Eleran Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 5 minutes ago, cowtown said: If the amount is only a few grand, dose either sides want to play deep pockets to win? It's not even a case for deep pockets - this is Small Claims Court territory if it got that far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 5 minutes ago, cowtown said: Not really, some contracts can be invalidated or have creative interpretation. Some are merely to bully as they’d never stand up in court but the costs to go to court might not be worth fighting it. If the amount is only a few grand, dose either sides want to play deep pockets to win? A contact is only as good as the lawyers involved Wow, this is really sad. One day in our past, only a handshake was necessary to bind a contract. What a shame this opinion is apparently still around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 5 minutes ago, cowtown said: Not really, some contracts can be invalidated or have creative interpretation. Some are merely to bully as they’d never stand up in court but the costs to go to court might not be worth fighting it. If the amount is only a few grand, dose either sides want to play deep pockets to win? A contact is only as good as the lawyers involved It seems to me that grouping the granting of a "Scholarship" and a "Membership Contract/Agreement" together just doesn't jive...these two should be separate agreements IMO. Otherwise I might believe at face value and purely speculation on my part that these supposed "scholarships" may have just been thinly disguised financial loans used for the expressed purpose of retaining members and nothing more....the exact opposite of what the benefit of a scholarship is supposed to be in the first place IMO. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 3 hours 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. 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.. Edited February 3, 2017 by BRASSO 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoaDci Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 I just want to point out that my opinions on both corps hasnt changed. I havent been out to attack any corps. I havent made up my mind on anything, only speaking my mind on how I feel about this subject. I have been pretty evenly split on if there was any wrongdoing. Either way, no matter what happens with these contracts we should feel bad for the MM's who have lost money off of this situation, even if they violated the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lead Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 2 hours ago, cixelsyd said: According to Wikipedia: " A scholarship is an award of financial aid for a student to further their education. Scholarships are awarded based upon various criteria, which usually reflect the values and purposes of the donor or founder of the award. Scholarship money is not required to be repaid. " I do not think "scholarship" is the correct term for this practice. Everyone feel free to suggest a better name for it. Drum corps have been getting WAY too "school-y" lately, calling members "students," giving "scholarships," and listing their "faculty." Kind of ridiculous, and I am a high school band director and former MM in a Top-5 corps. Call it what it is. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, Liahona said: It seems to me that grouping the granting of a "Scholarship" and a "Membership Contract/Agreement" together just doesn't jive...these two should be separate agreements IMO. Otherwise I might believe at face value and purely speculation on my part that these supposed "scholarships" may have just been thinly disguised financial loans used for the expressed purpose of retaining members and nothing more....the exact opposite of what the benefit of a scholarship is supposed to be in the first place IMO. I've never heard of a scholarships that is unfettered, free money? Every scholarship comes with limitations and restrictions. Play this way, act this way, stay this long, contribute in these ways, stay out of trouble. It's life. Drum corps teaches life. This is just another example. And again, let me remind you: 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. And what is the director supposed to say to the "Major Supporter" who insisted that his donation be used a particular way and, when it's not, decides to not support the corps again? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowtown Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Just now, garfield said: Wow, this is really sad. One day in our past, only a handshake was necessary to bind a contract. What a shame this opinion is apparently still around. That doesn’t make sense; it confuses two ideas, a hand shake deal and a contract. Never known a contract to be validated, accepted by a handshake, how’d that work, a video of hands shaking over a contract? I’ve seen thumbprint signatures on a contact but not a handshake. I also don’t get how it’s sad or accept that was once a time where everyone’s word was always and forever good but I would like to visit this magical place. If Boston is so flush with cash, they’ll probably scholarship the debt or perhaps publically shame Crown in to releasing the marchers without collecting Clearly there is bad blood between the corps and it is sad if it’s being taken out on the marchers but it is also sort of nice because it reminds of back in the day when corps loyalty mattered more so a bit conflicted myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troopers1 Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 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. Edited February 3, 2017 by troopers1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, BoaDci said: I just want to point out that my opinions on both corps hasnt changed. I havent been out to attack any corps. I havent made up my mind on anything, only speaking my mind on how I feel about this subject. I have been pretty evenly split on if there was any wrongdoing. Either way, no matter what happens with these contracts we should feel bad for the MM's who have lost money off of this situation, even if they violated the contract. I think people characterizing this as a Crown supposed bashing are being a bit overly dramatic...unfortunately the example being used here has Crown on the hot seat at this particular moment in time...but most of us that have been involved in this activity in one capacity or another know this sort of thing goes on with other corps as well...and has been admitted by others at other times as well... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts