BRASSO Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, garfield said: This is not a "highly restrictive transfer policy", this is a provision agreed upon to accept financial aid ("scholarship") from a corps in lieu of paying tuition and tour fees. Some marchers can move between Corps in DCI without this provision, so its a matter of opinion if its ' restrictive " to marchers compared to marchers in other Corps that have no similar restrictive contract provision to transfer to another Corps. Keep in mind, if the marcher leaves DCI Drum Corps marching altogether, he owes no back scholarship monies to CC under my understanding of this CC contract provision. The provision is only triggered for more cash on demand, if the marcher still marches Drum Corps, but in another Corps. We'll let the readers decide for themselves if this is potentially transfer restrictive in both its intent as well as contract language design. Edited February 3, 2017 by BRASSO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 7 minutes ago, garfield said: This is not a "highly restrictive transfer policy", this is a provision agreed upon to accept financial aid ("scholarship") from a corps in lieu of paying tuition and tour fees. And we both know that you're trying to state that this somehow justifies your advancing the notion of a formal transfer policy with the activity, which it doesn't. This issue centers on learning these lessons: 1. Don't sign anything you don't understand, 2. Don't take anyone's interpretation of a rule as being the correct application of the rule, 3. If you sign a contract you must live up to the terms of the contract, and 4. If you find you've made a mistake in signing a contract, put on your adult pants, admit your mistake, accept the consequences and pay them. This is not a transfer policy (restrictive or otherwise), it's a contract. It is a transfer fee - a charge only assessed if the marcher moves from one corps to another. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 17 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: It is a transfer fee - a charge only assessed if the marcher moves from one corps to another. Sorry, my emphasis was on the "highly restrictive" part of the claim. To the best of our knowledge (which is darn little in this case) all of the ex-Crown members in question have been offered positions at BAC. It is their contract obligations that might make that expensive, but each is able to make the move if they choose and find a way to pay the costs due to Crown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just A Plain Old Fan Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Just A Plain Old Fan said: 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. This is correct but have to assume that all directors honor and respect others. I can tell you 1st hand it is NOT always the case. BUT in theory and for the most part you are quite right. This also needs to apply throughout the entire activity imo....many have been burned and not repsected Edited February 3, 2017 by GUARDLING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 29 minutes ago, garfield said: To the best of our knowledge (which is darn little in this case) all of the ex-Crown members in question have been offered positions at BAC. Partially true. CC former marchers must earn a position at the Boston Crusaders. Not " all " have been offered positions in the Corps at the moment. Auditions, by schedule, for example in Guard will commence after WGI season. And its expected that positions for spots in Boston's 2017 Guard will be open to both former CC marchers as well as others who might like to try out for a position then. Thus, Its wide open to earn a position in the Boston Crusaders Guard for the 2017 summer season at the moment. Again, I don't pretend to speak for the Corps, but that's my understanding anyway. Edited February 3, 2017 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lead Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 One of the reddit posters says that he left Madison to go to Crown - in a similar position of having received a scholarship - and had to pay the money back to Madison. Sounds like it is pretty common. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleran Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 10 minutes ago, Just A Plain Old Fan said: 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. Sending a demand letter to enforce one's interpretation of a contract is standard operating procedure. Anyone who thinks the sender of that notice is automatically correct in their interpretation of the contact is naive. No one is disputing the DCI rule that debts must be cleared before marching with another corps. People are disputing whether the retroactive revocation of a scholarship is permitted pursuant to the contract, or is even something appropriate to try to implement. Someone mentioned that their interpretation of the clause (I don't know whether they've actually seen it or not) indicated that the scholarship may not be revoked if the member elects not to march at all the following season, but may be revoked if they elect to march with another corps. If that is correct, then there is a good chance that the provision would be struck by a court of law for various reasons (at least two come to mind, but since neither is my particular realm of legal work, I won't risk misstating the current law). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlamMan Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 I agree with Crown here. If a marching member signs a contract, receives a scholarship then leaves Crown, why shouldn't Crown ask for the money back? These kids today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouooga Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Unless a corps is seriously hurting for members, what is the advantage of offering a scholarship if not for the goal of retaining members? I stand by, this just seems like smart business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts