DrumManTx Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 1 minute ago, corpsband said: They were the first corps to start calling their staff "faculty". Long history of using "educational" terms and applying them to drum corps. What sealed the deal for me on this was the redditors who all kind of said "duh -- it's that way everywhere" and "yeah i had to pay to before leaving my old to corps to march Crown". so this sort of thing has a well-defined existence (even if I knew nothing about it). Again that's not the part I think that people are having an issue with. If I just randomly saw this and saw the part where it said "scholarship revoked" I'd think hey that sounds kind of wrong. Not the top half of the email where it said their dues are not fully paid from the previous season. But I digress. I can at least see where people might get kind of a bad vibe from it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 17 minutes ago, corpsband said: I agree with you. Which is why I think the term scholarship is completely misleading as applied to this situation. A scholarship does not reduce tuition -- it pays the tuition on behalf of the student. There were no funds paid to Crown on behalf of a member. Instead there was a forgiveness of some part of the debt and terms were attached to the forgiveness. Crown took a loss on behalf of the needy student with the understanding that the needy student would continue to perform at Crown. Why does Crown use the term scholarship? I think they believe it sounds better to outsiders than terms like dues, staff, and marching members. I get it. But in this case it is extremely misleading. There's a whole lotta speculation goin' on in this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Slingerland said: The language in the email clearly states that the member was not clear of their financial obligations from 2016 over and above the amount that was covered by their financial aid package. In other words, it appears they were trying to skip out on what they still owed Crown from last year and hope that they didn't get caught. I have no problem with your 1st sentence here. I might take issue on your 2nd sentence here however. Its entirely possible.. even likely... that the marcher never intended to march another DCI Corps when signed this contract with Carolina Crown. Afterall, Crown was a top 3 Corps. Its also possible.. even likely.. that CC has never had to trigger this punitive clause before in their contract, as no marchers have ever left Crown under these contract terms and transferred to a competitor of theirs. Furthermore, it is possible.. even likely... that the former marcher and/ or parent simply forgot about this " scholarship conversion to payment on demand " provision in the contract they originally signed a year previously ( or didn't read it ). If any of these things might be true, then the pejorative phrase " they were trying skip out on what they owed and hope to not get caught " becomes a different situation entirely on the part of the bill recipient. Keep in mind, there is NO evidence to support the notion that the marcher does not, or did not intend to pay. We do not know, one way or the other from the email. All we know, from reports, was that there was surprise that further monies were due CC on the part of the parents for last Winter's, Sping, Summer's DCI participation with CC. They just got the Bill for last year. So yes, I would take serious issue with the conclusion there was any intent on the part of the bill recipients to get away with anything by " skipping out, and hoped they would not get caught ". Edited February 5, 2017 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiga Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 I ask this with absolute respect to corpsband, Garfield, and anyone else...and it is something I joked about a few pages back: Suppose the fictitious Boston Crown Cadets Corps decided to take its $3500 fee, increase that fee by another $3500, but then give each member a "scholarship" back of $3500 with the condition of those members never marching elsewhere or they would owe the scholarship back? Guys, seriously if you follow this idea to its possible conclusion, would that not have the effect of forcing kids to march with one corps for their entire eligibility? I know the example seems absurd, but the methodology is the exact same. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 1 minute ago, DrumManTx said: Again that's not the part I think that people are having an issue with. If I just randomly saw this and saw the part where it said "scholarship revoked" I'd think hey that sounds kind of wrong. Not the top half of the email where it said their dues are not fully paid from the previous season. But I digress. I can at least see where people might get kind of a bad vibe from it. Well it is the part they are having a problem with. The face value of "scholarship revoked" sounds bad. And don't hold Crown blameless for choosing the wrong terms. But what matters here is what actually took place between the FMM and Crown. What was the actual transaction? And what were the terms? If some alum created a fund for $1000/year scholarship to be disbursed to a MM, it would be entirely wrong to "revoke" that scholarship and make the MM repay. Because -- from Crown's POV -- they got paid for the members tuition. Heck even if Crown established a separate fund that paid dues on behalf of member, the situation would remain the same. But what happened here was different: Crown received no monies to pay for the tuition. Instead some portion of that tuition was forgiven (with terms). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, garfield said: There's a whole lotta speculation goin' on in this post. Just relating what my understanding of the facts to be. Could I be misinformed? Maybe. But I don't think so. I'll make an addendum -- the part about why Crown chose to use the educational terms is speculation on my part. I merely observe that they adopted educational slang throughout their drum corps. In fact a lot of corps now call their dues "tuition" and their MM's "students". Edited February 5, 2017 by corpsband Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, craiga said: I ask this with absolute respect to corpsband, Garfield, and anyone else...and it is something I joked about a few pages back: Suppose the fictitious Boston Crown Cadets Corps decided to take its $3500 fee, increase that fee by another $3500, but then give each member a "scholarship" back of $3500 with the condition of those members never marching elsewhere or they would owe the scholarship back? Guys, seriously if you follow this idea to its possible conclusion, would that not have the effect of forcing kids to march with one corps for their entire eligibility? I know the example seems absurd, but the methodology is the exact same. sure you can follow it down the rabbit hole that far. but perhaps the members might raise an eyebrow if they all had to sign such a document. and the fact that other corps have these sorts of arrangements without going down that rabbit hole suggests to me that it's not a very likely scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 2 hours ago, corpsband said: How so? Were funds flowing to the corps on behalf of a student? Because THAT would constitute a scholarship. If a corps simply agrees "hey we're not going to ask you to pay all that you owe so long as you continue to march" that would simply be forgiving a debt. I really can't stand the fact that they would have the gall to REVOKE a "scholarship" A SCHOLARSHIP....Call it for what it is then and I'd be fine with it...I could understand it if the kid didn't complete the season for 2016 and just left or some other similar reason...Revoking it in 2017 for 2016 is where I just don't agree. "hey we're not going to ask you to pay all that you owe so long as you continue to march" If this were the case then if this kid marched in 2017 for Crown...would they actually revoke a scholarship from a previous year...I think NOT...I'd go further to say that they may even let them march with their other current outstanding debt as well...it is quite clear to me anyway why they did what they did...and I think it is simply being petty... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 3 hours ago, corpsband said: Anyway I think the use of "scholarship" is misleading (and yeah I know Crown uses it too -- they call their staff faculty as well -- whatever). Instead think of debt forgiveness. They have called it a SCHOLARSHIP....by their OWN admission...and it IS absolutely misleading!!!! That the part I am in agreement....the misleading nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 2 hours ago, xandandl said: This thread is probably causing the first Massilon show on June 24 to be a sell out for the Bluecoats. In 139 days, it will be the first time Crown and BAC take it to the same field . I guess for some, it could only be better if it were Hanover, PA 1980. PERFORMING CORPS Listed in alphabetical order. Bluecoats - Canton, OHBoston Crusaders - Boston, MAThe Cadets - Allentown, PACarolina Crown - Ft. Mill, SCTroopers - Casper, WY IRRELEVANT TO DISUSSION Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts