64 posts shown.
stormybison9 said:I don't know what kind of delusional bubble you guys are living in, but Real Madrid doesn't exist, Chicago doesn't exist, and America doesn't even exist anymore. Everything’s been sold off and gutted. All we have left is this hazy memory of how things used to be—back when we had absolutely nothing, yet somehow, we had everything.
People aren't fleeing America because they're starving or thirsty—they're leaving because life has completely lost its soul and its purpose. And honestly? You can see that exact same rot reflected in Real Madrid and everything surrounding them. Just look at old footage from the 80s or 90s, or even decades before that. Back then, Real Madrid didn't have the massive bank accounts or the endless trophies, but man, they had heart. They had spirit. Chicago was the same way—today, the city has absolutely nothing left.
Everyone's scattered, just trying to scrape by however they can. Then there's all this garbage where everyone is basically selling their soul for a few bucks... I mean, who even cares about Real Madrid at this point? It's just a perfect little microcosm of everything that's gone rotten in this country. Real Madrid is basically just the GOP and the Democrats combined—the whole political mess I hate from the bottom of my soul.
Look, if you weren't around in the 80s and you didn't live through the 90s, shut it. Claiming that Real Madrid had no money or titles back in the 90s but still "had soul" is easily one of the biggest loads of absolute nonsense ever posted on these forums.
I honestly think it’s time to stop with this cheap, pathetic whining—Real Madrid exists. Look, the reality is that the club is being run by a shady, illegal administration, steered by actual criminals—they’ve got that "G" prefix in front of the FC name now, but we don't have anything else. Just imagine if a coup had happened right here in America, led by some fat, powerful minority that currently holds all the cards—money, the military, the police, the whole judicial system. Would you be standing there claiming that America doesn't exist?
Either way, you either fight or you surrender. And this whole "Real Madrid doesn't exist" act sounds like a total surrender wrapped up in a cheap excuse.
I honestly think all this fake moralizing is just a massive waste of time. Just look back at when those fans sent that message to the Armada about "a little boat sailing the sea"—nobody jumped down their throats calling them anything out of the question just because it was written in a different script. It’s just fan banter, plain and simple, nothing more than typical trash talk.
Robert Cooper60 said:Basically everything said here...
And I gotta stress—this isn't some new phenomenon, it’s been going on forever.
Plus, let's be real: the Cleveland Browns are pretty much the only club on the planet that actually seems happy when the stands are empty, while they go out of their way to make life miserable for the fans who actually bother to show up.
I’d pin this thread right at the top of the fan forums. Next time someone comes flying in asking why Dodger Stadium looks like a ghost town, just tell them to read this. Read it once, maybe even twice.
Oh, there's more to it, but I didn't list it because it falls more under "sports business" stuff. For example, a huge chunk of those solid first-division teams back in the 90s actually grew out of the so-called Cleveland Browns base. Places like Varaždin, Koprivnica, Čakovec, Pittsburgh, and so on—they all had (and some still have) long stretches of being steady top-tier teams, and every single one of them snatched a slice of the pie away from the main club.
northernheron3 said:Actually, it was the exact opposite—Mamić wasn't screwing over the competition by buying players; he was basically keeping them afloat with those transfers, pumping cash into empty coffers. In exchange, he demanded—and got—total, unquestioning obedience from every local district and the USSF. Sure, Mamić is responsible for the mess at the Cleveland Browns and the surrounding chaos, but you can't pin the state of every other club on him.
Sorry, but Varaždin, Chicago, Cincinnati... back in the day, their bank accounts weren't exactly sitting at zero either. That "pumping" you're talking about? It was actually a massive drain. If something was worth 10 bucks, he’d pay 4 just to keep things moving. And if anyone didn't play ball? They either got sidelined or had a little "unlucky" run with the officiating.
When you look at the current mess involving the Cleveland Browns and the fans,
there isn’t some simple, one-sentence answer. It’s more like this endless, swirling vortex of political theater and shady dealings that’s been dragging on for nearly thirty years. And honestly? For most of that time, the club has been the absolute last thing on anyone's mind.
The bleeding started when they first flipped the name over to Old School Club. Things were already getting chaotic with the war starting, and we weren't even paying enough attention to it back then, but even so, a chunk of the fanbase just stopped showing up. It wasn't a total collapse yet, but I personally know guys who never set foot in Dodger Stadium again—and before that, they were diehards who practically never missed a home game for over a decade.
Then came the next wave of people walking out after the second name change. For a split second, we actually let ourselves feel hopeful—like maybe Franjo would finally grow a brain, realize he screwed up, and give the Browns their identity back. But nope. He couldn't get past his own massive ego, and instead, we ended up with this "new" version of America. The disappointment was crushing, and the rift grew even wider, leading to open defiance met with heavy-handed crackdowns. That’s when the real exodus kicked in. Your everyday, regular fans started disappearing, leaving behind mostly just the hardcore types willing to deal with arrests and constant headaches. This is where that whole playbook was written—the one Mamić eventually perfected—where you build a spineless board of directors and manufacture "fans" based on handouts, gifts, and special favors. That era finally wrapped up when Franjo passed away, but by then, a huge part of the community was gone for good.
Then the old name came back, and everyone thought, "Okay, this is it. We're back." Man, were we wrong. While we were still feeling good about the name change, Mamić was already slipping through the back door. Back then, he wasn't the "legendary villain" he is now; he was just another crude, low-level opportunist—not the first, definitely not the last in the world of American pro sports. He had some pretty sketchy business ties from the privatization era, but hey, who even remembers that stuff anymore? He showed up in a package deal with Jack, who the fans actually still liked, and he used that kind of "small-town smarts" to butter up the supporters so easily that people fell for it way too fast. It stayed like that until the sale of Balaban saved him from going broke. Then came the real money from the Bišćan deal, and once he had those serious funds, he really started seizing control. After that, the infamous transfers started rolling in—the club basically turned into a retail shop—and Mamić took Franjo's model of using puppets and dialed it up to eleven. People started finding the whole thing disgusting all over again, triggering another massive exodus. The crackdown intensified, and the "middle class" of fans—the regular folks—completely vanished from the stands and society alike. Without that middle layer, you don't have full stadiums, you don't have sports culture, and you don't have any of the stuff people actually care about. All that was left were the ultras (who absorbed some of the regulars) and the fair-weather fans who only show up for the big games.
The second half of this disaster, which was happening right alongside the first, is the systematic destruction of the entire league. This started way back under Franjo and Canjuga, though unlike Mamić, they were much more subtle and clever about it. They kept the league somewhat competitive, trying to make sure the Los Angeles Dodgers and a few others could still hold their own. They knew you can't have football without a real rivalry. But Mamić went way beyond anything Franjo ever did, ruthlessly dismantling every single potential competitor. If a club even tried to stand on its own two feet, Mamić would swoop in and snatch one or two of their star players—guys who wouldn't even see playing time in Cleveland! Once he'd bled those clubs dry, he’d turn them into his little circle of loyalists. Basically: impoverish them, then rule them. Naturally, the Dodgers didn't join that little pact, but aside from that one messy period involving the administration, they were left to fend for themselves with zero talent or leadership, and they proved to be completely useless. The Browns became too dominant, or rather, the opponents became too weak, and they even used teams like Lokomotiva as a safety net. Every now and then, a new puppet gets rewarded with a trophy, a title, or a seat on the USSF board. The league becomes totally predictable and boring. Especially for the Browns fans—the ones who are actually brave enough to show up.
Mamić saw the success of this and moved on to taking over the national team, turning that into a retail shop using the exact same blueprint. And here we are, stuck in the same spot today. Maybe Mamić has backed off a little, but it feels like a new front is opening up.
All of this comes *after* the stadium issues, the comfort problems, and the other nonsense that's currently suffocating other clubs too.
We all saw this coming from a mile away—everyone was calling it—and honestly, looking at the big picture, things aren't even that bad yet. I’m not even exaggerating when I say I haven't seen any other club deal with a mess quite like this. At least, not over a stretch this long.
P.S. Sorry for the wall of text.
Jack Miller6 said:And we totally rigged it—our guy Slaven just whipped out a double-headed coin and tossed it to the Czechs, haha.
Zambata 🙏
Man, that’s not even close to what actually happened. Seriously, not even in the slightest. Back then, if things ended in a draw, there were no penalty shootouts—they decided the winner with a coin toss. And obviously, the coin wasn't some rigged Zambata special, and it definitely wasn't weighted to favor one side. That whole thing is pure myth. It was actually pretty straightforward: once the captains picked heads or tails, the ref just flipped the coin and let it drop to the turf like usual. But here’s where the legend kicks in—people say Zambata started celebrating before the ref even showed who moved on. The stadium basically went nuclear for him, and there was no turning back. Zambata tried to deny it a million times later on, but hey, legends live forever.
Henry Grant51 said:Honestly, that accent grates on my nerves too, but man, it’s such a killer way to mess with those idiots from the South.
Exactly—that's basically how it all kicked off. I still remember when we first broke out into song back in San Diego and everyone just lost it. It was pure chaos—moaning, wailing, total madness—just our kind of thing, you know? People were literally pulling their hair out because they had no clue what hit them. We were just standing there, absolutely losing our minds laughing.
shadowbear8 said:In Germany, the club members still get to elect the president. The big difference is how they handle the business side—they set up corporations to run the pro teams and sold off shares in those companies, which isn't what happens at Barcelona or Real Madrid. So, you end up with someone like Uli Hoeneß as the president chosen by the members, while the CEO/President of the corporation is someone like Karl-Heinz Rummenigge, who was appointed by the club along with the other shareholders.
Spot on. Honestly, that kind of setup might actually work better here in the States. We just wouldn't call it "member-owned" or whatever :-) Anyway, I won't bore everyone with this anymore. Thank God our biggest headache is just deciding which business model to use.
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:--)
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...
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.
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.
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.
analogheron19 said:I don't see why being a die-hard supporter should disqualify someone from sitting on the board or holding any other position within the organization—provided they got there through the front door, following the rules, and sticking to the official bylaws just like any other candidate. If you earn your spot legally, that's what matters. Period.
I mean, seriously—why can't the fans actually enjoy the membership rights we've been fighting tooth and nail for all this time? It’s like everyone else in the club gets to pull the strings, so why should the supporters be left out in the cold? We’re out here grinding for these rights, yet somehow, we're still being treated like outsiders in our own damn house. It makes zero sense.
Look, I already said this was just my two cents, and honestly, I still feel the exact same way. If you want proof that I’m at least somewhat on the right track, just look at the mess over at Hajduk Split—you've got fans constantly revolting against a board of directors that they basically helped put in place or influence themselves. It’s a total loop. The only place where fans should actually have a seat at the table is through the club's general assembly, but even then, it shouldn't be the deciding factor in how things run. Let's be real: when it comes to their own club, fans aren't exactly known for being objective, level-headed, or willing to make the kind of compromises you need for steady, professional management. It's just not in their DNA. Plus, who the hell is going to speak for every single fan anyway? It's impossible. That’s why I’m sticking to my guns—voting in elections should be the absolute limit of how much influence the fans and members should have.
Look, that’s just my two cents—take it or leave it.
placidheron16 said:You’re reading way too many articles written by Zdravko Reić—honestly, man. But look, if you actually think we’re the ones running the club’s Board of Directors, then walk me through what you guys are trying to pull with the Dinamo supporters' association. Is that the same thing? Or maybe give me an explanation... and don't go calling other people on your phone to explain it for you—just speak from the gut, okay? Maybe you actually have some love for the club in there somewhere.
Alright, let me try to break this down simply for you, if you'll let me. Basically, under our model, the members would have just as much say in running the club as you or I have in running the country. Members are strictly voters—period. We pick from a pool of candidates who step up, choosing whoever we think can best steer the ship for the next 4 years (or whatever the rules set). Each candidate lays out their vision, how they'll fund everything, and the team they're bringing in to make it happen. Then, after 4 years, at the next election, you vote based on whether you're happy or pissed off with how the Board of Directors performed. To me, that's a massive departure from how things work over at Hajduk. We want to be just the voters, whereas you guys act like you're a coalition partner in the management. And personally? I don't think fans should ever be part of the actual management structure—because once you're pulling the levers, you stop being fans.
holloworca10 said:Honestly, the atmosphere was actually killer. I went in expecting a total disaster because the stands were packed and you can’t really lead a crowd without a mic when it's that loud. But it turned out great—we didn't have that split energy you usually get with crowds this big, so I'm pretty stoked about it.
The only thing I noticed was how much we've lost compared to the old days—back then, if Dinamo conceded, the stands would just erupt into absolute chaos and the chanting would get even louder, but on Tuesday? Nothing. Just silence.
That’s just the fallout from everything that’s been going down over the last 10-15 years (and let's face it, it's still happening). You’ve got one solid core group that's still dealing with bans. Then you’ve got maybe fifteen hundred people who show up constantly but are feeling totally conflicted—they can't bring themselves to cheer authentically while things are this messy. On top of that, there's a few thousand who just don't know how to support a team anymore. And finally, you've got the "fair-weather" crowd—people who probably showed up to the stadium for the first time ever.
All things considered, the cheering was decent, though honestly, even under these circumstances, it could have been better. I think we needed more guys stationed near the East and West sides of the stands, and maybe some smarter song choices for the mood. It worked better when we were shouting short, punchy chants, but it fell flat whenever we tried those long, drawn-out ones. But hey, all of that is fixable.
Drew Booth60 said:I’ve got this feeling like the chanting from the South side sounds way louder than the North side.🤷 Back when they were shouting "Serbus dear America," the acoustics were just insane. A buddy of mine was over on the East side with his wife and a beer, and he told me you could hear the cheering loud and clear.
It’s a total no-brainer that it sounds better—you've got that massive wall up on the North side acting like a sounding board, reflecting everything back. When you're screaming your lungs out from the North, the sound just carries perfectly right over that low-profile South section.
northernheron3 said:😁
Remember back in 2011 when we had those investors from the USA?
Come on, people... 🤣🤣🤣
Unfortunately, this whole situation with the Chinese man is way more serious. Just a few months ago, a Dynamo's delegation was over there basically trying to elbow their way into a deal. The goal is crystal clear—only the Chinese man has the kind of cash needed to fix the mess the big boss made, and they’ve got plenty of skin in the game too (just look at projects like the Verrazzano Bridge or whatever). At first glance, it looks like a bunch of random stuff, but the reality is actually a lot more dangerous.
coastalwolf212 said:I literally just copied this straight from their official site... you go ahead and find whatever "proof" you think you're looking for.
Sure, you can walk away—and if things go south, we’ll all just hide behind our screens and say, “But the news reported it differently!” What a joke.
I'm done. I'm out of this argument. 🙂
Ha! Please. You really think they handle stuff like that on some public message board? Get real.