Liahona Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Bruckner8 said: As long as the donor is kept in the loop, I'm down, cuz the donor created the condition NOT THE CORPS. (This not a subtle thing, but it's being glossed over.) technically the donor should get that money back! I guess so..to each his/her own...but whenever I've donated $$$ towards a members fees I've NEVER put conditions on the donation...matter of fact most of the time I haven't even known the kid I've donated money for their tour...sometimes they just ask me via email and I say sure and best of luck...I feel blessed that I was able to help the kids out...that was my reward...I could never see having any alternative motive than that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Dixon Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Liahona said: and you have every right to just ignore it then... fair enough. I guess I will. I always find it interesting how the DCI fan base gets so excited when a corps becomes more successful and then literally picks them apart and eats them alive after a few short years of beoming successful Crown's rise is impressive and they've been stable in the top pack most seasons Star was cheered, then jeered. Cadets/BD etc get such scrutiny and at times vitrole it's the oddest activity - at times it's own worst enemy - folks love to hate what they love... it's also interesting how much of the scorn (in this thread) about the Crown contractual approach comes from folks living in NE (save one who has NE in their screen name) and it's pretty obvious to most of us 3rd party folks that there's some defensiveness from the Boston contingent here there's a lot at play here in this "discussion" which I still stay is circular, non-productive and frankly - more than a little silly I will ignore it going forward, as you suggest. Carry on! Edited February 5, 2017 by George Dixon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 14 minutes ago, George Dixon said: fair enough. I guess I will. I always find it interesting how the DCI fan base gets so excited when a corps becomes more successful and then literally picks them apart and eats them alive after a few short years of beoming successful Crown's rise is impressive and they've been stable in the top pack most seasons Star was cheered, then jeered. Cadets/BD etc get such scrutiny and at times vitrole I think when you don't have accountability— it's a recipe for disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabMaster Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 29 minutes ago, Liahona said: I guess so..to each his/her own...but whenever I've donated $$$ towards a members fees I've NEVER put conditions on the donation...matter of fact most of the time I haven't even known the kid I've donated money for their tour...sometimes they just ask me via email and I say sure and best of luck...I feel blessed that I was able to help the kids out...that was my reward...I could never see having any alternative motive than that... Isn't it the true spirit of a donation? To donate, not for self indulgent accolades, but to help. It is disingenuous to me to make a donation with a stipulation saying here you go kid, but you owe me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabMaster Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 I just read an article in today's paper, that the NCAA has to payback to athletes, monies owed to the athlete tied to their offered scholarships. More specifically according to the article, the NCAA and 11 conferences have agreed to pay $208.7 million to former college athletes to settle an anti-trust suit, over the value of their scholarships. This is directed at Cost-of -living stipends. I don't know how this might apply to DC scholarships, but it opens the door to questioning, what components of a scholarship, were favoring the MM? Or are the scholarships one way? A hypothetical: Is the receiving MM, a high quality MM, a soloist maybe, whose performance added to an increased score (GE perhaps), resulting in a higher placement for the corps, than what may have been achieved? IMO, the intent of the scholarship, to incentivize the MM to march with that now more successful corps, has been satisfied. Quid Pro Quo. That is of course, and I have been saying this all along, if the language of the contract and scholarship are written as a single year stipulation: which we do not know with any certainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabMaster Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 36 minutes ago, George Dixon said: fair enough. I guess I will. I always find it interesting how the DCI fan base gets so excited when a corps becomes more successful and then literally picks them apart and eats them alive after a few short years of beoming successful Crown's rise is impressive and they've been stable in the top pack most seasons Star was cheered, then jeered. Cadets/BD etc get such scrutiny and at times vitrole it's the oddest activity - at times it's own worst enemy - folks love to hate what they love... it's also interesting how much of the scorn (in this thread) about the Crown contractual approach comes from folks living in NE (save one who has NE in their screen name) and it's pretty obvious to most of us 3rd party folks that there's some defensiveness from the Boston contingent here there's a lot at play here in this "discussion" which I still stay is circular, non-productive and frankly - more than a little silly I will ignore it going forward, as you suggest. Carry on! I agree with this completely, and I think we can extend that to most any successful endeavor in any number of activities: We see this in many many places; It seems we love an organization or a team or athlete who wins once, maybe twice, or is seeing some level of success. But when they gain some success or stay successful we want to now them down. Sadly it is human nature. It is also getting to the point where when an organization, team or athlete (or whomever) is on the way up, they are scrutinized and disparaged in some instances, to inhibit their path to success. Rather than working hard to be better or stay better than a successful or rising org, team or person, we now knock them down. To me that shows to be a mix of elitism, exclusionism and insecurity more than anything else. I remember being in a critique and judges saying in early season critiques, to se a norm for discussion, that they were not interested in hearing what other corps were doing wrong, but what we were trying to do right. "Build your building up, don't knock other buildings down". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabMaster Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 It is Super Bowl Sunday. I am putting the rest of the day on hold. Go Pat's. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Slingerland said: The IRS considers donations to a general scholarship fund to be deductible as long as it's shown that the class of those eligible to receive those scholarships is broad (and not pre-selected). A member sponsorship, where a specific individual benefits from the support, would be considered a personal gift, rather than a donation to the charity. It's the same difference as between donating to a local food pantry (which is deductible, as long as they're a recognized 501(c)(3)) and buying a specific homeless person a cheeseburger (not deductible). The end results might be similar, but the mechanics are different. Thanks, I know this and appreciate the several clarifications I've gotten. My wording in my post we meant to force the poster to be specific and there's no way to be so since we don't know what the contract states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 44 minutes ago, LabMaster said: Isn't it the true spirit of a donation? To donate, not for self indulgent accolades, but to help. It is disingenuous to me to make a donation with a stipulation saying here you go kid, but you owe me. Laudable, I'm certain. To each his own. If my loyalty is to the corps and not, necessarily, a particular kid then my first priority is the health of the corps. That might include desiring to stimulate longevity of its members. Placing a restriction requiring loyalty to the corps by the recipient is perfectly appropriate. The ED has the choice to accept the gift or not based on his ability to find a recipient willing to commit to multiple year's of loyalty to the corps. Disingenuous? What right do we have to call a loyal corps supporter any names at all? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, George Dixon said: it's pretty obvious to most of us 3rd party folks that there's some defensiveness from the Boston contingent here Who the heck is " most " ? As for the charge of " defensiveness ", there can be a legitimate retort that there is an unprecedented " offensive " minded agressiveness on a couple of G7 Corps on the Boston Crusaders here, a 12th place Corps last season. Since you as a Cadets fan have chimed in here on your thoughts, lets keep in mind that George Hopkins of the Cadets made the unusual public offering in December that any auditioneer that tried out for Boston ( and other Corps ? )and wanted to try out for Cadets as well would receive a 50% reduction in tryout fees from the Cadets. " WE ", the non G7 Corps advocates do not recall GH making a similiar 50% discount offer to Boston's auditioneers at any previous year in the past. So it seems pretty clear to " most " unbiased observers anyway that there are some pretty unusual, and unprecedented hardball tactics that seems to be playing out with 2 management teams of 2 G7 Corps. Also, when its mentioned that both Cadets and Crown are boycotting the Boston show this summer, the " defensiveness " about this is coming from the CadetsLand, and CrownLand not from anywhere else. For context, insofar as Cadets are concerned, marchers and staff for DECADES have easily gone from Boston to Cadets without such aggressive tactics by Boston mgt, on the Cadets mgt, its former BAC marchers or BAC's former staff. Boston has never boycotted ANY current DCI Corps show, thats its routinely been participants with, in the past. I think " most " would agree. That said, all 3 Corps will get beyond this in short order, move on, and be just fine, despite the heavy handedness of all this on the part of both the Cadets and Crown. The kids in all 3 Corps are probably all just shrugging their shoulders, raising their eyebrows, and just yawning and/ or chuckling regarding what just a couple of adults seem to be doing here in a couple (just two in all of DCI) Corps regarding their current dealings with the Boston Crusaders Corps at the moment. Shedding a spotlight on the matter might prove to force behaviors on the part of just a couple of Corps Mgt to come back to the rest of the DCI Corps pack in terms of fair play, collegiality, mutual respect with another DCI Corps. Thats my optimistic hope moving forward anyway. But only time will tell us, I suppose. Edited February 5, 2017 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts