Jump to content

Heard there was a rumor in dispute and you needed proof


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, ibexpercussion said:

1) Yes, a contract is contract, and a binding agreement.  So if the language is there in the scholarship contract, then that's that.  You read it, signed it, enjoyed the fruits of it marching with Crown.

but...

2) If a what should be considered one of the consistently Top 3 corps going in the activity right now, why is that in the scholarship contract?  I can understand if the MM quits in the middle of the season, or gets kicked out, but for fulfilling the obligation to the corps for the season, and then wanting to go elsewhere...kind of sucks on that end.

 

In the end, maybe DCI will step up and make the 2 groups do a drumline battle at one of the regionals this year.  That could be interesting!!!  Possibly follow it up with a staff tug of war, or arm wrestling. :fight:

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tesmusic said:

I guess because mommy and daddy don't read their agreements and don't wish to handle their responsibilities, it makes Crown the evil empire for enforcing DCI's rule.

Please provide evidence that "mommy and daddy" signed, or even saw, the agreement in question, which itself hasn't even been offered into evidence.  Last time I saw a corps' financial contract (i.e. the one I signed a month ago), parental signatures are only sought and required when the marching member is under 18.   And since the bulk of Carolina Crown's marchers are 18 or over, everyone might want to remember that the likely contract signatory is young enough that society views them too immature to drink alcohol, but apparently old enough to incur your derision for possibly not having understood the terms of a legal agreement which may or may not have been clear and understandable.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, troopers1 said:

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.

 

I don't think you can put "revoke" in quotes like that when Crown used the word "revoke" themselves. 

They are revoking it...now whether it is okay to do something like that is in question. 

It seems like it was in the terms of the contract the kids signed. Until we see that, we won't be able to discuss the "legality" of their actions. 
That being said, just because it's legal doesn't make it right. People are more than welcome to argue the ethics of this. That shouldn't be dismissed by anyone...Boston or Crown fans. This really isn't even an issue between the two corps. We should be able to have a civil conversation about the ethics of this practice without being so one-sided. I imagine if the roles were reversed in this situation, a lot of the comments on here would be too. 

I agree with Brasso. There needs to be some sort of policy in place that sheds light on the revoking of scholarships from previous years. Personally, it doesn't sit right with me. Giving a kid a $500 scholarship to march in 2015 is for the 2015 season. To say, you can not march any other drum corps for the entirety of your drum corps career is a bit petty. Petty, I think so, yes...but in compliance with terms and conditions, probably. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeN said:

My apologies - I can't see images from work.  My daughter is just dipping her toes in DCI participation this year.  I had no idea some corps did this.  Just to clarify, it's just for scholarships?  How long is the non-compete clause for?  Now I'm curious if I'm going to be faced with having to turn down financial assistance for what is already a horribly expensive activity to preserve her future options.

Mike

Simple solution is to read & understand what she is signing before she signs it.   In Drum Corps, as well as in life in general.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Eleran said:

Please provide evidence that "mommy and daddy" signed, or even saw, the agreement in question, which itself hasn't even been offered into evidence.  Last time I saw a corps' financial contract (i.e. the one I signed a month ago), parental signatures are only sought and required when the marching member is under 18.   And since the bulk of Carolina Crown's marchers are 18 or over, everyone might want to remember that the likely contract signatory is young enough that society views them too immature to drink alcohol, but apparently old enough to incur your derision for possibly not having understood the terms of a legal agreement which may or may not have been clear and understandable.

This would be a lesson learned now wouldn't it. I ve been around enough to know that with most it is spelled out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Eleran said:

Please provide evidence that "mommy and daddy" signed, or even saw, the agreement in question, which itself hasn't even been offered into evidence.  Last time I saw a corps' financial contract (i.e. the one I signed a month ago), parental signatures are only sought and required when the marching member is under 18.   And since the bulk of Carolina Crown's marchers are 18 or over, everyone might want to remember that the likely contract signatory is young enough that society views them too immature to drink alcohol, but apparently old enough to incur your derision for possibly not having understood the terms of a legal agreement which may or may not have been clear and understandable.

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 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 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.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, the lone ranger said:

From what I have heard from people at crown, is that approximately 18-20 crown guard vets are planning on going to Boston. I'm sure this is a big reason for crown to try to keep that from happening. I'm sure they will stop anyone they can from going. I can totally understand the frustration. They won the zingali last year. Now they have to watch all that talent go to Boston. I'd be pretty ###### too. I  have to say though being involved with Crown for quite some time I've never heard of this rule of scholarship repayment. They have always had the rule of paying the tuition fully before you can transfer to another corps, but this seems like something new maybe. 

 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.

Edited by BRASSO
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tesmusic said:

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.

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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