Jump to content

DCI Minnesota--Change of Plans


Recommended Posts

Do you have a history of not playing the accordion while riding a unicycle? I haven't seen anything that says you don't in my lack of observation so, following your logic, I have to assume that you always play the accordion while riding a unicycle.

Kudos on your unusual skills.

Geez dude. Chill.

All I was asking was if they (DCI) has a history of poor contract management, and if so, what is it like?

Edited by phd-student-TTU
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U of M shouldn't need too much of a calendar. DCI-MN is the only major ticketed event on the calender between June 1 and August 31. The football camps are June 5th through June 18th and July 16th and 17th. The camps in July are 4 hours each. There has to be a way it can all work out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U of M shouldn't need too much of a calendar. DCI-MN is the only major ticketed event on the calender between June 1 and August 31. The football camps are June 5th through June 18th and July 16th and 17th. The camps in July are 4 hours each. There has to be a way it can all work out.

Well, it is a field built and designed for U of M activities. So in this particular case the U of M Football coach likely has priority over the scheduling of the field; especially if both the DCI event and football camp were scheduled on top of each other. The coach or admin could yield; and might if it were an event that featured the U of M Athletic Bands, or if it were a major commercial revenue event like U2 or the Rolling Stones. But DCI, while it may bring in some revenue, is likely in their eyes just a marching band event that is flat irrelevant for the recruitment of students to attend U of M; whereas the football camp is a good recruitment tool for students to potentially choose attending U of M for their education.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan, Sue, and all within the DCI front office do a fantastic job with the resources available to them!!!!

Well, maybe they've improved, but for the record, a couple of years back, at least 7 Corps Directors were on verifiable, documentable record as having disagreed with this asssessment of yours. That said, you are entitled to your personal opinion, personal assessment on them that might be at stark odds with what these 7 World Class Division Corps Directors at the time were collectively saying about the overall efficiency of the personnel working at the DCI HQ. Then again, perhaps they have improved since then too... thats possible. Who knows.

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

All I was asking was if they (DCI) has a history of poor contract management, and if so, what is it like?

My point was they are not in a strong position to enforce such a contract even if they have one. They could have done everything right and still gotten dropped. Litigation would likely have been too expensive and time consuming and taken longer than they have before they need a definitive answer. Knowing this, I can see them going forward without a signed contract if there were other reasons for that.

I'm not saying it wouldn't have been better to have a signed contract. Perhaps they might have had a better chance of not being dropped to begin with due to internal policy or fear of litigation, or of getting an injunction quickly, or even some restitution after the fact. I'm just saying a signed contract is hardly dispositive under these circumstances, and the outcome might have been the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, maybe they've improved, but for the record, a couple of years back, at least 7 Corps Directors were on verifiable, documentable record as having disagreed with this asssessment of yours. That said, you are entitled to your personal opinion, personal assessment on them that might be at stark odds with what these 7 World Class Division Corps Directors at the time were collectively saying about the overall efficiency of the personnel working at the DCI HQ. Then again, perhaps they have improved since then too... thats possible. Who knows.

Ummmm... For The Record... ok, well it needs to be presented in a manner that reflects as close to possible to what actually transpired. While those particular 7 deserve much praise because they are typically the top scoring corps in Finals placements, it must also be stated, for the record, that the G7 also claimed that they and they alone were/are what really matters in DCI. Along with the claim that 'They are the Real Show in DCI', they wanted the majority of the voting power, most of the monetary compensation from all shows to go just to them, and all weekend performances, except the Finals, to be exclusive to just the G7. They also wanted to relegate the rest of the WC DCI corps via compulsion to a subservient performance division status below the 7, with a carrot that if a lower level WC corps scored well enough above them over a number of years at Finals they could join the G7 division level; and the 7 also wanted to eliminate any DCI services to the OC (except still offer DCI services for their own feeder corps and one other cadet corps); and all of this under the rational that their G7 vision was 'The Best Way to Save DCI.' Also, For the Record, it must be stated that in rebuttal the rest of WC directors who make-up the majority of WC corps in DCI and have voting status equal to the 7, along with the overwhelming majority of OC directors, vehemently disagreed with the G7’s assessment; enough so that they booted the G7 directors off the DCI Board for a while. Those corps directors believed in the mission statement which Dan quoted publicly that 'DCI is a Fraternal Organization for the benefit of all DCI Corps', not an organization which is designed for the rest of the corps within DCI to be subservient to the G7. So, my opinion concerning how well Dan looks out for the entirety of DCI is not mine alone; it is an opinion that also falls on the side of the multitude of DCI directors, both in the WC and the OC, who think Dan, Sue, et al were/are doing a rather good job at what is best (for DCI) not just what was/is best for the G7.

Edited by Stu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was they are not in a strong position to enforce such a contract even if they have one. They could have done everything right and still gotten dropped. Litigation would likely have been too expensive and time consuming and taken longer than they have before they need a definitive answer. Knowing this, I can see them going forward without a signed contract if there were other reasons for that.

I'm not saying it wouldn't have been better to have a signed contract. Perhaps they might have had a better chance of not being dropped to begin with due to internal policy or fear of litigation, or of getting an injunction quickly, or even some restitution after the fact. I'm just saying a signed contract is hardly dispositive under these circumstances, and the outcome might have been the same.

So there was not a contract in place? Is that what you're saying? Do you know this to be a fact or is it speculation? Because it's easy if you have a contract: you follow it. Now, it may be a contract that allows the U (not that "the U") to back out without remuneration to DCI. I don't know. That's why I asked a few pages back if anyone knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, maybe they've improved, but for the record, a couple of years back, at least 7 Corps Directors were on verifiable, documentable record as having disagreed with this asssessment of yours. That said, you are entitled to your personal opinion, personal assessment on them that might be at stark odds with what these 7 World Class Division Corps Directors at the time were collectively saying about the overall efficiency of the personnel working at the DCI HQ. Then again, perhaps they have improved since then too... thats possible. Who knows.

And those seven corps also know the challenges of gaining/retaining access to suitable venues firsthand. Akron vs. Massillon. Meadowlands vs. Clifton. Charlotte vs. Rock Hill (and now Winston-Salem).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And those seven corps also know the challenges of gaining/retaining access to suitable venues firsthand. Akron vs. Massillon. Meadowlands vs. Clifton. Charlotte vs. Rock Hill (and now Winston-Salem).

:sarcasm:

So... if Woody Johnson, Steve Tisch, or John Mara, with the backing of their attorneys, wanted sole access to the MetLife stadium at the Medowlands the same day George Hopkins, David Gibbs, and the other five corps directors had it scheduled, the power of the almighty DCI directors and their legal council would not be far greater than the owners of the NY Jets and NY Giants?

(made edit and added emoji to clarify)

Edited by Stu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... if Woody Johnson, Steve Tisch, or John Mara, with the backing of their attorneys, wanted sole access to the MetLife stadium at the Medowlands the same day George Hopkins, David Gibbs, and the other five corps directors had it scheduled, the power of the almighty DCI directors and their legal council would be far greater than the owners of the NY Jets and NY Giants. Interesting; I did not realize that the G7 Drum Corps are actually more significant than NFL teams which use that stadium as their home!

I'm not speaking for cixelsyd here... but I think what's being said is....yes, the corps are well aware that the major tenants of those major venues absolutely get priority access to the venue, and the corps are well aware they have to wait their turn in line, if that turn indeed ever comes.

I seem to remember.... years ago.... that a pro football team, a team which was the main tenant at a particular stadium, actually forced the Rolling Stones to move a potential concert date because the team wanted access to the stadium on that day for practice/whatever. This stadium has also served as a drum corps venue.

Now... if the Rolling Stones have to wait in line and basically bow to the wishes of an NFL team... drum corps doesn't have a chance. :tongue:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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