corpsband Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 8 hours ago, garfield said: ...and, by allowing the terms of the agreement to go unfulfilled has both pi$$ed off a substantial donor and failed in their fiduciary responsibility to treat his contribution accurately under the terms it was given. How anxious do you think the donor will be to make another contribution? i suggest you examine the crown's 990's again. i think they'd LOVE to be in a position to have a scholarship fund. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 3 hours ago, George Dixon said: 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. Not sure how to read that comment, so I should perhaps note that I'm in the "the members should have read the contract" camp in this discussion (presuming the contract isn't misleadingly written) and that while I do have Boston listed as one of my two sentimental favorite corps on my profile, the NE actually should be read as "any". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 5 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! This is absolutely correct. If a donor gives money to a non-profit, either with the stipulation that it be used to pay for a particular activity, or that it is meant for a particular season, then the accountants consider that money to be "temporarily restricted", either for "purpose" or for "time". In the former case, it doesn't become "unrestricted" until the organization undertakes the requested activity, and if the organization does not do so, the donor should be repaid. (There are also "permanently restricted" gifts, e.g., for an endowment.) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, LabMaster said: . "Build your building up, don't knock other buildings down". Wise advice. Crown and Cadets will begin their rebuild, and I have full confidence in their abilities to rebound and perhaps rebound much quicker than some people might be thinking. These are Championships winning Corps that still have a lot to offer prospective students, and I am looking forward to what potentially great things they'll have in store for us Drum Corps fans from coast to coast this summer with their respective shows. Edited February 5, 2017 by BRASSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Finally we're getting some understanding behind all of this debate we have going right now. Let's just call it what it is. Boston makes a move on staff from Cadets and Crown. Both these corps do not take this well from what I'm hearing from my sources (and don't we all have some of those) lol! This event with the members comes up. BC people get upset. The DCP Crown and Gahfield contingent come to the defense of Crown. I know not all but after being on DCP for a long time now we all know each other's allegencies. A lot of the older generation come on too commenting about honoring contracts, read before you sign and it's all about learning that "life" lesson. Lots of assumptions thrown all around. Everyone debating, citing sources, and law just to prove they are right. DCP is never short of ego. DCI stays quiet as usual and yet all this effort on here that could be used to make DCI stronger and prepared for the future will more than likely go away. I will email DCI on Monday to recommend discussions in regards to this matter take place in the future. That's all this one FMM and now fan can do. The East cost rivalry is coming back alive. Idk what to think about that but it could be good for the activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, Whiskey said: The East cost rivalry is coming back alive. Idk what to think about that but it could be good for the activity. I think the East Coast needed another Corps to potentially challenge the competitive hedgemony of both Cadets, Crown. I'm not saying that'll happen neccessarily as early as this season, but you never know. If nothing else, I'm getting psyched for the upcoming season... and beyond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 14 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said: Not sure how to read that comment, so I should perhaps note that I'm in the "the members should have read the contract" camp in this discussion (presuming the contract isn't misleadingly written) and that while I do have Boston listed as one of my two sentimental favorite corps on my profile, the NE actually should be read as "any". However, given that, as of today, we apparently live in a time when murdering people just because they disagree with you is OK (I have it on the highest authority), for my own safety, I should perhaps say that on this issue, I don't care very much either way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 17 minutes ago, BRASSO said: I think the East Coast needed another Corps to potentially challenge the competitive hedgemony of both Cadets, Crown. I'm not saying that'll happen neccessarily as early as this season, but you never know. If nothing else, I'm getting psyched for the upcoming season... and beyond. More strong corps would definitely be a good thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Whiskey said: Finally we're getting some understanding behind all of this debate we have going right now. Let's just call it what it is. Boston makes a move on staff from Cadets and Crown. Both these corps do not take this well from what I'm hearing from my sources (and don't we all have some of those) lol! This event with the members comes up. BC people get upset. The DCP Crown and Gahfield contingent come to the defense of Crown. I know not all but after being on DCP for a long time now we all know each other's allegencies. A lot of the older generation come on too commenting about honoring contracts, read before you sign and it's all about learning that "life" lesson. Lots of assumptions thrown all around. Everyone debating, citing sources, and law just to prove they are right. DCP is never short of ego. DCI stays quiet as usual and yet all this effort on here that could be used to make DCI stronger and prepared for the future will more than likely go away. I will email DCI on Monday to recommend discussions in regards to this matter take place in the future. That's all this one FMM and now fan can do. The East cost rivalry is coming back alive. Idk what to think about that but it could be good for the activity. You're naive if you think DCI is not already well aware of all aspects of this situation. Edited February 5, 2017 by corpsband Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleran Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 3 hours ago, LabMaster said: 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. And that was one of the areas of law I was referring to (anti-trust) which makes me believe that a court would throw out any clause (clearly or ambiguously written) which demanded a pay-back of the scholarship for one year based upon the choice of marching in future years. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts