DrumManTx Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsundercover Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Liahona said: When college scholarships are given it is very uncommon for a scholarship to have a post-completion clause. Having a condition for that otherwise is pretty punitive in an activity where every kid pays to participate IMO. Again, I think we need to see the contract before making any judgments. Perhaps the contract was a multi-year contract where the member agreed to march with CC for multiple years. Perhaps the contract was a multi-year contract where scholarship monies for all years were paid at the beginning, with a clause that if the member transfers they must pay back the money for the years they didn't march. Or perhaps none of these and CC is totally in the wrong. We have no way of knowing until we see the contract. Edited February 3, 2017 by dsundercover 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 33 minutes ago, Liahona said: You are making this sound like some nefarious conspiracy against Crown...sorry..but the facts are the facts...it's a little more than just some crazy rumor now... Your first admission that this was truth...glad you have decided to admit that. I'm sorry that it "sounds' different to you. I don't dispute it's the truth. I'm asking what business is it of ours? Your later posts contain your opinions about this policy. That's fine. But to make a connotation that Crown did anything unsavory or nefarious or under-handed is way out of line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, mj3004 said: It's not just this one kid. There are others that are in the same situation after leaving Crown to march elsewhere. Then it wasn't an individual target of a one-off rule. This practice, per your statement that others experienced it, is not a secret. Would your statement still be correct if you restated it to say "There are others that are in the same situation after leaving their corps to march elsewhere"? You are targeting Crown for disdain when the policy being discussed was created by, and is followed by, all DCI member corps. Who would we be accusing of "...a bad way to run a youth activity..." if the thread topic read "DCI Member Contract Restrictions", or "DCI's ability to enforce disagreements regarding money owed by MM's who change corps". If there is anything for us to discuss about this subject, it should be directed at the activity's policy and not a single corps following that policy. Edited February 3, 2017 by garfield spelling, dangit 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 1 minute ago, garfield said: Your later posts contain your opinions about this policy. That's fine. But to make a connotation that Crown did anything unsavory or nefarious or under-handed is way out of line. I agree with you. I am not implying that they did anything "unsavory or nefarious or under-handed"...I just think their policy is wrong and as I've said before unconscionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2000Cadet Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 1 hour ago, craiga said: 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". One "mistake" does not a "terrible way to run a youth activity" make. Crown seemed to have been doing very well running their organization for the past 20 something years. Like I implied, we are only seeing one side of the coin. We have not seen the contract that was drafted and signed so quit the sanctimony. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurassic Lancer Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tesmusic Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 9 minutes ago, Liahona said: I agree with you. I am not implying that they did anything "unsavory or nefarious or under-handed"...I just think their policy is wrong and as I've said before unconscionable. It's DCI's policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurassic Lancer Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) Sorry, double post.. Edited February 3, 2017 by Jurassic Lancer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 45 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: Nonsense. Fine print is print, and you should read it before signing a contract. There is nothing nefarious about it (except for those who did not read it, and are looking for an excuse after the fact). I agree that small words are words and contracts are to be read prior to signing. It's also true that many don't read contracts. But, print is not print. In many industries, my own included, we don't get "fine print". if you think that all print is the same, I hope you someday get to read an insurance contract, or an annual report, or a mortgage deed, or Atlas Shrugged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts