Musicman1084 Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, garfield said: No, I'm not! You are missing the point that the term used might not reflect other uses of the term and you might be conflating the two erroneously. Financial support can take many forms in drum corps because the support can come from several places. One might be from a donor providing financial support with stipulations that require longevity. I think you might be taking the term to be too literally applied in a way you are familiar. Further to your point, nonprofits are required to classify donations as unrestricted, temporarily restricted, or permanently restricted. If the donation was made with the caveat that it was to be used for a member who would march 3 years and the member only marches two years, it's possible that the organization does not have the ability to reclassify that donation if the member only marches two years, meaning they would be in violation of the terms of the donation. Of course, that would be on the corps, as they are the ones that are responsible for utilizing those assets appropriately, but it is not unreasonable to assume that they would then put the onus on the member to fulfill their obligation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, Liahona said: Another poster has alluded that Crown has NOT acted on this "scholarship revoking" policy to kids in the past. I have no idea as to the truthfulness of that post. Although, it appears credible and the fact that Crown is now arbitrarily changing their own rules to suit their needs at this point in the game...with an already previously set precedent of NOT revoking scholarships ( I have no evidence) ...is a petty act and in my opinion unethical to say the least if true. Or have they said enough is enough...just askin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Just now, garfield said: it's not really a problem here in this case if BAC simply steps up and pays off the balance due to Crown. Oh sure.. easy for you to say. Its not YOUR money, so.. " not a problem ". The fact that I believe that a workable solution will be found for these marchers to march their chosen Corps ( in this case Boston ), does not diminish the fact that such a ' scholarship conversion to payment on demand " provision for simply deciding to move on and then march another Corps is a bit unsettling a provision to have for parents and marchers say the least. Thats what I read as the prevailing sentiment from you all regarding transfers between Corps over the years away. Whats changed on your position then ? I thought you were against such highly restrictive transfer policy provisions for marchers in Corps. What gives ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Liahona said: Another poster has alluded that Crown has NOT acted on this "scholarship revoking" policy to kids in the past. I have no idea as to the truthfulness of that post. Although, it appears credible and the fact that Crown is now arbitrarily changing their own rules to suit their needs at this point in the game...with an already previously set precedent of NOT revoking scholarships ( I have no evidence) ...is a petty act and in my opinion unethical to say the least if true. Fact? What fact? "Arbitrarily"? What evidence do you have? "...to suit their needs..."? Do you know what the previous precedent was? See Liahona, because of your signature and obvious loyalty, you need to be extra judicious in the contentions you make because, like this one does, they can come across as biased sour-grapes, retribution, and reputation-bashing for purely self-serving (BAC) reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Drum corps sounds risky and dangerous. I don't think anyone should do it. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrumManTx Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Ok Imma cautiously step in here. If it's in the contract they should pay it back. I've got no issue with that. But that doesn't make the practice seem right to me. For anyone, I'm not singling out Carolina Crown here. You're basically finding a way to discourage members from going somewhere else. I realize you have to take steps to ensure you have members who will be loyal to you because you need those kinds of members. They're your leaders, horn sargents, section leaders, drum majors, etc. But maybe you should be looking inward at why you are losing staff and members rather than putting something in a contract that puts a financial burden on them if something doesn't work out or a really unprecedented staff change happens and they want to go somewhere else because they love that staff. I bet when Carolina Crown guard members for instance didn't think that their staff was going to be moving somewhere else when they signed that contract in the fall and winter months prior to the 2016 season. Im just thinking out loud so I digress. Don't eat me...... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, BRASSO said: Oh sure.. easy for you to say. Its not YOUR money, so.. " not a problem ". The fact that I believe that a workable solution will be found for these marchers to march their chosen Corps ( in this case Boston ), does not diminish the fact that such a ' scholarship conversion to payment on demand " provision for simply deciding to move on and then march another Corps is a bit unsettling a provision to have for parents and marchers say the least. Thats what I read as the prevailing sentiment from you all regarding transfers between Corps over the years away. Whats changed on your position then ? I thought you were against such highly restrictive transfer policy provisions for marchers in Corps. What gives ? 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 5 minutes ago, HockeyDad said: Drum corps sounds risky and dangerous. I don't think anyone should do it. Holy Crap, I could not have stated the implications of this thread any better. Perfectly stated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 5 minutes ago, garfield said: Fact? What fact? "Arbitrarily"? What evidence do you have? "...to suit their needs..."? Do you know what the previous precedent was? See Liahona, because of your signature and obvious loyalty, you need to be extra judicious in the contentions you make because, like this one does, they can come across as biased sour-grapes, retribution, and reputation-bashing for purely self-serving (BAC) reasons. Yes, until the precious " proof" was provided for what CC is doing, Liahona and Craiga WERE called these bad things you mentioned here. We agree. The report was labeled " BS " by posters yesterday, as CC " not only does not provide Scholarships, they don't use the term " scholarships " with parents, marchers. Its not even on their website ". ( but, its in the contracts ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, garfield said: Fact? What fact? "Arbitrarily"? What evidence do you have? "...to suit their needs..."? Do you know what the previous precedent was? See Liahona, because of your signature and obvious loyalty, you need to be extra judicious in the contentions you make because, like this one does, they can come across as biased sour-grapes, retribution, and reputation-bashing for purely self-serving (BAC) reasons. I'm off to Cosco...lol To your first paragraph I stated that I had no evidence whatsoever...so total conjecture on my part. To the second paragraph...My opinions are mine and mine alone and not that of BAC's management UNLESS otherwise clearly indicated. I seriously do not have any axe to grind or ill will towards Crown...I do not fault others on here for wearing their badges of honor...so I would appreciate and respectfully request that you don't fault mine. Clarification: referring to only my post that you are referencing as to paragraph one. Edited February 3, 2017 by Liahona clarification Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts