Jump to content

TOC/G7 Related Discussion


Recommended Posts

The Axis in World War II.

The Axis consisted of three 'All-Powerful Dictators' (Hitler, Hirohito, and Mussolini) and they never met as as consortia. Moreover, the only reason the Dictator Stalin was not a part of the Axis was that Hitler broke the non-aggression pact and invaded Russia, which by default, thus placed Russia alongside the United Kingdom (ie the enemy of my enemy is my friend situation). These Axis Dictatorships, by the way, actually shows both the point of the D-Ray (Dictators invade and Dictators take over by force), but it also shows my point as to why an All Powerful Dictatorship is a very bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... shows both the point of the D-Ray (Dictators invade and Dictators take over by force), but it also shows my point as to why an All Powerful Dictatorship is a very bad idea.

Because we all know that most corporations that have skilled, visionary leaders - aka "most of the successful businesses out there" - are really no different from military dictatorships. tongue.gif

The Hitler card has been played, so I'm not sure there's anywhere for this conversation to go but up.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take out the words 'All Powerful Dictator' in this situation, and replace them with 'Elected CEO which has stern executive power yet held accountable to a Board', and that will suffice. I still contend, however, that the Rule of Law should take precedent; and the DCI bylaws should be followed by Amendment to adjust the role and power of the CEO and not disregarded out of shear power grabbing dictator type expedient convenience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because we all know that most corporations that have skilled, visionary leaders - aka "most of the successful businesses out there" - are really no different from military dictatorships. tongue.gif

We are not talking about a single one-person owned entity such as the Dallas Cowboys owned by Jerry Jones (a person who fits the bill of a D-Ray desired All Powerful Dictator). We are discussing a corporation responsible of coordinating many facets of other organizations within that corporate agreement structure like the Commissioner of the NFL. While it is true that any successful large corporation has to have a strong leader who has strong executive decision making power; it is also true that those same leaders are not All Powerful Dictators; they are Hired or Elected Leaders who are held accountable to a Board, the Stock Holders, or Both.

The Hitler card has been played, so I'm not sure there's anywhere for this conversation to go but up.

I would agree with you if the name was brought into the situation out of context; but when a discussion arises on whether or not an All Powerful Dictatorship is a good idea or bad (and Daniel Ray said that a consortia never invaded or took over anything), avoiding the name of Hitler is flat dishonest. Moreover, it is a sad commentary on our society when items or names which are actually placed correctly in proper context are immediately shot down as supposedly playing a whatever card. Yet many people today want to avoid using certain historical names at all cost, even when it is placed in 'proper context'. This 'complete' avoidance within proper context throws honest debate right out the window just as much as using the name out of context throws honest debate out the window.

Edited by Stu
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any conversation about basic models of corporate governance that brings in the Axis powers - even as a tangential issue - is a conversation whose intellectual value has dropped into the single digits.

DCI could stand a strong central voice that knows more about the businesses of sports and event marketing than the corps directors do. Right now, they don't have that. Dan A did a great job of pulling the organization out of a tailspin, but there's no plan out there (and the old 5 year plan didn't do this) that would move the organization back in the direction of being able to fill 25,000 seats for Finals (making the organization another $600k+ in one night) or getting the product into the sites of the types of corporate sponsors who can underwrite the expenses of building the audience base.

It's not unusual for companies to change leadership when the needs change. Right now DCI needs a growth-oriented focus, with a team at the top who has the contacts and the experience to move it to the next level. But they're unwilling to spend the kind of money it would take to bring in someone who has those skills. The G7 idea was dumb, but at its heart, it was right about the central issue; DCI's stuck in the mud, and it's not looking good that anyone will ever be able to get a few of the directors involved on board with the idea of aggressively pursuing new avenues of income and professionalism.

Edited by Slingerland
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any conversation about basic models of corporate governance that brings in the Axis powers - even as a tangential issue - is a conversation whose intellectual value has dropped into the single digits.

Hmmmmm.... it was actually Daniel Ray who first introduced the term 'One Faction Dictator' into this thread as being the proper model for DCI to follow; and it was the question by Daniel Ray asking about any consortia which has brought about forced change through 'invasion' which elicited the Axis response. So for your contention to be true, Daniel Ray is the one directly responsible for the conversation about basic models of corporate governance that brought in the topic of All Powerful Dictatorships; and therefore his assertion that DCI needs a 'One Faction Dictator' is the root cause for your contention that the intellectual value of this thread is dropping into the single digits.

Edited by Stu
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan A did a great job of pulling the organization out of a tailspin, but there's no plan out there (and the old 5 year plan didn't do this) that would move the organization back in the direction of being able to fill 25,000 seats for Finals (making the organization another $600k+ in one night) or getting the product into the sites of the types of corporate sponsors who can underwrite the expenses of building the audience base.

You are correct - the DCI 5-year plan did not propose increasing revenue $600,000 by selling more seats at finals. Instead, it proposed raising revenue $2,500,000 by selling more seats at all shows.

It's not unusual for companies to change leadership when the needs change.

But the needs have not changed.

Right now DCI needs a growth-oriented focus, with a team at the top who has the contacts and the experience to move it to the next level. But they're unwilling to spend the kind of money it would take to bring in someone who has those skills.

Contacts, not skills.

Anyway, what do you suggest? No one is willing to pay a ton of money up front to chase that windmill. Not DCI; not the top corps; not the bottom corps; not even danielray. Unless you are contemplating a large donation, we are out of luck.

The G7 idea was dumb, but at its heart, it was right about the central issue; DCI's stuck in the mud, and it's not looking good that anyone will ever be able to get a few of the directors involved on board with the idea of aggressively pursuing new avenues of income and professionalism.

Do you think if you insult DCI often enough, people will believe you?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, what do you suggest? No one is willing to pay a ton of money up front to chase that windmill. Not DCI; not the top corps; not the bottom corps; not even danielray. Unless you are contemplating a large donation, we are out of luck.

If the DCI corps aren't willing to accept the fact that they're never going to find someone capable of building DCI to the next level with what they're current paying for the executive team, then they will all deserve what they get. The type of stud who knows how to build an org like this won't work for very low six figures, when they can see $250k+ working for any number of already successful $18-25m organizations.

If pointing out the facts of DCI's current status (negative to mild audience growth, no major sponsors, no television presence) is "insulting" DCI, then it's clear that one of the two of us is too emotionally invested in the situation, and I know it's not me. I just want to see the activity regain some momentum and increase the number of participants and audience members; I don't particularly care if someone else feels "insulted" when I point out that there are better, smarter ways of achieving that goal than lowering the bar so that everyone gets a medal at the end of the year.

Edited by Slingerland
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the DCI corps aren't willing to accept the fact that they're never going to find someone capable of building DCI to the next level with what they're current paying for the executive team, then they will all deserve what they get. The type of stud who knows how to build an org like this won't work for very low six figures, when they can see $250k+ working for any number of already successful $18-25m organizations.

Then so much for that idea.

If pointing out the facts of DCI's current status (negative to mild audience growth, no major sponsors, no television presence) is "insulting" DCI, then it's clear that one of the two of us is too emotionally invested in the situation, and I know it's not me.

Has nothing to do with emotion. It is just not accurate to point to an organization whose revenue is growing at the rate DCI is (in this economy), and say they are "stuck in the mud". When you do it over and over, even after being confronted with the facts, it would appear your intent is not to inform, but to insult.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...