Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/03/2017 in all areas

  1. For the record, the fact that the "proof" came out in a matter of hours proves that the poster could have waited until actual proof was in hand before inflaming a thread of rumor. That said, so what? It's a CONTRACT. According the THE CONTRACT, the recipient of a scholarship owes it back if said MM changes corps. Under what terms? Who cares? It's a CONTRACT and it was signed by TWO parties. If contracts are no good, then how about we change the gate entry requirements when you're holding a ticket to get in. Nope, that contract in your hand in the form of a ticket is not fair. We're nullifying and ignoring it, and SHAME on you for having the temerity to expect me to uphold my end of it. A kid went to BAC, he owed money from his scholarship contract. He knew, he left. The end. Pay the money - move on. And don't forget that it will be DCI that declares the MM unqualified, because the directors wrote these rules. If BAC is dead-set on taking him, let them pay the monies due. That's the way it works. And please don't have the presumption that any one of us here are either qualified or entitled to tell a World Class drum corps how they should run their business. If you're right that this should be condemned, the market - that echo chamber of potential MM's - will take care of it. We here get to run our drum corps the way we want. I would direct any further inquiry to the Crown office but, please be sensitive to the fact that staff members are PLANNING A DRUM CORPS SEASON and are not obligated, nor presumed, to spend a minute of their time addressing a disagreement with how their corps is run. EDIT: To clarify, each of us here who donate funds to Crown, volunteer for Crown, support the group in any way even to the casual fan who refuses to buy souvies, can all express our dissatisfaction with the notion of Crown enforcing its contract by withdrawing that support. That's also how the market works. Whether or not your contribution is sufficient to weigh on the Crown Executive and BOD is dependent upon each contributor.
    8 points
  2. My question: Why is Crown signing members to multi-year contracts, and why on earth would any member accept that sort of clause? Drum corps, by design, is a year-to-year activity.
    5 points
  3. I've stayed pretty quiet on this one but my only thought is this. If it's part of a contract they signed, so be it. They can ask for their money back. But the idea of asking for money back you gave someone to help them march with you because they go somewhere else doesn't sit well with me personally. I dunno. Also it is interesting that yesterday they didn't give out scholarships which based on this they clearly do. Those are my only thoughts on this and all I have to say.
    5 points
  4. So, after demanding "proof", you then dismiss it. Ok..fine. No, it's not the Salem Witch Trials....just a terrible way to run a youth activity. And for the record, this is not just "one kid".
    5 points
  5. I tell ya, I haven't seen EVERYONE worked up this much since the RAMD era...
    4 points
  6. I read the entire thread; took an hour. Already covered: 1) DCI's policy on switching corps. 2) Crown's payback policy. Not covered: 1) what happens if BAC allows member to march knowing the outstanding debt exists? 2) does the member have recourse against Crown since - for all intents and purposes - Crown's instructional leadership had changed so drastically that the member can claim "bait n switch?" IOW Crown is an intitely different organization as far as the member is concerned (esp if the rumors are true that said instructional leadership was instrumental in recruiting said member) Might render the contract unenforceable.
    4 points
  7. Great point! While we're at it, let's have Boston rise their fees by $2000, then give every 2017 member a "scholarship" for $2000, have them sign the "scholarship agreement" wherein they can't march anywhere else the rest of their life?? If they switch, they must pay it back. Think of the $$ BAC could make!!!
    4 points
  8. I'm going to try to provide clarity here, although it seems like everyone is firmly ensconced in their position so I don't really know what good it will do: There is absolutely a standing policy in the activity that corps members are required by their corps to disclose their marching history and if they owe any money to another corps. All the directors (remember the corps, represented by their directors ARE DCI) agreed on this policy. And it makes a ton of sense to prevent people from corps-hopping and leaving a trail of debt throughout the activity. In addition, as you see from the screenshot, corps will take the extra step to make sure the members are "clear" with their old corps. If a previous corps invokes the debt, the current corps will usually request a contract to verify. DCI has been known to intervene if necessary, always with the intent to let the kid march if at all possible. Although you may question me as a source, those facts are 100% true. Where we're getting off base here is the discussion around whether a scholarship "counts" as a debt. Everyone's kind of right here. Traditionally, it wouldn't. However, Garfield is an astute businessman and is 100% correct that here we're dealing with a case of buyer beware. If the contract or scholarship or scholarship/membership/contract states that the scholarship would turn into a debt, and the member and/or his or her parents signed the document, then it would most likely (technically) fall under the same category as the DCI rule I mentioned above. I also imagine the Crown organization would never send an email referencing a contract that didn't CLEARLY state what they were inferring. That would be incredibly irresponsible and immediately blow up in their face. Garfield is also correct that it's entirely possible the stipulations around a donor gift could require all this. I don't see where BAC is in the wrong here. You could argue that they shouldn't have hired Crown staff or recruited Crown members, but that's only slightly germane. Even if there is NO shadiness on BAC's part here, this situation would still present itself with them or any other corps that these "scholarship" recipients move to. It's clear (as clear as I think it can be) that Crown made a direct choice to make this penalty part of their program offering. If there's polite debate to be had, I think it's there. I personally don't think that is in the spirit of the original agreement between the directors and is unnecessarily punitive, but I get it. And they have a right to make their own choices. And people should read contracts before they sign them.
    4 points
  9. Drum corps sounds risky and dangerous. I don't think anyone should do it.
    4 points
  10. My turn at role play; Crown Contact: “pages and pages of legalese nothing specifically about going to another corps and repaying a scholarship but way down at the bottom ‘scholarship may be revoked requiring retroactive repayment as deemed necessary at any time by Crown organization’ Kid: what’s that at the bottom there, what’s that mean? Crown staff: oh that’s nothing kid; it’s just legal mumbo jumbo we have to have to protect us, it’s never been used for anything but you need to sign if you want to march Kid signs Months later Evil Crown Staff: how dare OUR staff go to another corps after we made them!!! We’ll show them. Wait, what, they also took OUR marchers? Evil Crown Staff while stroking their Snidely Whiplash mustache: “Destroy them. Invoke the catch all clause.” The Good Moral Crown Staffer (because there is always one): But sir, we shouldn’t. No, please don’t, won’t you think of the children? Evil Crown Staff: Punish them, punish them all. Punish our treacherous staff, punish BAC for stealing them and punish those marchers. Demand that scholarship money back and block the traitors from marching BAC or anywhere else in DCI. If those kids needed money to march in the first place; there is no way can they afford to repay us or to even hire a lawyer to crush our poorly worded, vague, misinterpreted contracts
    4 points
  11. This attitude certainly goes towards supporting the argument that this vitriol is fanned by BAC contingent that have an axe to grind. They seem to be more concerned about making this BAC v CC as opposed to "Is it OK for any corps to tie up member commitments via discounts, awards and scholarships? (especially if supported by contracts)?" Which is certainly worth discussing. Some people here are more interested in simply torching Crown and painting them as the evil enemy. Not exactly constructive.
    4 points
  12. Enforcing contract terms, apparently.
    4 points
  13. what part of a member "upholding their end of a bargain" don't people understand? they defaulted on the terms of the scholarship contract and owe money the reason this is part of DCI member terms to avoid members doing exactly what this member did - bail on one corps leaving them stuck with a bill and then marching debt-free with the next corps in their target the individual organizations have to be protected as far as the scholarship portion - I'm sure a partial scholarship is awarded based on timely fulfillment of other financial responsibilities which this member did not do - and yes, of course that's stated in the contract
    4 points
  14. I think most feel contracts are private to each corps BUT Im sure those who have an issue with this should have a copy. Now if they dont want to show it to the public one MIGHT think there is way more behind it. Just sayin.
    3 points
  15. Forgive me, but I'm not going to take the text of a demand letter from one side of a dispute as proof of what the actual clauses contain in a contract. But hey, that's just the way I make my living - you're free to jump to as many conclusions as you want on DCP. Sort of like yesterday when you were adamant that Carolina didn't offer any scholarships.
    3 points
  16. Transfers from lower placing DCI Corps to higher placing Corps has gone on for 40 years in DCI now. By the thousands. Nobody batted an eye. So now, transfers from a couple of higher placing Corps are taking place to a lower placing Corps. I don't see what the issue is. In the absence of transfer policies, a transfer is a transfer. But yes, the policy of the conversion of a past season's scholarship monies to payment on demand after the completed season simply because one elected to transfer to another Corps is a real head scratcher however... and bottom line, is bound to fail on so many levels. I can't imagine that if Crown retains this " scholarship conversion to payment on demand " policy on restrictive transfers between their Corps and others that it would help their current retention, nor future recruitment. But who knows. Time will tell. By the way, I would be opposed to any Corps that has such policies. Also, so everyone here knows, there are a few other DCI Corps that have similar " buyer beware " contracts with its provisions that parents would be well advised to read carefully too. But as far as marchers making annual off season pilgimmages to march Corps they choose to, there really is nothing new under the sun here in this regard.
    3 points
  17. I agree. If one looks at the screen shot of the communication, it would appear that there are two separate issues. In the first paragraph Ms Coates wrote about the practice of ensuring financial obligations to corps are met before being contracted to a new corps and that this MM had not done so. Then she starts a new paragraph and begins a new topic about an additional financial obligation that was brought to her attention regarding a signed scholarship agreement. The message from Coates is dated January 26 and contradicts what was contained in the deleted thread from yesterday where she was contacted and told a member of this board that scholarships are offered to age outs. Whether you are a celebrity, professional athlete, business CEO, politician, or non profit youth organization, when you violate any combination of the four rules to crisis management... "You're gonna have a bad time." ($1.00 to South Park) Tell the truth Tell it first Tell it yourself Tell it all Otherwise, threads like this and the one that was deleted will most likely result.
    3 points
  18. Corps aren't going to just give money away. The people #####ing at Boston camp were parents, based on posts. So if mommy and daddy didn't sign, and it was a marching member, then maybe mommy and daddy shouldn't complain about their kids responsibility. Maybe mommy and daddy should tell Johnny or Jilly to take responsibility and teach them a lesson about reading things before they sign them, instead of thinking they're getting a hand-out with zero responsibility.
    3 points
  19. Simple solution is to read & understand what she is signing before she signs it. In Drum Corps, as well as in life in general.
    3 points
  20. Re "CONTRACT", and this applies to life outside of Drum Corps as well, I have heard the analogy that you have a loaded gun in your hand every time you pick up a pen to sign your name to something. It is up to the signer to know what is in what they are signing. Caveat Emptor.
    3 points
  21. This is amazing. Yesterday there was a topic that seemed to indict Crown for "revoking" past scholarships, insinuating that Crown is being unfair. Today someone provided "proof" of the situation that seems to undermine the victimhood narrative, and then an epic exercise in rhetoric ensues. The psychology (psychopathy?) of our community must be experienced to be believed.
    3 points
  22. BAC is a 77 year old drum corps. My personal point of view comes from the fact that for much of that history (especially during the DCI era), the corps had to withstand the constant movement of kids (and staff) from Boston to higher ranking corps. There were no complaints. It was what it was. Now however, after the past 15 or so years of the corps reinventing itself, achieving the long-elusive top 12 status, and working feverishly to reach an unprecedented level of financial stability....now suddenly that this "flow of talent" has reversed, we find the shoe on the other foot.
    3 points
  23. Wow, just wow. I agree with your post, it doesn’t sit well with me either And the contradicting information allegedly coming from the same person at Crown (scholarships for age-outs only, oh wait, not true) really casts doubts on their entire story so I’m not willing to accept yet that it’s the details buried in the contract, fool me twice and all. Right now my pitchfork is taking aim aside from the one locked on Garfield who is doing a misinformation-deflection-dance and his ‘official’ conservation from yesterday seems like he got played or spun pretty badly. Yours Truly, The Angry Mob
    3 points
  24. This is an unfair post and it completely throws the "kid" under the bus. You keep telling us not to talk about speculation, but youre doing it yourself? Talking about how you THINK a situation went is speculation. Anyways..does anyone actually have a contract or info on how this contract might have worked? I just want to know if they were binded by the scholarship.
    3 points
  25. So Carolina Crown is just really mean. Gosh. Waffles anyone?
    3 points
  26. The rationale should be to provide an opportunity for kids that might not be otherwise possible and to help kids that are in serious need and financial hardship.
    3 points
  27. it's in the terms of the scholarship agreement - as stated in the email (and apparently attached to the email) the rational is to help avoid migration and improve member retention - part of the benefit of the (in this case partial) scholarship is to 1. improve member retention 2. lock int he member for the current season allowing them to march at a reduced tuition effectively
    3 points
  28. People demanded proof. There it is. Of course members are liable for past balances due...but to ask for scholarships back and be "added to your balance??" Wow....
    3 points
  29. You make a valid point. Sorry for that transgression. For the offense, I will get down and do 24 pushups (.... albeit, 1 per month. )
    2 points
  30. One (supposed) mammal in particular comes to mind...
    2 points
  31. "I was notified yesterday by Chris Holland..." etc... Granted I'm assuming that said notification was an email. It could have been a parchment scroll written in blood.
    2 points
  32. Scurrilous charge by you. Do you have a scintilla of proof to support your claim that someone told a poster to put what CC was doing on DCP ? The bill itself was put on DCP only after the claim by you and others that it was bogus and demanding proof of what CC was doing. But this info was released by Craiga here on DCP, and my information is that noone asked him to post it. He did so to bring to light something he wanted to share. There was no group conspiracy planned to release this info. THATS bogus. So what proof do you have that " someone asked someone to go post this on DCP ? My sense... you have none. You " clearly " are way out of bounds with this charge, then.
    2 points
  33. Most? I think a better question would be which couldn't. Music books seem to be less complex nowadays to allow for more visual demand, especially among lower corps.
    2 points
  34. I've read insurance docs, mortgage deed, lease AND Atlas Shrugged. I loved Atlas Shrugged. Not so much the other stuff.
    2 points
  35. This thread is unbelievable and it is actually only a few that are driving it. Time for a break and for people to get some FACTS. Too may assumptions. Some good points however are coming from the discussion. One thing that struck me was when someone mentioned a scholarship being a gift. It raises the possibility that if someone (alumni or supporter) of an organization were to provide financial assistance via a "scholarship", and were to then write it off as a tax deductable donation, then the org tries to retrieve payment/reimbursement: is there now an IRS issue? Also if the scholarship were offered directly from a supporter, could the org demand it back, since it did not come directly from the org coffers but a private source who donated to the MM directly? The point I am trying to make, is that this thread is generating more questions than answers. The entire subject can be cleared up with seeing a copy of the contract and the scholarship agreement. Are they one in the same? Are they two separate documents with individual language written in each? Are they tied together at all? More questions, still no clarity. Try looking at this by taking out the two orgs that have been the subject of the discussion and simply look at them as org A and org B. Eliminate the emotion that is clouding logical thought of the subject matter. No one is questioning at all, that money owed to an org, for membership and associated fees must be paid before being allowed to march in a competing org. I believe in compliance with DCI rules, that question was asked by one org to the other. The issue is with a scholarship (re)payment. Is there a precedent that an org, that has not previously pursued repayment of a scholarship can then decide to do so. Is it moral, ethical, legal? Can a scholarship "fee" be retrieved/requested/demanded AFTER the MM has marched the season and provided the service/function the scholarship or contract required for the season just completed?
    2 points
  36. For me: 1991 Blue Devils, Cadets, Cavaliers, Star 1992 Cadets 1993 Blue Devils, Cadets, Star 1995 Blue Devils, Cadets, Madison Scouts 1996 Blue Devils, Santa Clara 1997 Cadets, Madison, SCV 1998 Cadets, SCV 1999 Blue Devils, SCV, Cavaliers 2000 Cavaliers, Cadets, BD, SCV 2001 BD, Cadets 2002 Cadets
    2 points
  37. Thanks for this, I'm humbled. Except for the evil eyes, the white, long hair, the chain-mail, and the sword it looks just like me!
    2 points
  38. False. It most certainly does. As some have argued, the term scholarship may take on different meanings. So if someone was given financial assistance under the title "scholarship" then this most certainly holds true.
    2 points
  39. This has nothing to do with scholarships granted for a previous season IMO. I don't think anyone here is disputing that any financial commitments in terms of member fees must be fulfilled.
    2 points
  40. I'm talking about scholarships for students. The environments are a bit different but the concept is not.
    2 points
  41. And again... Let's role play, just for an example of WE DON'T KNOW THE FACTS: ED to Major Supporter: "Great! Thanks so much for the wonderful gift! How would you like it to be used?" MS: "Well, I'd like to support talented kids who are money challenged. And I also would like to promote longevity of members in the corps. So how about you find a kid(s) who are willing to sign a contract to not move for XX years and tell them that their fees are covered if they agree to stay through their age-out year." ED to kid: "Now, this donor has made this scholarship available to you because of your talent, but it comes with the stipulation that, if you leave the corps, you have to pay the money back. Do you understand?" Kid: "Yes, I love Crown. I'll NEVER leave Crown!" ED: "Great, we love you, too, and we're going to give you some great instruction and develop your amazing chops even more! Sign here, and you're fully paid thanks to Mr. Major Supporter. Be sure to send him a thank you note." Crown delivers on their promise. Crown staff goes to BAC, kid leaves Crown. Crown: "Please pay back the money under the terms of the agreement you signed." Kid: "THAT'S NOT FAIR! You can't take scholarship money back!" Kid's parents leak purportedly confidential information to somebody who posts on DCP. Crown shrugs shoulders, requests payment. Welcome to life, kid. You makes a deal and takes the money, you gotta fulfill your obligation. Drum corps teaches life, we always say.
    2 points
  42. Oh, good God. Do I have to say this?: It was about character. Remember, one of those things the activity is trying to teach its kids as they become adults? And really? You've never made a "handshake" deal?
    2 points
  43. In amateur college sports, if a player on athletic scholarship transfers to another school, the new school might provide him a scholarship. However, the idea that such player that transferred would have to pay back the scholarship monies to the previous school is prohibited from being done by NCAA rules and regs. They have policies that address this. For one reason ( among many ) they believe it is just plain stupid, to ask a player that transferred to pay back SCHOLARSHIP monies to their previous school after they left the school. But to be clear on this, in the absence of DCI policy here with DCI, Carolina Crown appears to be acting in a legal fashion here, even if in many quarters in DCI their policy their policy is raising eyebrows to say the least..
    2 points
  44. This is the " lets attack the victims " here charade. For context, when the story broke, without any knowledge of the facts, a handful of out of the loop people jumped in and attacked the messenger(s), you, Liahona, the Boston Crusaders, Parents,.... calling the story immediately as " BS ".... and even posted that " Crown does not provide Scholarships. They never use the term" scholarships ". They went further in attacking the info. They demanded " proof ". DCP concluded the info was bogus as the thread was deleted. But I said " proof " was forthcoming in 24-48 hours. So " proof " was then provided as requested as your credibility was on the line ( with others as well). So you were totally vindicated. Your info was truthful. Now... all thats left is for those that attempted to push the " lie " of this story is to not apologize for their premature conclusions, and attacking the victims here, but to pivot now into a realm of spin, excuse making, its " irrelevance ", or " who cares", mode. But their calling of this story " BS " without any knowledge of the incidents, diminished their credibility on here, no question about it. Thanks for bringing this info out, Craiga. Parents and Marchers DO have the right to know how some Corps bill their marchers and former marchers. Its a legitimate topic. Even if the process is a bit uncomfortable to a few handful of DCP posters, that really are completely out of the loop on what is going on with this billing.
    2 points
  45. Maybe the terms say if you do not uphold your end, we will revoke our end.
    2 points
  46. This all seems pretty cut and dried. Signed a contract, contract is being enforced. And even if the scholarship terms are ignored, there was a balance due to the corps. This was in place when I marched more than a decade ago, and honestly it makes sense (and acts as a version of credit checks between corps, if nothing else). Side note: I'm excited to see the scholarship/contract idea being played out. I've been pushing for that one for corps to do for a few years to help increase retention. It has some negative side effects, as we can see, but it's still a strong tool if keeping your members is the goal.
    2 points
  47. No. I mentioned Crown, because Crown is the only corps requesting that scholarships be repaid. If you have an example of another Corps doing this, please post. Requesting money back from scholarships already given for a previous year is NOT a DCI policy.
    2 points
  48. Although I am not a fan of this specific term of the scholarship contract, it certainly appears that it was a known term to the MM and parents when they signed it. This looks to me like a case of "buyer beware." CC gave the scholarship in good faith with this agreed upon condition. It is impossible for me to fault them for enforcing their rights. Again I am not a fan of the condition, but without actually seeing it, I will give CC the benefit of a he doubt that this was indeed in the contract.
    2 points
  49. I feel like Bluecoats have been proving the previous year wasn't a fluke for 3 years now.
    2 points
This leaderboard is set to Chicago/GMT-05:00
×
×
  • Create New...