garfield Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, craiga said: So, after demanding "proof", you then dismiss it. Ok..fine. No, it's not the Salem Witch Trials....just a terrible way to run a youth activity. And for the record, this is not just "one kid". Oh, I'm not dismissing the proof. I had confirmation last night that it was a fact. That's not the point. It's not the Salem Trials and it's also not appropriate to presume we either A. know the details or B. have the right to condemn the practice. Hurling pitchforks at CC for their business decisions - which is what this it - is not appropriate and more damage is being done as an even unintended result. Isn't it reasonable to expect that, if said MM's got CC scholarships, she'd likely get similar support from BAC? The kids get to double dip? No, BAC's support goes to Crown for Crown to "release" the member and make him/her eligible to march BAC. Edited February 3, 2017 by garfield grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mingusmonk Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 That is a mighty convenient half proof for the OP. Pretty bold to include the reference to the attached contract that would seemingly prove that this potentiality was agreed to, yet not include a screenshot of that portion of the contract. As if a handful of posters didn't seem biased enough in the first thread. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 18 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: I am going to give Carolina Crown the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they wrote something in the fine print of their "scholarship" contract forbidding the marcher from leaving for another corps, even in future seasons. However, even so, I look forward to hearing reactions from everyone who railed against the concept of a "transfer fee" for members moving from corps to corps. Because that is what this is, essentially. If you're going to truly give them the benefit of the doubt you need to presume that the scholarship transfer policy was in BOLD PRINT, was clearly explained and discussed and, with each beaming with excitement, both parties signed the deal. To presume it was somehow nefariously buried in the fine print is not giving them the benefit of the doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 32 minutes ago, garfield said: For the record, the fact that the "proof" came out in a matter of hours proves that the poster could have waited until actual proof was in hand before inflaming a thread of rumor. You are making this sound like some nefarious conspiracy against Crown...sorry..but the facts are the facts...it's a little more than just some crazy rumor now... 11 minutes ago, garfield said: Oh, I'm not dismissing the proof. I had confirmation last night that it was a fact. Your first admission that this was truth...glad you have decided to admit that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 4 minutes ago, garfield said: If you're going to truly give them the benefit of the doubt you need to presume that the scholarship transfer policy was in BOLD PRINT, was clearly explained and discussed and, with each beaming with excitement, both parties signed the deal. To presume it was somehow nefariously buried in the fine print is not giving them the benefit of the doubt. Nonsense. Fine print is print, and you should read it before signing a contract. There is nothing nefarious about it (except for those who did not read it, and are looking for an excuse after the fact). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsundercover Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) Until we see a copy of the contract that was signed, I'm not sure this debate can be settled. If the contract clearly states that scholarships funds must be paid back if transferring to another corps, then there really is nothing more to debate. Crown would be perfectly within their rights to request this money back. However, if the contract was worded in a way that is unclear or intended to hide the specific term of paying scholarship funds back ( or doesn't state at all), then we have more to discuss. Edited February 3, 2017 by dsundercover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 43 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: However, even so, I look forward to hearing reactions from everyone who railed against the concept of a "transfer fee" for members moving from corps to corps. Because that is what this is, essentially. Good point...I've watched on here for a very very very long time people tell BRASSO who has advocated for transfer rules that this is not how things work around here...Well as long as things always trickle up there is not a problem...but when they trickle down the entire universe all of a sudden gets pulled into a black hole....LOL Edited February 3, 2017 by Liahona Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoaDci Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Welp. Here we go again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 8 minutes ago, dsundercover said: Until we see a copy of the contract that was signed, I'm not sure this debate can be settled. If the contract clearly states that scholarships funds must be paid back if transferring to another corps, then there really is nothing more to debate. Crown would be perfectly within their rights to request this money back. However, if the contract was worded in a way that is unclear or intended to hide the specific term of paying scholarship funds back, then we have more to discuss. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj3004 Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 It's not just this one kid. There are others that are in the same situation after leaving Crown to march elsewhere. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts