was then, and this is now: financially things are seemingly worse than a 13 years ago, and some corps at the top want to better the situation.

[perc2100]

.

Sorry, is that part of the current proposal or the one from 2010 that has been changed?

Are you talking about better pay for higher competitive placement? I'm for that no matter who it is: if BAC wins DCI should make more money than Colts, or another lower-placing group.

Again, is that part of the current pseudo-proposal from the leaked email, or are you talking about the 2010 powerpoint?

lol; that's DEFINITELY not part of the current proposal of only seven having a vote...

So, you think BAC show make proposals out of pure spite?

WOW

REALLY glad you're not running things. I appreciate your obvious anger about an activity you obviously have a lot of passion for. But when you start talking illogical, spiteful stuff it just makes it seem like you're running on emotion and lacking logic.

If I wasn't clear, what I meant to say is that we have seven directors who are thinking outside the box in order to not only better their own organizations' financial outlook (hint: EVER director of any organization is tasked with that job). They are also brainstorming for ways that they believe, long-term, will be best for the activity. Right now, as far as we know (DCI isn't exactly leaking any of their counter-strategy emails), this is the only serious proposal for changing what is apparently a flawed/broken. Obviously Boston has done and continues to do fundraisers and other activities to raise revenue, and I meant no slight on them. IF you want to call them noble for being "all for one/one for all" so be it: that certainly seems applicable based on the information we have available to us. What I meant was, in 2000 BAC wasn't concerned with starting a handful of shows with other corps, and neither was (apparently) anyone else. That was then, and this is now: financially things are seemingly worse than a 13 years ago, and some corps at the top want to better the situation.

Also, make NO mistake: this is ALL posturing. It's all negotiation strategy. Emails were leaked, possibly by non-"7" staffers as posturing. There's a reason why DCI's plans have not been leaked: DCI wants to have public perception well on their side when they negotiate with the seven. We're seeing a very small bit of strategizing from one side of the negotiation table, and if you want to jump to conclusions and bastardize either side based a sliver of a half of the story, then you're being a fool for playing into their hands (whichever side).

[corpsband]

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.

Missed this earlier. Like perc2100 I'm definitely in the "waiting for more info" camp instead of the support any side camp...BUT

The simple answer to this is that's it's no longer the year 2000. The decisions and positions of the various players are based on what's happening NOW not 10,20 or 50 years ago. The past is just that -- past.