Posts by Dana Barnes4

boldeagle20 said:If they aren't already, they probably will be soon. Their Fan Club is growing quite steadily down in the stands 😁

Maybe they'll start selling torches too 👋

I know some of the folks from the East Side and the North Side, and honestly, it’s just nasty to talk about people this way—especially when you were all sitting in the same bleachers and swearing by each other just yesterday.

For instance, Mike used to defend Niaz so wholeheartedly and swear his loyalty to him on every single forum, yet today he's just spitting venom. I guess you could call that hypocrisy or just being two-faced.

From the ESPN forum:
************************************************** *************
Sent: December 13, 2011, at 10:44 AM

That little jab at Niaz is just more of that manipulative coaching style; it’s probably best to steer clear of it unless you want to embarrass yourself. Nineveh's dad is a legendary old-school Chicago tough guy who was born and raised right there in Chicago, while most of the people whining about his background grew up in the middle of nowhere.

And as far as political correctness goes, the man is an old hero of the American Civil War and a veteran. Just ask anyone from the old guard... That’s the deal with Niaz.
************************************************** *************

Everything we know about N. now, I suppose was likely known back in 2011 too; it's just that back then, people used much more carefully selected language to discuss him. What has actually changed?

It seems a bit silly to me that "mercenaries" are only mentioned on one side, because there are plenty of them on the East Side if you care to look. I mean, maybe every group has its share of paid agitators—those "high-profile" types you see representing different factions.
Honestly, I almost lost it laughing when I saw those eight little lapdogs following Jacob from Oakley all the way to Karaganda 🙂

Jesse Campbell said:Where on earth does it say only five trustees are elected that way? Even now, they elect ten instead of five. (That just goes to show how fundamentally uninformed you are and why having a discussion with you feels totally futile.)

And once you actually point out where that’s written, I’ll be more than happy to show you where this is written: The appeal is valid.

I mean, let's be real—it's not going to say in the official ruling, "Hey Boss, you're done, we're throwing in the towel, one member, one vote, whatever, man."

Also, what you seemingly happened to overlook is that prior to these democratic elections, the ruling explicitly states that members must be notified. So, nobody can just act like the landlord isn't watching and start lying about the numbers and the specifics.

In short, a private club that used to hide its own bylaws from its members (give me one more example of a private social club or a non-profit here in the States that hides its charter from its members!) must now actually inform its members about its operations and answer their questions.

Now, look, at the very beginning, I said, "I think it's five," so I wasn't even claiming to know the exact number of trustees prescribed by the bylaws as members of Congress. I know there were five before, then they changed things, etc... and now I'm hearing it's ten. Fine, my mistake! But the point remains that it doesn't change the core issue. It's still just ten people out of eighty members of Congress, and that's assuming all ten are on our side, which, let's face it, is impossible. So, there is absolutely NO actual fulfillment of the obligation to hold elections where every single member can both vote and run for office, despite how much you've been harping on about it. Now you're moving the goalposts. As for that whole thing about being notified, you can basically forget about it; they can easily keep dodging that because there's no specific rule dictating exactly *how* they have to notify the members. And honestly, what does it matter if the appeal was found to be valid? They could just receive a ruling from a local Court a few weeks from now saying the appeal was NOT valid, and then what? It's like a gym teacher trying to argue against a Supreme Court ruling. It's frankly quite silly to claim these kinds of rulings are some sort of massive victory.

Thomas Williams59 said:I didn't see anything in that ruling suggesting she told them to just leave the current commissioner setup as is, which is what you're claiming above. Quite the opposite, actually—it seems she wants them to overhaul and change things specifically to honor the spirit of the democratic structure clause they warned about.
I honestly have no idea how they’ll actually pull that off or what the specific implementation will look like at GNK.
And as for the fact that a single competent authority finally gave the public permission to say the current GNK setup isn't working? I don't see why it's a problem to call that a win. Especially when you consider how much official bodies and courts usually love to troll people.
I can't quite figure out why you keep shifting your stance. First, you suggested an inspection had ordered certain changes, but I don't see that being claimed. Then you called it a victory when it wasn't really framed that way, and now you're saying something else entirely, implying someone is just drowning in self-praise. I guess I don't know if that's true, and frankly, I'm not sure why it matters—nor why there's such a constant drive to smear ZZD or dismiss this whole struggle. You probably have your own reasons, though.

Look, man, hundreds of people have been absolutely screwed over by various bans over the last few years. They've dealt with jail time, career-ruining issues, and all sorts of trouble, all because they trusted the people telling them that the elections were a done deal—you know, the "it's practically a sure thing" or "the Department will take care of the Head" kind of talk.

In the end, it all amounts to nothing. My friend, I'm not the one changing the story here; you are—or rather, you guys are. Where did those promised elections go? The ones where every single member would actually have the right to vote and run for office?
Now we're supposed to celebrate the appointment of five commissioners as some kind of massive victory??? 🙂

Thomas Williams59 said:You mentioned that someone is claiming the Sports Commission ordered a one-to-one ratio, but I honestly don't see that claim anywhere here. All I see is this 🤷

I suppose the only logical way to interpret this is that since there are no club elections happening today, the Commission—given how much they keep bringing up trustees—might have suggested they try to fulfill those democratic principles through those very trustees, since the current setup isn't working. As an association, they have enough autonomy to decide how to implement democratic standards, so if trustees were already being discussed, I don't see why it would be an issue if the Commission told them to work through them instead. It’s certainly not as if ZZD wrote that it would be easier to handle things via some other method.
Whether GNK can actually pull this off, what it will look like, or even how GNK will respond—let alone if they'll pursue legal action—is all just speculation at this point. In any case, I really don't see any need to hyperventilate over this. ZZD was simply given the right to state that neither the democratic structure nor the level of member communication is up to par right now. I didn't see them using the word "victory," just as I didn't see them claiming the Commission mandated a specific ratio in the way they're trying to spin it. Honestly, who cares about sensationalist tabloid headlines? The Commission carried out its duty regarding the club's general bylaws just like any other regulatory body typically does—a bit half-heartedly and somewhat loosely. They simply stated that the current state of affairs at GNK isn't acceptable, and that's what was reported. I don't quite understand why people are trying to troll this situation with talk of an "obvious defeat"(?) or arguing about it when nobody truly knows how GNK will react, especially since they've been given such a wide berth to fix the issue.

Bottom line: five members out of an Assembly of 80. I mean, what are we even talking about? This is embarrassing, not something to boast about or celebrate.
And the saddest part of all is this:
************************************************** ***************************************
We are calling on the current leadership of GNK Dinamo to, if for no other reason than to honor the empty seats and the empty hearts of the Dinamo fans, take this assignment seriously
************************************************** ***************************************

It's shameful.

Jesse Campbell said:They wrote it quite beautifully: "The appeal is well-founded."

Well guys, I really think we need to try being a bit more optimistic sometimes! I know, I totally get it—it’s perfectly natural that most of you probably want Zdravac kicked out of the club in a much more brutal fashion, maybe even landing him a ten-year prison sentence. But honestly, that isn't up to us. It shouldn't be our burden to worry about that part.

I guess the whole point of this fight is to return the club to the fans and stop it from being just some lazy little family business run by Mamić. When you remember that, at the very beginning, we couldn't even get a look at the club's bylaws, these feel like absolutely massive victories to me. Maybe it will just take a little more time for everyone to truly realize how significant this actually is.

Just as the Bad Boys have shown themselves to be absolutely unbreakable in this struggle, so too has the group of hardworking, honest people known as ZZD proven themselves. They’ve poured tens of thousands of hours of labor and expertise into this fight, all while dealing with the same pressures and scrutiny that the main group has faced.

We really ought to stop and say thank you.

Wait a second, hold on now... Are you telling me you all invested tens of thousands of hours of work and expertise just so the Sports Commission could end up saying the club merely needs to clarify exactly how those five commissioners are chosen from the 80 members of the Assembly??? Jesse, you've been trumpeting the "one member, one vote" principle for years, and you've spent months convincing people that the Inspectorate would confirm exactly that. Not necessarily in those exact words, of course, but that they would mandate elections where every single member can both vote and run for club positions. You've been acting like it was a done deal! This ruling has nothing to do with that. In my opinion, this ruling is just a total joke. I'm honestly not sure if it's more tragic or just plain ridiculous that ZZD is still trying to brag about what looks like a complete defeat.

Thomas Williams59 said:"It's absolutely nothing like an election," and if you look closely at the actual text of the ruling, it clearly states: "that the Statute shall prescribe the specific methods and requirements..." I suppose we are finally looking toward the upcoming elections! It feels like there’s a certain sense of anticipation building up, doesn't it? I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how everything unfolds, but I am honestly feeling quite optimistic about what might come next. It’s certainly an interesting time to be watching the political landscape closely!"??

Of course I know what I’m quoting! I made sure to bold the most critical parts for clarity. What we’re really looking at here is the election process for the club's trustees. If I recall correctly, there are a maximum of five trustee positions available out of the 80 members making up the Assembly. And regardless of how many members the Assembly actually consists of, those five specific trustee roles are subject to a strict vetting process. Basically, no one with any sort of legal bans or disciplinary penalties can step up to be one of those five, even if they somehow managed to gather 10,000 members behind them.

Thomas Williams59 said:Who actually decided that in the first place? It looks like the Sports Commission just handed down their ruling! I guess we’ll have to see how this all plays out, but it seems they've officially issued their orders. Is it truly necessary for the democratic principle to be realized strictly through a "one person, one vote" system? I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately, and I suppose there's a lot of nuance to unpack here! It feels like such a fundamental question, doesn't it? In my view, while the idea of equal representation is absolutely beautiful and serves as the bedrock of our American democratic ideals, I wonder if we might be oversimplifying things by insisting on a rigid 1:1 ratio in every single context. Maybe the essence of democracy isn't just about the raw numbers, but about how effectively those voices are synthesized into meaningful governance. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while "one person, one vote" is a vital North Star for us in the States, there might be more complex ways to weigh interests to ensure stability and fairness for everyone involved. It's a heavy topic, for sure, but I'd love to hear what you all think! 🤷

What are you even talking about?? Honestly, ZZD and Jesse Campbell have been blowing their own trumpets about this exact same thing for years now. I mean, that was really the whole point of the entire movement, wasn't it? It was all about those elections where every single member gets a say and can actually vote for the people representing them in the club's leadership. That’s what we were aiming for, right?
************************************************** ********
Of course, rather than trying to engage in any sort of "backroom maneuvering" with the trustees, I truly believe the most straightforward solution to address what the governing body has so clearly stated is unacceptable would be this: Dinamo should finally hold democratic elections for its board, allowing every single club member to have their say in the process. It seems like such an obvious path forward, doesn't it?
It looks like the news is finally official: Dinamo has been given until this fall to actually follow through on becoming a club that belongs to its members! I guess we might finally see some real structural changes on the horizon, which feels like a huge step forward. It’s going to be interesting to see if they can truly meet this deadline and transform the way the club is run. Fingers crossed!
************************************************** ********

It seems like there aren't any democratic elections on the horizon for the board at all. I haven't seen the Sports Commission mention anything about it, nor have they set any kind of deadline for this fall that would actually allow Dinamo to finally become a club truly owned by its members. I guess we might just be stuck in this limbo for a while longer, maybe?

We are looking at just five commissioners out of an 80-member Assembly. That really is the extent of it. And mind you, all five of them have to get the green light from the Assembly first before they can even move. Now, what do you all think—is the Boss seriously just sitting there with his arms crossed, assuming his appointees haven't been out there working to gather members all these years? I guess it’s unlikely, but one can wonder!

Thomas Williams59 said:It’s honestly quite wonderful to see everything laid out so clearly like this—it really shows that when the members step up and file an appeal, it actually gets taken seriously and upheld!

It looks quite polished on paper, doesn't it? They even have the right to appeal the decision to that very same Court that ruled in their favor in the first place—the same one that dismissed all those crucial findings the Sports Commission actually upheld as valid. Honestly, I suspect the lead Sports Inspector might actually be a former PE teacher by trade, so I find myself questioning whether her ruling carries any real legal weight at all. It seems a bit questionable, if you ask me!

It’s honestly a bit of a shame, really, because I feel like there isn't even any real need for these folks to take this to the Court in the first place. If you think about it, they could probably satisfy everything outlined in that ruling just by making a few minor tweaks to the Bylaws—something they've actually done several times before anyway, I guess!

Why is this obvious defeat being framed as some kind of victory again? I don't know, it just really bothers me.

Looking at this

I honestly don't see anything here suggesting that the Inspectorate is actually ordering them to hold elections based on a one-member, one-vote system.

In section II, they’re just being told they have to give all members access to the club's records and keep everyone updated on how things are running. Then, in section III, it says the Statute will define the methods and conditions for elections, along with the rights and duties of the club commissioner.

The club commissioner. But there isn't a single mention of holding elections for the entire membership base.

And get this—they even have the right to file a legal dispute regarding this decision before the very same court that just ruled in their favor! Honestly, looking at this ruling, they might not even need to file a dispute; they could probably just tweak a few things in the Statute and call it a day.

So, I guess I have to ask: why is this being framed as some massive victory for ZZD when it doesn't actually change anything and doesn't even mention holding any elections?