perc2100 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 The target candidate for something like this would be someone with experience running an event/entertainment company with revenues exceeding $30-40M. That would be the range DCI could be built to. Right now, you have management that says it can't be done. What is needed is management that has done it before and says "I can do that". The individual or more likely team that could pull this off will not come from within the drum corps activity or will really know all that much about it prior to taking the gig. The assumption, then, is that someone would be willing to leave a for-profit known $30-40M profiting business to build a 'failing' business that needs massive restructure and will likely have huge resistance from within (or are you talking about someone managing Music in Motion: i.e. building from kind of scratch)? I'm not sure that is based in any reality. Just as you seem to suggest that drum corps needs a multi-millionaire who will take DCI (or a corps) under their wings, give them seed money for them to start businesses (that, remember, will take years to start turning a profit, i.e. it will be a failing venture for years before it can even begin to contribute income to a drum corps). That too seems like a pipe dream: something that of course would be awesome, but unless there are millionaires out there willing to do this this plan is invalid. Heck, Bill Cook has said himself that he is shocked that more businesses and investors didn't step up to sponsor drum corps and/or DCI: the implication there is that there were attempts but no business/investor 'bit' so to speak. So, if it's established that these lofty ideas are likely to be unattainable, then we fall back to "so, what can we reasonably do to change things." I agree that DCI and its corps directors are unlikely to make the necessary radical changes needed, but I don't think the radical changes needed are what you suggest; or at least, I think the radical changes needed are a little more reasonable to attain other than, "DCI needs to pluck a billionaire out of the sky to give them lots of money AND lead them in a whole new direction that will of course work: we're not hypothesizing those radical direction changes will be successful, we KNOW they will be!!" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Show me where I posted that Corps A within DCI has to "became fiscally responsible" for Corps B? What I did post that as a member of the collective there is a responsibility to help each other out through guidance and mentorship not spit on them and throw them out of DCI. "The point is that by signing on to DCI they, all the corps who chose to join DCI, agree to bear a responsibility to help all the youth within that 501c3 called DCI instead of attempting to spit some of them out of the activity." Several replies have asked you to cite your source. So far, you haven't. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 ... Bill Cook has said himself that he is shocked that more businesses and investors didn't step up to sponsor drum corps and/or DCI: the implication there is that there were attempts but no business/investor 'bit' so to speak. Your assessment of Bill Cook's shock, along with the fact that DCI on ESPN2 increased each year in viewership yet still was not able to secure many ad sponsors, indicates that most all outside the activity, no matter what, apparently will always see this a geek marching band activity. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickhaltsforlife Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 There needs to be change. I think we can all agree on that. And it seems like quite a few agree that the corps directors should not have a hand in running the business side of DCI, or they need less of a hand in there. Who should run the business?? Does Dan A. need more power?? Does Dan A. need to go and we bring someone else in? Do we bring other people in to work with Dan A? Are there any similar non-profits or other businesses out there that we can compare to and try to figure out a better way to run this thing? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 "The point is that by signing on to DCI they, all the corps who chose to join DCI, agree to bear a responsibility to help all the youth within that 501c3 called DCI instead of attempting to spit some of them out of the activity." Several replies have asked you to cite your source. So far, you haven't. Ask any group of charitable people within any 501c3 activity, especially a youth 501c3, to read the G7 proposal concerning the relegated tier system and suggested elimination of all support for the youth of the Open Class; then ask them to respond if that is how things are supposed to work internally within a 501c3 charitable youth activity. There you will discover the answer you seek. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickhaltsforlife Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Your assessment of Bill Cook's shock, along with the fact that DCI on ESPN2 increased each year in viewership yet still was not able to secure many ad sponsors, indicates that most all outside the activity, no matter what, apparently will always see this a geek marching band activity. Did they really try hard enough though? Did the people in charge have the connections to secure those sponsorships? I also think as long as we keep calling ourselves band geeks it's not gonna help anything. And hey.. seems like being "geeky" is actually the in thing right now.... But seriously.. I'm not sure if there has been enough effort from DCI to actually secure sponsorships that will actually help the activity. Or maybe the effort isn't the problem... it's just not the right people in charge right now... they don't have the know how... or they don't know WHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Ask any group of charitable people within any 501c3 activity, especially a youth 501c3, to read the G7 proposal concerning the relegated tier system and suggested elimination of all support for the youth of the Open Class; then ask them to respond if that is how things are supposed to work internally within a 501c3 charitable youth activity. There you will discover the answer you seek. Nice evasion. Still waiting on you to cite your source. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Did they really try hard enough though? Did the people in charge have the connections to secure those sponsorships? ... I'm not sure if there has been enough effort from DCI to actually secure sponsorships that will actually help the activity. Or maybe the effort isn't the problem... it's just not the right people in charge right now... they don't have the know how... or they don't know WHO. Yes DCI really tried and yes they had the connections; but they were unable to convince many 'sports minded' business people to change their attitudes towards the marching activity. The problem is actually within the culture of a society geared, for many many years, to view the marching music activity as a halftime distraction to the real game of football and other so-called real sports. As the marketing director of a company I introduced to DCI said to me, "We want to be associated with the sweat of a football player but not the sweat of a flag twirlier." I also think as long as we keep calling ourselves band geeks it's not gonna help anything. It worked for Best Buy!!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Nice evasion. Still waiting on you to cite your source. Not an evasion. Read the mission and bylaws of a 501c3 youth charitable organizations. Those who choose to engage in a 501c3 normally want to help others in the same organization not crush the weak. That has been, is, and always should be a premise within any charitable 501c3; especially a youth 501c3. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 (edited) He was fired a couple of years back, that is what has caused this whole issue in the first place. That is why guys were kicked off the board, because they fired Dan. Obscure points in the bylaws were uncovered that invalidated the vote and removed the board, put in a temporary one that reinstated Dan's contract. DCI needs fresh leadership, completely unattached and unfamiliar with drum corps (communicating drum corps to the outside world will be best done by someone who had no clue what it is prior to the job), that will take the necessary steps to move things forward that is not encumbered by emotional baggage or personal need for job security. That's one interpretation of what happened. Here's another... Dan was fired, that part is true. If that is what's sticking in the craw of the G7 - that their edict was undone - then I suggest they grow a pair and get over themselves. They apparently didn't realize at that time that the new corporate structure had instilled them with a specific mandate of fiduciary responsibility for the whole activity. Either they didn't realize or remember it, or they just didn't think the other members of the BOD - the O-15 - would have the gumption to trump their edict and reverse their decision. Either way, the almighty decree was invalidated, two members were removed for not facilitating their fiduciary mandate, and two other members resigned in sympathy with the two who were removed. So be it. It's not surprising then to learn that both of the members who left in sympathy are now "on executive staff" at a G7 corps. So be it. If the then leadership had cronies on the BOD who were always going to vote in favor of the two who were removed, then they don't deserve to be on the BOD in the first place. The legal basis for the O-15's action is not some obscure line in the by-laws. Prior to the existing charter, there was no such mandate, but the new one clearly spelled it out. The validity of that mandate was established by legal counsel before the meeting and the O-15 recognized the failing on the part of the then leadership, met in session, and agreed, by a majority vote, that the leadership was not, in fact, living up to the fiduciary mandate. They acted based on the fact that the then-leadership fired the ED with no announced plan for his replacement, effectively leaving the activity leaderless with only the BOD left to guide the activity having announced their intentions in the G7 proposal. The truth came out later that their plan was to install an ex-director of one of their own cabal to lead DCI. The conflict of interest, even without knowing their plan for Dan's replacement, was enough to cause the O-15 to act firmly, on solid ground and with substantial basis and evidence to support their action. THOSE facts, and those alone, are what really pizzez off the 7. It is that fact, that they were trumped and beaten in their own hubris and actions, that causes them to continue in their quest. They just can't get over the fact that these, the best 7 corps in the activity (in their own minds) would be beaten, BEATEN!, by the lowly corps that perpetually languish at the bottom of the competitive scale. The 7 have said so in private many times, to many people. It is not a secret. And what the O-15 did was based totally in legal legitimacy, and with the true best interest of the activity AS A WHOLE. Their actions were based on that responsibility. And the 7 just can't seem to get over the fact that the others disagreed with them. That's another view, but it's just that simple. Edited February 23, 2013 by garfield 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts