garfield Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Stu said: Ever since I joined DCP I have most often agreed with your postings and I have high respect for your opinions. On this one, though, I will counter: 1) To say that BD (as a co-author) should be dismissed and separated from The Cadets (the other co-author) would be like stating that Fredrich Engels should be dismissed and separated as co-author on the book he collaborated on with Karl Marx. Once a person collaborates with another as a co-author, they both stand or fall together. BD owns that entire document along with the others who were on board. 2) The leadership of Santa Clara publicly defended the proposal out in the open as the front-man. The leadership of the other four signed on and backed the plan. Here are the options for their involvement: a) Incompetent on supporting it without understanding the proposal, b) Obtuse and Compliant, or c) Outright Supportive. Which one of those excuses them from their backing of the proposal. 3) The way advice was transmitted to other corps, which caused the frustration prior to the G7 proposal, was akin to the advice presented here in the opening postings by Brasso. Flippant, Snarky, and it is Easy and Uncomplicated for us; and when confronted with that presentation as being holier-than-thou (because it is easier to raise millions when you already have millions to pay professional development people as opposed to scratching in the dirt for volunteers) the response was also akin to the Brasso later postings of Drop Dead, Go Away, You are Boring, etc... So yeah; I understand their position. It was a unified front, co-authored by two, publicly fronted by one, and signed by four others; and I disagree with the proposal. Such a great, respectful post. Well done. I can only Google your reference to Engels and Marx but, frankly, I don't have time to research and I understand your point: The two were joined at the hip. Yep, you're right. No doubt, they both - ALL - own it. That's not a difference in our viewpoints. I get what SCV did and why. You're right, they agreed to fall on the sword. I know absolutely nothing, but I can imagine that that occurred out of solidarity with BD. I even imagine that, well... To your #3...I think you're correct, but I don't really care about that detail as I don't think it pertinent to our argument. I've heard the other side - that the advice was, well, not robust. And maybe that perpetuated their frustration. But I dismiss the other corps and look instead at BD... CAUTION: This is where speculation takes over and none of this is based on anything known factual... I think it's possible that BD was as snookered by a error of trust that Hop was going to put out what they thought. Many opinions here compared the general presentation of parts 1 and 2 and are confident that it was not a singularly prepared document. It's possible that BD submitted its clearly more professionally produced portion for inclusion in Hop's release. It also COULD rationalize why SCV and not, say Phantom or Crown, came to the defense. I abhor the flagrant use of Plausible Deniability but, IMO, in this case, it fits and the aggrieved are awarded the benefit of the doubt. I just don't think BD would knowingly sign on to such clap-trap if it were given a draft of the doc to review prior. Maybe I'm naive. Anyway, I'm not convinced that this is any direct reflection of the events of 7 years ago. Sorry if we derailed... Creative fundraising ideas were very well described as "rooting around in the dirt", and it's true that, compared to BD's EXCEPTIONAL bingo operation, most all efforts are small. That's the juggernaut. But that's not the only way, and I don't disagree with Brasso's point that an org must spend $1mil to field a VERY quality program for their customers. Edited March 13, 2017 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 1 hour ago, BRASSO said: You still have not addressed why you" snarkily" told readers above that I was seriously suggesting that Corps need to " rob banks " as novel method of fund raising either.. lol!. Besides I don't ask you ( or other posters ) to respond to every comment I post on here. So if I elect to bypass your comment, or bypass responding to you directly, I have elected to do so, as it does not interest me to desire to respond to you on something or other you've said on here.... lol! Oh, come on Brasso. We've been here a long time, and you're being overly sensitive and picking on semantic analogies. I don't think anyone here actually thought you were seriously proposing robbing banks to fund their corps. At least I didn't! I thought it was a stupid response to a serious question that added nothing at all but a derailment to the OP's thread (yes, I helped). But I didn't think you were serious and, I'll bet, neither did Stu. I'm glad you're laughing at everything here now. It will help keep your blood pressure down and maybe help you to focus on the point - instead of, you know, that "Brasso Experience" we all seemed to have had over the years... (come on, laugh, it's funny!) I never actually thought you were suggesting someone rob a bank! LOL! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouooga Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, garfield said: I never actually thought you were suggesting someone rob a bank! LOL! Wait, that was a joke? Well, crap. Does anyone know how to return money that's been robbed from a bank without getting in trouble? Asking for a friend..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 2 hours ago, BRASSO said: So there is no misconceptions here, some of the Open Class corps are far more efficiently run that some of the World Class Division Corps are. Some of the Open Class Corps have lasted so much longer than dozens and dozens of World Class Divisions Corps that flamed out because they bit off more than they could chew, and a result folded as they could not financially sustain themselves at the World Class Division fundraising levels that they aspired too. Reading a few of the comments here the last 48 hours however, would have one think that the World Class Division Corps ( such as the G7 ) ) are the only models that need to be adopted for long term financial fund raising sustainability. While true in a few cases, some World Class Division Corps are.. right now... in far more precarious financial condition than several of the Open Class Corps find themselves in. Several of the Open Class Corps have been in relatively healthy financial shape for years, and in some cases, for over 60 years, as a matter of fact. As a result, more marchers over the years have come thru the ranks of the Nashua Spartans than ( for example ) the Bridgemen, 27th Lancers, Star of Indiana combined. We should keep in mind that this thread is not about competitive excellence. This thread is about financial sustainability,( novel and the conventional ) and what works in fundraising to attain one's long term sustainability and longevity in the activity, and what works best with that Corps chosen Mission Statement that serve its many marchers that comes thru its ranks. To that extent then , despite protestations to those unaware ( like Stu.. haha!), the Nashua Spartans ( for just one example ) conventional Fund Raising methods the last 60 years was not an " extremely convoluted process" in the least.. nor " highly complicated " at all either. The easy to understand sweat equity methods were literally passed down from Father to Sons ( and other family members ), and only marginally changed over the years as a successful blueprint, and were ( and are ) utilized efficiently for over half a century to efficiently run and long term sustain their Corps. Is this a model for others to pursue however ? Not necessarily. It all mostly depends upon what a Corps ( or Soundsport unit ) aspires to, and whether or not the methods of Fund Raising best serve those needs, and its Corps/ unit Mission Statement long range. Except... Like the bankers who wrote the rules for the politicians to write the laws that regulate the industry the way the bankers want it regulated... Except, when the "leaders" of the activity define it as primarily a competitive activity that demands measurable improvement up the ranks to challenge the Leaders to show there's an actual competition to be won... Suddenly, a program based on "The Experience" is not carrying its competitive water and doesn't compare, much less compete, against the Top Corps. And because they add so little to the fan draw, they aren't entitled to any of the revenue... That's what it WAS. That's not what it is now... The leaders are not likely to flash away any time soon, and their viewpoint is, I believe, different today than it was in 2010. There is a LOT of strength in these orgs working together to share best-business practices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 8 minutes ago, ouooga said: Wait, that was a joke? Well, crap. Does anyone know how to return money that's been robbed from a bank without getting in trouble? Asking for a friend..... "...for a friend." Bwaaahhaaa 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, garfield said: Oh, come on Brasso. you're being overly sensitive and picking on semantic analogies. I don't think anyone here actually thought you were seriously proposing robbing banks to fund their corps. Well, my only conclusion to this would be 1) you did not read Stu's response to my joke above or 2) you read his response to it, but could not accept it. in either case however, these 2 things do not go away because you prefer that they do for you... lol!. Stu jumped into this thread and did indeed criticize me above for his oh so serious assessment ( haha!) that I actually was seriously recommending that Corps " rob banks " as a novel way to fund raise ( lol!). So no, you are completely wrong when you state that no one " actually thought I was seriously proposing robbing banks to fund Corps ". The evidence is incontrovertible that Stu took my Willy Sutton joke as a recommendation to " rob banks " literally and quite seriously above ( haha!), and of course that is why I naturally chuckled at his taking this joke in a literal vein, and why I sort of avoid his posts since.. lol! Edited March 13, 2017 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) On 3/9/2017 at 5:35 PM, Stu said: Your response to the inquiry posed by OP is implying that the corps staff merely needs to rob banks, because that is where the money is at, and then hope they do not end up in prison. Nice. Well, Garfield thinks that I did not seriously imply this.. so he needs to take this up with YOU... as one of you seems confused on what I seriously had recommended here on this thread with my commentary.. lol! Edited March 13, 2017 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 2 hours ago, BRASSO said: Stu took my Willy Sutton joke as a recommendation to " rob banks " literally and quite seriously above... Good grief Charlie Brown! Which is more plausible: a) That I believed you were proposing Paul Laflamme and Richard Rigolini to literally go rob banks; or b) That I was using a literary device called Sarcasm, without an embedded emoji, to point out the absurd and silly analogy you were utilizing. However, there is a correlation as pointed out earlier; that BD did sign on to a proposal to 'take', 'procure','obtain'. 'acquire', DCI funding and support designated for corps like the Spartans and use it for the exclusive support of the G7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, garfield said: Such a great, respectful post. Well done. I can only Google your reference to Engels and Marx but, frankly, I don't have time to research and I understand your point: The two were joined at the hip. Yep, you're right. No doubt, they both - ALL - own it. That's not a difference in our viewpoints. I get what SCV did and why. You're right, they agreed to fall on the sword. I know absolutely nothing, but I can imagine that that occurred out of solidarity with BD. I even imagine that, well... To your #3...I think you're correct, but I don't really care about that detail as I don't think it pertinent to our argument. I've heard the other side - that the advice was, well, not robust. And maybe that perpetuated their frustration. But I dismiss the other corps and look instead at BD... CAUTION: This is where speculation takes over and none of this is based on anything known factual... I think it's possible that BD was as snookered by a error of trust that Hop was going to put out what they thought. Many opinions here compared the general presentation of parts 1 and 2 and are confident that it was not a singularly prepared document. It's possible that BD submitted its clearly more professionally produced portion for inclusion in Hop's release. It also COULD rationalize why SCV and not, say Phantom or Crown, came to the defense. I abhor the flagrant use of Plausible Deniability but, IMO, in this case, it fits and the aggrieved are awarded the benefit of the doubt. I just don't think BD would knowingly sign on to such clap-trap if it were given a draft of the doc to review prior. Maybe I'm naive. Anyway, I'm not convinced that this is any direct reflection of the events of 7 years ago. Sorry if we derailed... Creative fundraising ideas were very well described as "rooting around in the dirt", and it's true that, compared to BD's EXCEPTIONAL bingo operation, most all efforts are small. That's the juggernaut. But that's not the only way, and I don't disagree with Brasso's point that an org must spend $1mil to field a VERY quality program for their customers. Thank you for the compliment, and your responses are also always well thought out and respectful. So I take it that it is your understanding that they, BD and others, were either snookered or exhibited the behavior like another brilliant light bulb who stated that "we have to pass it to find out what is in it". However, I do have some questions: If they were snookered, where is their public outrage to those who pulled the shenanigan and their public apology to those in which the document would gravely harmed? If they were the brilliant light bulb of not knowing what was in the document, why are they still respected as great leaders? Or, are they just as culpable as the other co-author by either being Obtuse/Compliant or Fully in Agreement when they went public? Edited March 14, 2017 by Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted March 14, 2017 Share Posted March 14, 2017 (edited) For all who have read this far: I still believe that BD is the best ran business of any corps within DCI. And up until the G7 proposal I had very high respect for the corps' who authored and signed that document. But it cut me to the quick when it became public; because that holier-than-thou philosophy was not what I was taught while engaging with a few of those same corps' as a performing member or staff member. We were taught that while each corps is self-sufficient, DCI is a fraternity of bonded brotherhood from the least traveling/competing corps to the multi-winners of DCI WC. Apparently that philosophy changed dramatically in the minds of a few director's/boards of those 7 as we moved into the new millennium. Edited March 14, 2017 by Stu 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.