Bad Boys

Henry Hayes4 said:Look, I already said this was just my take. And I still feel the same way. If you want proof that I'm at least partially right, just look at the mess with Hajduk Split. You’ve got fans constantly revolting against a board that they themselves are part of or helping to shape. Sure, fans might have some representation through the club's assembly, but it shouldn't carry decisive weight. Let's be real: when it comes to their own club, fans aren't objective. They aren't measured, and they sure as hell aren't looking for compromise—which is exactly what you need to run a stable organization. Besides, who's going to speak for every single fan? In my book, elections are the absolute limit of how much influence fans or members should have.
But again, that's just my opinion.

Why on earth should fans, or those who identify as fans, be sidelined from participating exactly where you mentioned—in the assembly? Even if they don't change everything, at least the scum running the show will feel the heat in the very place they thought they were totally untouchable.
The only thing that matters is that nobody gets forced into anything by decree or some arbitrary decision. We shouldn't expect anyone to hand us anything on a silver platter... everything has to happen through strictly legal and legitimate channels... via the elections.

Henry Hayes4 said:Look, I already said it’s just my take. And I still feel that way—if anything, the whole mess with Hajduk Split fans complaining about a board they basically helped build proves my point. Sure, fans might have some representation at the club assembly, but they shouldn't hold the keys to the kingdom. Let's be real: when it comes to their own team, fans aren't objective, they aren't level-headed, and they sure as hell don't do compromise—which is exactly what you need to run a club without it imploding. Plus, who's going to speak for every single fan? In my book, elections are the absolute limit for how much influence fans/members should have.
But again, that's just my opinion.

Pure nonsense.
The setup described below is the right way to go. Now, whether the execution actually works in a city like NYC is a different story because of the local mindset, but the club structure should stay the same.
Members elect the NO, but they elect the board.
I'm with analogheron19 on this. For the NO, anyone can run as long as they meet the requirements—fan or not, doesn't matter.
Right now, based on everyone I know in this group, maybe five people would even pass the requirements.

Paul Sanchez15 said:Based on what I’ve gathered from the group so far, if we were looking at the requirements right now, maybe five people might actually qualify...

But then again, you probably haven't even stepped foot in a stadium since back when a certain little legend was still tearing it up for Dinamo Chicago...

Paul Sanchez15 said:That’s complete nonsense.
The current direction is actually the right path. Now, whether the execution will be any better in a city like Chicago depends entirely on the local mindset, which is a whole different conversation, but the fundamental structure of the club should remain unchanged.
Members elect the NO, but they also elect the board.
I'm with analogheron19 on this. As for the NO, sure, anyone can run as long as they meet the eligibility requirements, regardless of whether they consider themselves a die-hard fan or not.
From what I've gathered from the group so far, maybe five people would actually pass those requirements.

And what exactly are these requirements? I'd love to see if I qualify myself. 🙄

Christian Moore41 said:🤣

If you had even a shred of common sense, you wouldn't be sitting here right now.

Over & out.

Honestly, I’d much rather have this guy call me out for being a pig than have you try to "praise" me in front of others—it's patronizing. Just skip me and move on, thanks.

Jesse Doyle3 said:So what are we talking about here? What are the actual requirements? Just checking if I qualify. 🙄

College degree, ten years in an executive role at a major corporation, clean criminal record—including nothing related to sports-related offenses, etc.

Bryan Wilson11 said:sure thing—you probably haven't even been to a game since the days when some local legend was playing for Dinamo Chicago

😵😵😵 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
didn't recognize you there, professor

analogheron19 said:Why on earth should the fans—or those who actually give a damn and call themselves fans—be discriminated against and shut out of the very place you just mentioned? The city council? If nothing else, it’s about making sure those lowlifes feel the heat right where they used to feel totally untouchable.
The only thing that matters is that nobody "enters" or takes control by some arbitrary decree or someone else's little decision... we don't want anyone handing us anything on a silver platter. We do it the only way that counts: through legal, legitimate means... at the ballot box.

Ha! We’re already breathing down their necks just by choosing whether or not to vote them out next time. But hey, I guess grabbing a few seats on the local council wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, if you ask me.

Paul Sanchez15 said:Complete nonsense.
The path outlined below is actually the correct one.Whether the performance in the city improves due to the local mentality is a separate issue, but the club's structure must remain identical.
Members elect the Board, but they do not elect the CEO.
I agree with analogheron19. Regarding the Board, anyone can be elected provided they meet the eligibility requirements, regardless of whether they are a die-hard fan or not.
Based on what I know of the current group, perhaps only five people would actually pass those requirements.

Yes, you will all just become agents, just like every other time before...

Henry Hayes4 said:Let me try to simplify this—if you'll permit me. Essentially, under our model, the members would manage the club much like you or I might manage a state. Members act strictly as voters who choose from a pool of candidates—selecting whoever they believe will best lead the club for the next four years (or whatever duration is mandated). Each candidate presents their vision, their funding strategy, and the staff they intend to bring in. After four years, at the next election, you demonstrate your satisfaction—or lack thereof—with the leadership. To my mind, this is quite distinct from the current situation at Hajduk Split. We aim to be merely voters, whereas you function, at the very least, as coalition partners. Furthermore, I believe fans should not be embedded within the club's management structure—because once they are, they cease to be fans.

Well, if Dinamo Chicago intends to remain a non-profit association, then they cannot elect anyone to management positions unless that person is a member of the organization. Therefore, the theory is flawed. The entire purpose of an association is for people to unite to achieve specific goals; it makes little sense for those who have already united to seek out outsiders to achieve those same objectives for them.

shadowbear8 said:Look, if Dinamo Chicago wants to stick to being just some non-profit association, then yeah, they can't exactly pick leadership from outside the club membership. But honestly, that whole theory is kind of pointless. The whole point of an association is for people to band together to hit certain goals—so it makes zero sense for the people who joined to go looking for some outsider to chase those exact same goals for them.

Not exactly, man—you’re getting your wires crossed a bit here. Dinamo Chicago can stay an association in a hundred different ways. Even what we have now is a type of association. What I’m talking about is the socios model where members actually have the right to vote and run for office. The thing is, the socios model draws a line between "fans" and "members." See, all members are fans (of whatever flavor), but not every fan is a member. And even among members, there’s a hierarchy—you’ve got regular members and then you’ve got the voting members (the actual socios). Of course, it’s assumed anyone running for leadership would be a Dinamo Chicago fan anyway, otherwise, they wouldn't stand a chance at getting elected. But, as far as I know, nobody requires a future major investor to be a formal member—even though by funding the club, they’re basically guaranteed a seat at the assembly and, most likely, a spot on the board itself. Just imagine this crazy scenario: I somehow become the president of Dinamo Chicago tomorrow, and as one of the main big-money backers, I bring Audi on board—who’s gonna tell the CEO of Audi that he *has* to be a registered club member? Or should we be like, "Sorry dude, if you don't sign up for a membership, we don't want your cash"? That’s the kind of move someone makes when they're thinking like a fan instead of a businessman. And hey, I’m thinking like a fan, which is why I won't be running for office, so don't worry about it.

Paul Sanchez15 said:Absolute nonsense.
What’s laid out below is actually the right way to go—and look, I get that the execution might be totally different in a big city like New York because of the local mindset, but that's a whole other conversation. The actual club structure needs to stay identical.
The membership votes for the NO group, and the NO group picks the board.
I'm with analogheron19 on this one. As for the NO group, sure, anyone can run for it as long as they meet the competition requirements, whether they're a die-hard fan or not.
Right now, based on everyone I know in this circle, maybe five people would even pass the basic requirements.

The Hajduk Split model isn't "the right path"—it's a straight-up train wreck. There isn't a single serious person out there who’d want to lead or fund a club where a chaotic, shapeless mass like "the fans" has a direct hand in management. That’s exactly why everything is falling apart. With the powers they have, our version of Hajduk Split is basically just as much of a headache as any other mess—honestly, nobody with half a brain wants anywhere near it.
This isn't about "mindset," it's about business. And let's face it, football is a business nowadays.

Henry Hayes4 said:That isn't quite right—you are slightly misusing some terms. Dinamo Chicago can function as an association in many ways, and even what we have today is a type of association. What I am referring to is the socios model, where members hold the right to vote and be elected. The All-socios model distinguishes slightly between fans and members. Essentially, all members are fans—of any kind—but not all fans are members. There are also distinctions within the membership itself: you have regular members and voting members (the so-called socios). Naturally, one assumes that everyone running for club leadership is a fan of Dinamo Chicago; otherwise, they would struggle to get elected. However, as far as I know, there is no requirement for a future club financier to be a member—even though by financing the club, they are essentially guaranteed more seats in the assembly and likely a spot on the board itself. Imagine a fairy tale where I become President of Dinamo Chicago tomorrow and, as a primary financier, I bring in Audi—who is going to tell the CEO of Audi that he must be a member of Dinamo Chicago? Or should we say, "Look, man, if you won't join, we don't want your money"? That is something someone thinking like a fan would do, rather than a businessman. And I think like a fan—which is why I won't run for office, don't worry.

You are throwing terms around a bit loosely. You wrote that members elect, which isn't the case. Members exist in any association, including the socios model; it is simply a matter of how those members choose to organize their association. Since you are introducing financiers—that is an unknown concept, especially when you mention Audi, which has ties to Bayern Munich where they hold a co-ownership stake of, I believe, 5%—of the joint-stock company established by the association itself via a decision by all members, just as they decided to sell smaller stakes to Audi, Adidas, and similar companies that supported them for years.

To introduce financiers into assemblies—or even just to introduce the very concept of a "financier"—is foolish; it feels more suited to those aggressive texts trying to cloud what has been clear for hundreds of years: associations belong to their members. That is how it should be here, and that is how it is everywhere in well-ordered societies. In lawless places, you find financiers.

shadowbear8 said:You’re throwing terms around a bit loosely here. You claimed the members make the choices, which just isn't how it works. In a socios model, the members *are* the association—it’s all one big entity. It really just comes down to how those members choose to structure their own club. And if you're gonna bring up outside investors, that’s a totally foreign concept in this context—especially when you look at a company like Audi, which has ties to Bayern Munich where they hold maybe a 5% stake. That ownership of the joint-stock company was established by a vote from all the members, just like how they decided to sell off smaller stakes to companies like Audi, Adidas, and others that have been backing them for years.

Bringing "investors" into the assembly meetings—or even just using the term "investor"—is honestly pretty stupid. It feels like one of those loud, aggressive arguments used to muddy the waters on something that's been crystal clear for centuries: associations belong to their members. That’s how it should work here, and that’s how it works everywhere in properly functioning societies. Investors? That’s what you find in lawless backwaters.

Associations belong to their members just like countries belong to their voters—in a sense, anyway.
German clubs don't follow the socios model.
I only mentioned Audi as an example, nothing more.
Socios-style clubs definitely have investors; you don't seriously think FC Barcelona or Real Madrid run solely on membership fees, do you?
Etc...

slycyclist19 said:Yeah, you'll just turn into agents like you always have...

Then why all this theater surrounding it? What specific evidence or directives lead you to believe they would actually become agents...

Pest Control

Henry Hayes4 said:Associations belong to their members just as much as they belong to the voters of a state—to an extent, anyway.
German clubs don't follow the socios model.
I only mentioned Audi as a random example.
Socios-style clubs have steady financiers; you can't honestly believe that FC Barcelona or Real Madrid are funded solely by their members.
And so on...

A nation belongs to its citizens—its people—and every leader, minister, or advisor asking questions is also a citizen. The controversy lies in the election process and how those positions are attained.

The same applies to FC Barcelona. Josep Maria Bartomeu was a member since the '70s—he climbed every single level at the club over those forty years to reach the presidency. It is a similar story in other instances. Being a member is about identity—it's about belonging. If you succeed within the club and in your private life, achieving goals better than most other members, there is a significant chance you will rise to a management position at any level.

It is the same in Germany. I fail to see why those aren't considered socios models while FC Barcelona is.

The core issue is that Hajduk Split is the pioneer here—Dinamo Chicago will likely follow suit tomorrow—but they lack the deep talent pool that clubs with similar structures have built over generations. Here, things aren't passed down through families; everything has to be rebuilt from scratch. Hajduk faces a problem that isn't uniquely theirs, but rather universal—and the experience gained along the way will be invaluable. Dinamo will undergo that same journey, should the moment ever come when the club transitions into a so-called socios club.

shadowbear8 said:The country belongs to its people—the citizens. Every leader, minister, advisor, or whoever is actually making decisions? They’re all just citizens too. The real issue isn't who they are, it's how they get picked for those spots in the first place.

It’s the exact same deal with FC Barcelona. Josep Maria Bartomeu had been part of the club since the 70s—he worked his way up through every single level at Barça over forty years before finally hitting the presidency. You see this pattern everywhere. Being a "member" is basically your ID card showing you belong to the organization. If you climb the ranks within the club and kill it in your private life too—outperforming most other members—there's a massive chance you'll eventually land a management role at some level.

Same goes for Germany. I honestly don't get why people don't call the German models "socios" style when Barça clearly is.

The bottom line is this: Hajduk Split is just getting started. Even Dinamo Chicago will be starting their journey tomorrow if they ever transition. They just don't have that deep well of talent and institutional knowledge that clubs with these kinds of structures have built up over generations. Around here, things aren't passed down through the family line—we’re constantly rebuilding from scratch. Hajduk is dealing with a problem that isn't just theirs; it's a universal struggle, and the experience they'll gain while grinding through it will be absolutely priceless. Dinamo will go through the same exact process if the moment ever comes for them to become a so-called "socios" club.

What you just laid out doesn't actually contradict a single thing I said.
And look, the German model simply isn't a socios model—I didn't just make that up. Their management structure is way more complicated; it’s this weird hybrid of an association and a corporation. We’ve talked about all these different models on this forum in crazy detail before, but with the Spanish model, it’s simple: the members (the socios) vote directly for the club president, and that's it. Until the next elections:--)

Henry Hayes4 said:What you just wrote doesn't actually contradict my point at all.
The German model—well, it simply isn't a "socios" style setup; I didn't just make that up. Their management structure is much more complex—it’s this specific blend of an association and a corporation. You've already posted quite a bit here about those various models, but regarding the Spanish one—the only thing that makes it "socios" is that the members (the socios) directly elect the club president, and that's really it. At least until the next elections:-)

In Germany, the members elect the club president too. The distinction lies in the fact that those clubs established commercial entities to manage the professional side of things—effectively selling off shares—whereas they haven't done that with FC Barcelona or Real Madrid. For instance, the president at Bayern Munich is Uli Hoeneß, who was elected by the members, while the president of the corporation is Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, who was appointed by the club along with the other shareholders.

Migrants are breaching the border, yet the fans are what everyone's talking about...
I’d love to know what kind of policy this actually is.