Liahona Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Right, it's done in business....where the person in question has been paid for their services. Limiting where someone can apply and pay to be a member is a different matter all together. One of the basics of contract law is that there must be some benefit to both sides of a contract in order for the contract to be valid. Why not offer those members a DEEP discount on tour fees if they sign a 2 year non-compete for example, but not be obligated to do so? Obviously, if they are under 18 I'm sure parent/guardian would have to be involved in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuriousMe Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 One of the basics of contract law is that there must be some benefit to both sides of a contract in order for the contract to be valid. Why not offer those members a DEEP discount on tour fees if they sign a 2 year non-compete for example, but not be obligated to do so? Obviously, if they are under 18 I'm sure parent/guardian would have to be involved in this case. With finances they way they are today, I could imagine that a smaller corps could need the cash more than a guarantee a member wouldn't march with a competitor next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 With finances they way they are today, I could imagine that a smaller corps could need the cash more than a guarantee a member wouldn't march with a competitor next year. I would have to agree that you make a valid point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 One of the basics of contract law is that there must be some benefit to both sides of a contract in order for the contract to be valid. Why not offer those members a DEEP discount on tour fees if they sign a 2 year non-compete for example, but not be obligated to do so? Obviously, if they are under 18 I'm sure parent/guardian would have to be involved in this case. a) In business, the employees receive a salary; any person who is willing to sign a non-compete clause in the business world also negotiates a rather large severance package that kicks in upon termination because of that non-compete issue. b) In drum corps the members pay dues to help defer the yearly operational costs. Say that corps dues are $2,500 and there are 150 performers that sign a non-compete to lower their dues by %50; the corps would lose $187,500 in revenue each year; and if the person is not allowed to go elsewhere, they would not be able to bring that capital to another corps. So, this idea would ultimatly destroy a corps through decreased funding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 instead of messing around with age, why not just say you must go to a corps that is within the region of where you live? Also why not restrict the corps themselves so they cannot hold camps outside 100 miles of their home office. Or, let's just say that a 19 year old star basketball player living in Little Rock, Arkansas can only attend the University of Central Arkansas Conway and cannot go to Butler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 a) In business, the employees receive a salary; any person who is willing to sign a non-compete clause in the business world also negotiates a rather large severance package that kicks in upon termination because of that non-compete issue.b) In drum corps the members pay dues to help defer the yearly operational costs. Say that corps dues are $2,500 and there are 150 performers that sign a non-compete to lower their dues by %50; the corps would lose $187,500 in revenue each year; and if the person is not allowed to go elsewhere, they would not be able to bring that capital to another corps. So, this idea would ultimatly destroy a corps through decreased funding. Stu...You also clearly make a valid point concerning the decreased funding...I did not think my idea through clearly. The benefit from keeping a member an extra year is obviously outweighed by the negative impact that would result from having less operating capital in the year in which they paid tour fees. I am not as much sold on your first point "a", but you idea is still sound and I would also have to say factual from my understanding of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Stu...You also clearly make a valid point concerning the decreased funding...I did not think my idea through clearly. The benefit from keeping a member an extra year is obviously outweighed by the negative impact that would result from having less operating capital in the year in which they paid tour fees. I am not as much sold on your first point "a", but you idea is still sound and I would also have to say factual from my understanding of things. A non-compete clause is a form of retainer that is normally used when negotiation $100k type salaries. It is a way to keep a person from jumping ship. This also means that upon termination, the person who signed the non-compete normally cannot find another job with that high level of salary until the term of the non-compete expires. So, to offset that imbalance, the person usually also negotiates a high severance package to compensate them while they are honoring the time period of the non-compete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vito Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 DCI needs a REGIONAL EMPHESIS instead of an emphesis that focuses upon on the corps who wins DCI each year. DCI NEEDS REGIONAL QUALIFIERS (regional local championships) each corps can only qualify for the regional in their part of the country. DCI needs to Divide the country into 5 sections. Now DCI has 5 regional champions, plus a representation of the best 5 corps from each region. Give ONLY the top 5 winners from each section of the country an invitation to DCI quarter finals. This would give us 25 corps to compete in the quarter finals, then perhaps 17 in the semi finals, and 12 in the finals. THIS WILL HELP SAVE CORPS MONEY because struggling corps will not have to travel to finals , often very far from home, each year. Also, imagine the intensity for some corps to make the five corps regional cut. INTENSE baby! This will make DCI more money with 5 regional qualifiers. This will help with the problem of attrition and it will help each corps local recruiting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vito Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Post #28 I really think this the answer for a lot of drum corp's problems. Regional corps would increase the number of players in the smaller corps. Kids will see the "local" corps more and want to join. There would be more shows and more interest. I'd say more, but you've set it well already. Vito Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 I didn't read all 9 pages of this, but I doubt this idea has been stated, because it's pretty radical, so bear with me:My older brother played hockey through middle and early high school, but didn't start till late in 7th grade. He started on a house team, and how he got on the team was he went to a mass tryout for every individual interested in playing hockey that season. There were players that blew him away, but there were also players that were at or a little below his level. At the end of the three-day tryout, all the coaches got together, and split the individuals. I wasn't there to witness it, but I would imagine the coaches went in a private room with a list of everyone trying out, and basically did a draft of all the individuals, much like the NFL. Now I know this is a crazy idea, but since this is simply a forum and we're all throwing ideas out there, I figure why the hell not? What if we did this in drum corps as well? What if starting with some given year, everyone who hasn't marched before flies out to a specified location and participates in a giant tryout. Every corps director is there, along with caption heads of each section. At the end of the (let's say week-long) audition, the corps directors confer with their staff and come up with a ranking list of who they want. The directors then meet and participate in a draft. They pick until their corps is full. Now I see this as the ultimate in leveling the playing field, which is why it would never-in-a-million-years work. But in an ideal world, what would you think of this idea? Like I said - I know this is irrational, so don't confirm my knowledge of that fact, otherwise I'll just think less of you. All I'm curious about is your opinion of this idea. If this had been the case when I auditioned and I got "drafted" or whatever by a corps I wasn't interested in marching I wouldn't march. Now, if I was being drafted by Pioneer and they were offering me a salary to march there that is a completely different story but I'm not going to pay to march somewhere that I'm not interested in marching. Drafts only work when there are paychecks involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.