Does MiM/G7 violate antitrust law?

[BRASSO]

My insistence on wearing this very stylish hat is based on the question whether antitrust may have occurred, not on a belief that it did. I wasn't party to the various discussions/BOD meetings, so it's hard to say for sure. Was there duress? Have the lower corps been harmed? I don't know. I'm certainly not declaring that anyone violated the law, but also I'm not accepting the arguments on here that it didn't, just because:

Bottom line... and cutting to the chase... DCI has access to legal counsel under retainer. If Corps think they are victims of anti trust laws and harmed in the process, they would have taken legal action. The mere fact that they don't believe they have suffered harm sufficient enough to seek redress thru legal action, provides in their actions alone, the answer to your thread question it would seem to me.

Edited November 22, 2014 by BRASSO

[garfield]

Careful, Garfield, you're reality and truth make too much sense.

Dang, I hate when that happens.

[Pete Freedman]

You've mischaracterized what actually happened according to what I've been told by people actually involved in the situation at the time. You make it sound as if it was a tough negotiation that ended as it did. It was actually two, separate events.

The Seven did not capitulate, they were over-ruled and actively removed from power on the BOD. That action alone removed their plans from consideration by the newly-installed BOD.

Some say the TOC was a consolation prize offered by DCI to allow the Seven to try their new format within the confines of the broader DCI tour. The "consolation" was provided via a vote by the then-new voting members.

I don't think the Seven ever dreamed that the remaining corps would seek legal counsel and quickly build emergency justification for removing the Seven from power. In many ways the actual coup was the legal attack and defense mounted by the O-15 corps to protect what they thought was the greater good of the activity.

Going back to this ... were you saying the non-G7 corps did seek legal counsel? Or just that it was unlikely that they would. If they did, do you know what legal issues were involved?

[garfield]

Going back to this ... were you saying the non-G7 corps did seek legal counsel? Or just that it was unlikely that they would. If they did, do you know what legal issues were involved?

OK, well, jeesh... I'll just say this...

The fiduciary responsibility of the voting membership of DCI is to the benefit of the overall activity. The O-15 at the time determined among themselves that, with the input of counsel, the then in-power directors had failed in that responsibility once the G7 "talking points" came to light, and voted to remove them. Further resignations resulted.

At some point after that the TOC arrangement was implemented.

Edited November 22, 2014 by garfield

[BRASSO]

I always thought that if the G7 went thru with their intimidation threats to bolt DCI, that all manner of legal beagle lawyers would collide in legal battling.

For just one example ( of many one could cite ), if the G7 bolted, I can't imagine that the remaining DCI Corps would vote to permit the continuance of SCV and BD Open Class units to remain in DCI after the SCV and BD Corps pulled a hissy fit and took their ball home if the rules wern't to their liking. Absent continuance in DCI, their B and C units would have been toast. Plus, if the G7 left in a huff, I would imagine that DCI would have immediately sought an injunction thru their attorney's to disallow the rights of the G7 to utilize the term " DCI ", in any of their future marketing, press releases, video's, and any other manner. DCI presumably owns the Copyrights to the brand. My guess, they'd position themselves legally to protect that Copywright to the 9th degree. Not sure who would have prevailed in a legal battle royal between the G7 and DCI if it came to this.. but the good news is that the non G7 stood firm and ultimately the G7 blinked in the end , and the better angels prevailed, and from current appearances, the situation appears to be at least a shaky marriage of convenience at present.

The situation today could have been worse anyway.

Much worse.

Edited November 23, 2014 by BRASSO

[Pete Freedman]

OK, well, jeesh... I'll just say this...

The fiduciary responsibility of the voting membership of DCI is to the benefit of the overall activity. The O-15 at the time determined among themselves that, with the input of counsel, the then in-power directors had failed in that responsibility once the G7 "talking points" came to light, and voted to remove them. Further resignations resulted.

At some point after that the TOC arrangement was implemented.

Ah, so justifying the takeover as a response to DCI abrogating it's responsibility as a non-profit.

Is or was there a mechanism for non-board members to hold a special vote for just such circumstances? Or did they just whine a lot? That always works for me.

[Pete Freedman]

I always thought that if the G7 went thru with their intimidation threats to bolt DCI, that all manner of legal beagle lawyers would collide in legal battling.

For just one example ( of many one could cite ), if the G7 bolted, I can't imagine that the remaining DCI Corps would vote to permit the continuance of SCV and BD Open Class units to remain in DCI after the SCV and BD Corps pulled a hissy fit and took their ball home if the rules wern't to their liking. Absent continuance in DCI, their B and C units would have been toast. Plus, if the G7 left in a huff, I would imagine that DCI would have immediately sought an injunction thru their attorney's to disallow the rights of the G7 to utilize the term " DCI ", in any of their future marketing, press releases, video's, and any other manner. DCI presumably owns the Copyrights to the brand. My guess, they'd position themselves legally to protect that Copywright to the 9th degree. Not sure who would have prevailed in a legal battle royal between the G7 and DCI if it came to this.. but the good news is that the non G7 stood firm and ultimately the G7 blinked in the end , and the better angels prevailed, and from current appearances, the situation appears to be at least a shaky marriage of convenience at present.

The situation today could have been worse anyway.

Much worse.

... I see I'm not the only one strategizing on behalf of the O-15. Clever thought regarding lower SCV and BD units, although I suspect the directors are too much Mr. Nice Guys to punish those kids. Also, the seven could quickly restructure them as independent nonprofits if they're not already.

So as it stand now, if they wanted to break from DCI they'd have to create their own league with all their own shows. This wouldn't be hard, and frankly I can't think of much that would stop them.

There is one huge stick DCI wields over them... most of the members get their skills and work ethic in O-15 corps. If O-15 members contracts were modified by DCI such that they extend to 22 years old and are only transferable freely within DCI ("Other corps" would have to negotiate a yearly payment for use of the kid, or a larger amount to buy out the member's contract - we're talking several thousand dollars not chargeable to the kid.). I believe that the seven wouldn't be so elite after a year or two of recruitment only outside of DCI. Bye-bye really means bye-bye.

Of course this would be bad for DCI too because some kids wouldn't audition for DCI in hopes of getting into the G7 some day, but it would hurt the G7 enough to prevent them from bolting, so it wouldn't be necessary to actually implement.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Pete Freedman

[GUARDLING]

... I see I'm not the only one strategizing on behalf of the O-15. Clever thought regarding lower SCV and BD units, although I suspect the directors are too much Mr. Nice Guys to punish those kids. Also, the seven could quickly restructure them as independent nonprofits if they're not already.

So as it stand now, if they wanted to break from DCI they'd have to create their own league with all their own shows. This wouldn't be hard, and frankly I can't think of much that would stop them.

There is one huge stick DCI wields over them... most of the members get their skills and work ethic in O-15 corps. If O-15 members contracts were modified by DCI such that they extend to 22 years old and are only transferable freely within DCI ("Other corps" would have to negotiate a yearly payment for use of the kid, or a larger amount to buy out the member's contract - we're talking several thousand dollars not chargeable to the kid.). I believe that the seven wouldn't be so elite after a year or two of recruitment only outside of DCI. Bye-bye really means bye-bye.

Of course this would be bad for DCI too because some kids wouldn't audition for DCI in hopes of getting into the G7 some day, but it would hurt the G7 enough to prevent them from bolting, so it wouldn't be necessary to actually implement.

NM

Edited November 23, 2014 by GUARDLING

[Jeff Ream]

The question is whether some corps are cheating other corps. The fact that there exists a league that has all the corps as members seems irrelevant, even if that league is the instrument of the cheating. In the NFL case, it didn't matter that they were all part of a league. The question should be: Has any drum corps lost revenue because the seven induced DCI to exclude them?

I mean, to say that Pioneer automatically gives consent to be excluded from shows simply because they are DCI members, and there are other directors on the board, and the board voted for it, is absurd.

Some of you have suggested that there is currently a truce on this in that everyone is accepting the current situation. But that doesn't mean they need to accept it. Maybe they just don't know they don't have to.

these shows wouldn't be happening under the DCI umbrella if there werent a circuit wide agreement on it. On several of these nights, there are other shows corps can perform in.

and yes, the board voted for it.

and while there is a truce, I'm sure some are angling on both sides to "fix" things to their POV.

[Jeff Ream]

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm only insinuating that non-TOC shows would make less money than TOC shows. Is that in doubt? I don't have numbers on that, of course. Any corps suing the G7 would have to show harm done to them. If they can only go to fewer shows and/or smaller shows then before, they should be able to do that.

remember the TOC shows have revenue split after expenses. When you run in some of the stadiums the TOC shows are run in, your costs may not always lead to a lot of profit.