Stu Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 hey Stu...lemme splain something to you about how DCA works. the members paid their way to DCA. By going, the corps actually GETS money they can use to pay bills. imagine that. It's not like they took the corps on the road DCI style. Few DCA corps prepare food for the members, they're on their own to get it. the members paid for housing in the hotels. So it's not like Bush broke the bank making the drive, and in fact, because of how DCA weekend is set up, will probably make money on the deal. then...gasp...they can pay bills with that money. Let me 'splain something to ya; if the corps owes a creditor on a loan, and the creditor wants the money without any renegotiation on said loan, and it takes the instruments being liquidated to pay off that loan, then nobody should be playing on those instruments even if the performers paid their own way to the show but they should be sold to pay off the debt. Again, show me where the creditor is shady here and I will back off. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skylinersop16 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 They are trying to pay the bills obviously or this thread wouldn't exist. So there is some financial trouble. Everybody needs help now and then whether it be an individual or a business. Was a mistake made somewhere? Yes. Does that mean nail the coffin shut on a 20+ year old 6 time champion drum corps? No! Maybe you don't get the whole DCA activity. The corps does not pay for its membership to go to Championships. At the end of the season, the money left in DCA's account from various points in the season is divided up among the competing corps. Bush would've lost money by going inactive not only in not getting DCA money but not getting dues money from membership. Not to mention Northern New Jersey is home to quite a few other corps competing for membership. If I was with Bush and they were going to go inactive what is keeping me there? I would be off to Hawthorne or Fusion or someone else because I want to march. Staying competitive this season may be what is keeping them going. I have had my arguments and disagreements with this corps and for a long time they were not on my list of allies but I will not watch them struggle and sit here and do nothing to help when something can be done and if everybody that reads this could give up a few dollars to save a corps in trouble then in no time the money could be raised without breaking anyone's bank. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 So the $0 that the corps put into going to DCA should have gone into the bills... Nope; the money spent by the performers is irrelevant. The 'corps' owed debt on a loan which came due; the 'corps' had no money to pay the debt; the 'corps' equipment therefore should not have transported and used at the DCA Championships but should have either stayed packed up or sold to pay on the debt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) Let me 'splain something to ya; if the corps owes a creditor on a loan, and the creditor wants the money without any renegotiation on said loan, and it takes the instruments being liquidated to pay off that loan, then nobody should be playing on those instruments even if the performers paid their own way to the show but they should be sold to pay off the debt. Again, show me where the creditor is shady here and I will back off. if... apparently.... if... if... when pointing the finger at the corps. but want proof when talking about the creditor..... Now I know what's buggin me, it's the double standard. But for the record I did not -1 what I responded to. And yes I read about that courts decision. Also know two people who pled no contest when caught up in a PA State sting on businesses like the ones they owned. State knew they had nothing on them but kept dragging them thru the process month after month to get the big guns that were guilty. (Every time one of the group went to court they all had to show up.) Finally the State agreed to probation before the poor bastiches went broke with legal fees. Again I do not make up my mind until all info is given. Edited September 7, 2012 by JimF-LowBari 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 This is what putting up collateral is all about; and if the reaper cannot be paid in money then the reaper gets control of the collateral. Again, show me where the creditor is a shady dealer and I will back off of this; but until then a business which defaults on a loan must pay the reaper. well Stu, in your mind not going was the right thing to do. In reality, it doesn't make it better. they sit home and make no money. Sure the members don't pay for food and hotel, but the corps isn't going to ask them for money to pay bills when they aren't going anywhere. Already enough rumors of that in DCAcircles this year. I never said the guy was shady. You're assuming things in my words not ever uttered by me. I said if you believe the rumors, there are personal issues between both sides that add a cloud to the whole thing. Perchance for once, instead of being in a such a #### rush to jump to judgement and blast anyone and everyone, you actually read what people say, and not see what you want. I'm not claiming one side is right or wrong. I'm saying both sides should possibly work together a little better. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 if... apparently.... if... if... when pointing the finger at the corps. but want proof when talking about the creditor..... Now I know what's buggin me, it's the double standard. But for the record I did not -1 what I responded to. No double standard; I will always fall on the side of the creditor unless otherwise shown that the creditor is at fault. Why? Because it is the creditor which took all, and I mean all the risk. I took the side of the bus company in the Teal Sound fiasco and got blasted on DCP; and the same holds true in this thread. But show me where the 'creditor' is shady and I will back off; otherwise all things being equal I will fall on the side of the person who took the actual risk. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 if... apparently.... if... if... when pointing the finger at the corps. but want proof when talking about the creditor..... Now I know what's buggin me, it's the double standard. But for the record I did not -1 what I responded to. that's how it works with Stu. he demands proof, but only on one side 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wishbonecav Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 (edited) The tough pill to swallow in a repo action is the pennies on the dollar thing. Selling horns worth 20 for 12 sucks. If there's any way to keep the asset, that makes the most sense. If the corps needed a fresh LOAN to get out from other this current LOAN, then a benefactor is more likely than a list of small donors. The horns could collateralize a new loan, so the risk there might be pretty small. Like lenders, donors dont want their contributions going down a black hole, either, 501c3 or not. I did contact the corps director and asked for more details. I suggested an escrow-type account for potential contributions that had a refund clause should the goal not be reached and the property siezed and sold anyway. I'm waiting on a reply. It's not a million dollars, but it is significant. Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul might by some time, and keep the horns, but to what end? An eventual return to this spot down the road? Or a repayment plan that makes sense? What you see of the iceberg is usually a sign of bigger stuff. Nod to those that gave 'em a break on going to DCA. Those that understand that DCA members pay their own freight all weekend and have some insight on the money-share know that the corps probably netted positive on the weekend. Even if they ran a loss....keeping the corps as a going concern would have been to their benefit in seeking new funding, from any source. Edited September 7, 2012 by wishbonecav 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 that's how it works with Stu. he demands proof, but only on one side Not at all; information from one side has already bee posted: The Bushwhackers placed their plea in the first posting without any explanation as to why they were in this situation; I posted that if it was an emergency situation which caused the trouble I would help but if it was mismanagement then they should reap what they sow; bobg then described what got them in the situation would not have been different if the corps had not gone to championships and then stated that the 'cause', the 'cause' was the creditor being over demanding and not the fault of the corps taking on the debt in the first place; all I was seeking was proof of that contention of 'cause' otherwise I would fall on the side of the creditor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wishbonecav Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 There's a few blurred lines in the equation that make it a little less cut and dried in terms of conversation,but no less cut and dried when it comes to debtor and creditor. Your point is taken, for sure. Feelings and business are not a good mix. The raw edge is the potential for losing another drum corps; which is really a separate conversation. As soon as i hear word from the corps, I'll share my thoughts. Not at all; information from one side has already bee posted: The Bushwhackers placed their plea in the first posting without any explanation as to why they were in this situation; I posted that if it was an emergency situation which caused the trouble I would help but if it was mismanagement then they should reap what they sow; bobg then described what got them in the situation would not have been different if the corps had not gone to championships and then stated that the 'cause', the 'cause' was the creditor being over demanding and not the fault of the corps taking on the debt in the first place; all I was seeking was proof of that contention of 'cause' otherwise I would fall on the side of the creditor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts