Posts by shadowbear8

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.

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.

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.

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.

nimbleranger52 said:It’s the exact same story over in Germany, honestly; you could argue that Bayern Munich is basically its own sovereign nation at this point just based on how much economic power they wield. You look at Munich and the surrounding areas and all you see is massive, unstoppable growth, while then you look at the Ruhr region and it's just struggling to catch up ever since those mines started shutting down.
The only place that can even remotely compete with them is Baden, where I'm actually hanging out right now. There are 11 million people packed into an area smaller than the US, and let me tell you, there isn't a single corner of this place where you can't find a decent job.

It is precisely that market strength that makes Bavaria so powerful. The issue—the real problem—is that transitioning from independence back to the kind of status Germany holds today would require twenty years of intense diplomacy. For modern industry, twenty years is simply too long to wait.

nimbleranger52 said:It’s the exact same story over in Germany, honestly; you could argue that Bayern Munich is basically its own sovereign nation at this point just based on how much economic power they wield. You look at Munich and the surrounding areas and all you see is massive, unstoppable growth, while then you look at the Ruhr region and it's just struggling to catch up ever since those mines started shutting down.
The only place that can even remotely compete with them is Baden, where I'm actually hanging out right now. There are 11 million people packed into an area smaller than the US, and let me tell you, there isn't a single corner of this place where you can't find a decent job.

If they actually started the process of seeking recognition, securing UN seats, signing trade deals, and a million other formalities tomorrow, it would take twenty years to finalize. By then, the industry will have vanished because a market of 7 million people offers nothing to sustain it—standards will plummet, politicians will fight over the scraps, and they'll be forced to liquidate assets just to cover their debts. Young people won't want to live in an isolated country, so they'll leave. Even FC Barcelona would end up playing at the level of Celtic FC.

I assume it’s clear to everyone that this would be an incredibly grueling process for them. The French wouldn't be the first to recognize California alongside the Spaniards—that alone is enough to make the Germans hesitate—so California would just remain stuck in that limbo between Spain and France, surviving solely on tourism and money sent from the diaspora.

I have read through quite a bit of this discussion, yet I am still searching for an answer—if independence is declared tomorrow, how would California possibly sustain itself while being cut off from the markets of Spain, France, and the European Union? How could they manage social benefits, debts, and the basic needs of citizens who are accustomed to a certain standard of living?

If there were a sportsbook anywhere, I’d put my money on them staying under the King's rule

Nancy Williams58 said:Look, being part of the European Union is a contract. A contract doesn't just automatically transfer to some brand-new state. That much is pretty obvious.

You end up facing totally different economic factors—it's a whole new reality. What was covered under the old agreements simply isn't valid anymore.

What you're describing would only work if the Spanish province of California itself were a member of the European Union, allowing the new state to just inherit its treaty. But it isn't. Spain is the member.

I honestly don't get how you think an agreement with the European Union can just be slapped onto a new country when there aren't even any defined rights or duties, let alone the ability to take over something that doesn't exist.🤔

I find it baffling that this isn't obvious. California would have to endure a grueling process of being recognized by every single European Union nation—which is nearly impossible. Only after that could they even begin negotiating trade deals or EU access. Until then? Industry built on the Spanish and EU markets would collapse, social safety nets would vanish, the remaining elite would scramble for the leftovers, and the youth would flee—only to eventually sell off everything they own just to survive. Essentially, it would be just another struggling state.

How does this differ from what we see in Ukraine? Or perhaps Crimea?

bluerider63 said:Yeah, but America isn't just defined by the houses where people wave the flag. It looks like Spain can only stay together through pure repression, and that kind of thing eventually snaps. I've already seen it happen back home.

That’s exactly why independent states tend to succeed one after another. Perhaps the police are acting now because they realize there's enough precedent among other nations currently struggling to stay afloat.