Jeff Ream Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 If that's true then what's wrong with different structures for different periods? I mean restructuring is necessary every so often in business and no one structure can suffice for every operational phase of an organization. do you have the cash to start one up out of nowhere? This #### doesn't grow on trees, just snapping your fingers and saying "boom, make a circuit appear" We had circuits....that could still be going...but the big names wanted them gone...because they didn't get enough from them. so now, we have an issue where the have nots, in order to maybe have something, will have to cough up what they don't already have, to make that happen. genius :rolleyes:/> 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I would have no problem with a merger like that. National Touring Weekend Only Regional Touring SoundSport And.... Blah blah drumline thingy... if it were going to happen, the merger that is, a lot would have to change. DCA corps now have a say in their affairs. They are not going to come in and let the WC corps call all of the shots. And face it, since 4 of the 9 on the EOB now want even more money for them and less for everyone else, no way will DCA corps go for that. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) do you have the cash to start one up out of nowhere? This #### doesn't grow on trees, just snapping your fingers and saying "boom, make a circuit appear" We had circuits....that could still be going...but the big names wanted them gone...because they didn't get enough from them. so now, we have an issue where the have nots, in order to maybe have something, will have to cough up what they don't already have, to make that happen. genius :rolleyes:/>/>/>/>/> You're pretty synical arent you! Who said anything about "coughing up" and "snapping fingers"? I dont think anyone is saying that all these suggestions and proposals can happen instantly. And I don't think any time frame has been discussed for any of these things. So putting aside the idea that anything needs to be done instaneous do you think slowly rebuilding regional circuits along with the national circuit to be a good idea? Edited February 23, 2013 by charlie1223 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 You're pretty synical arent you! Who said anything about "coughing up" and "snapping fingers"? I dont think anyone is saying that all these suggestions and proposals can happen instantly. And I don't think any time frame has been discussed for any of these things. So putting the idea that anything needs to be done instaneous do you think slowly rebuilding regional circuits along with the national circuit to be a good idea? actually I prefer cynical. Smart ###ed is good too. realistic is even better. I think, IMO, the rebuilding of regional circuits should come from where they died....DCI and it's member corps. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammaster Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 I'd like to see a longer California circuit and more shows. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 do you have the cash to start one up out of nowhere? This #### doesn't grow on trees, just snapping your fingers and saying "boom, make a circuit appear" Well, if the "Music in Motion, Inc." really is not being used, maybe that can be the new open class circuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 So putting the idea that anything needs to be done instaneous do you think slowly rebuilding regional circuits along with the national circuit to be a good idea? Sounds good. But the 7, to my knowledge, have no intention of doing anything of the sort. They have, however, proposed withdrawing "real service" from open class up front, before there are any reconstructed local/regional circuits for them to fall back on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 (edited) Sounds good. But the 7, to my knowledge, have no intention of doing anything of the sort. They have, however, proposed withdrawing "real service" from open class up front, before there are any reconstructed local/regional circuits for them to fall back on. There was nothing in the proposal about time frame. So you can't assume that. That's exactly what I'm talking about. And where is the proof that they still support the shot down proposal? It wasn't even mentioned in the most recently leaked e-mail where they asked to change the BOD. Edited February 23, 2013 by charlie1223 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 There was nothing in the proposal about time frame. So you can't assume that. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, there was nothing in the proposal about a time frame for delaying the end of service to open class. And where is the proof that they still support the shot down proposal? It wasn't even mentioned in the most recently leaked e-mail where they asked to change the BOD. The proposal is the prevailing evidence of where they stand on that issue. Until they provide similarly definitive evidence to the contrary, the G7 Report is their most definitive, detailed and recent statement on their future vision for open class. It has been nearly three years since then, a very long time in which any or all of the 7 could have developed a modified proposal, issued a press release, given an interview, leaked an email, or simply posted right here on DCP. They could still do so today, in fact. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 (edited) Yes, there was nothing in the proposal about a time frame for delaying the end of service to open class. The proposal is the prevailing evidence of where they stand on that issue. Until they provide similarly definitive evidence to the contrary, the G7 Report is their most definitive, detailed and recent statement on their future vision for open class. It has been nearly three years since then, a very long time in which any or all of the 7 could have developed a modified proposal, issued a press release, given an interview, leaked an email, or simply posted right here on DCP. They could still do so today, in fact. I'm not sure what good that will do. And if we're technically talking about what we think they want... The MOST recent e-mail leak says that they do not have all the answers and do not all agree on a plan or what to do. Prior... You've pointed to a slide in the proposal where they say that all 7 are behind it and endorse the ideas in the proposal. Now we have evidence that the 7 do not all agree and do not have all the answers (from the email in January). So one could make the inference that they are no longer associated with a proposal that they all stood behind because its been said that they no longer all agree. Also if the proposal was supposed to represent ideas for covering all the answers to DCI problems then an acknowledgment that they do not have the answers means that they either no longer have proposals to fix DCI or the answers they provided in the past are no longer relevant. Saying "I don't know" is pretty much a denial of the original proposal where they originally would have said "we do know... it's this proposal." Make sense? Edited February 23, 2013 by charlie1223 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.