Chicago Blackhawks fans

Robert Cooper60 said:I'm pretty sure it isn't him.
He usually pops up the second someone calls him out on this forum; I don't think he's out there making clones of himself.

Exactly.
By the way, that whole shipment situation really went down, and it’s a massive blow to everyone who was—and still is—part of the BBB.

Jonathan Edwards said:Just so you can see what kind of reasoning the Supreme Court uses to uphold Section 34.a regarding disclosure.

Do you honestly still believe fans can pull the "human rights" card successfully?
They only understand force. That’s the only language they speak.

Sure, but a court has to issue a ban based on a police request; what I'm talking about is something else entirely....
Let them go to trial. Let them actually prove in court why critics need to be banned.

Jack Sullivan90
Look, man, please don't come at me with those theories right now. We aren't some massive monolith, and neither are they.
If the club hadn't stepped up yesterday, we would've been the ones looking like total losers. I don't get why there's this sudden urge to mock everything in these moments. Some of our actions carry more weight because we have a huge following right now, whereas things work differently for other groups. That doesn't mean they’re all just assholes. If it were us getting humiliated in front of 200 people, we'd be feeling it too. Things are what they are, and we need to move forward from where we currently stand. If we start going at each other with knives, rockets, sledgehammers, or whatever nonsense you can dream up, we're just going to end up losing. All this talk about who's "stronger" or "better" is useless right now. I remember posting on this forum once that I’d never, ever stand with BBB. I was wrong. Sometimes you just have to take a step back and use your head. We need to stop chest-thumping and actually look at the bigger picture. Think about what that really means. If we can't find common ground because of some stubborn personal ideologies, then let's not be the idiots who ruin it for everyone else in our groups.

Mark Carter10 said:Sure, but if they want to issue a ban based on some police request, a judge has to sign off on that. What I’m getting at here is something else entirely....
Let them take it to court, then. Let them actually try to prove to a judge why critics need to be silenced in the first place.

In my view, if they are capable of justifying these vague, ill-defined notions, they won't have any trouble justifying their lists, either.

Jonathan Edwards said:In my view, if they can justify some vague, undefined notions, they’ll just as easily justify any list they want to slap on us.

I don't think they have any business banning a club or an individual unless a court actually calls the shots...

Maybe I'm wrong, but...

Mark Carter10 said:In my view, they can't just justify banning a specific club or individual without a court ruling backing them up...

Maybe I'm missing something here, but...

Have you ever actually stood outside a nightclub and had the bouncer turn you away at the door?

The courts don't give a damn about whether an organization is partially funded by taxpayers. Take, for example, an attempt to hold a rally for the American National Front at the Swamp/Unity—which, mind you, is an association using public funds operating out of a city-owned venue. What kind of legal recourse do you actually have if they deny you entry?

"I don't like you, and I don't want you at the event I'm organizing."
"I don't like you, and I don't want you on the premises I manage."
...

Jonathan Edwards said:Ever had a bouncer turn you away from a nightclub entrance?

The courts don't care if some nonprofit is getting taxpayer funding. Take, for instance, an attempt by the American National Front to hold a rally at the Swamp/Unity—which, mind you, is a group funded by public money operating on city-owned property. What kind of legal recourse do you actually have when they turn you away?

"I don't like you, and I don't want you at my event."
"I don't like you, and I don't want you in my venue."
...

in this instance, the police stepped in alongside the club to ban them
I see what you're getting at😛👍 , but with enough media pressure and protests, who knows, maybe it'll stick

Mark Carter10 said:In this particular instance, the ban was actually enforced by the police, working in direct coordination with the club.
I think I finally grasp the point you're trying to make.😛👍 With all the media scrutiny and the protests heating up lately, who knows? There might actually be a chance it goes through.

As far as I can tell, everything is legally airtight. It’s as clean as a whistle. 👍

If things actually go south, don't be fooled into thinking that taking to the streets or facing a media onslaught will be the main event. Those are just minor skirmishes in what is essentially an asymmetric war being fought on a dozen different fronts simultaneously.

Jack Sullivan90 said:Torcida was basically the first group to really step up and handle that situation quite effectively (for the most part)...
They essentially stirred up a massive storm across the entire country, whereas when the BBB reacted to those same lists back in the day, it just caused a ruckus about the crew itself—you know, the guys who basically run two neighborhoods in Chicago, a couple of local news sites, and eventually just faded away.
And you can see right from the jump that Torcida is something much BIGGER and more powerful...

Sure, they "stirred up" a mess, but that's because Hajduk actually stands behind you as a football club, whereas who exactly is standing behind the BBB? It’s obvious you haven't truly grasped what the vibe is like in Chicago regarding the BBB, and honestly, it's probably better that you don't; if you were actually in the shoes of a Dinamo fan, you wouldn't be lifting a finger on any of these issues, yet here you are acting all tough and making claims based on someone else's authority. I'm done here, and I won't even bother replying to your point because it's clear you aren't capable of having a "deep" conversation.

Laws aren't set in stone, you know. Now that people are actually paying attention, we need to get a group of legal experts together immediately to draft amendments to those unconstitutional clauses. There’s no reason to wait—we can grab the backing of the big-name legal minds right now while politicians are scrambling for attention during the election cycle. If we let this window of opportunity slam shut without acting, that’s entirely on us.

Joshua Moore31 said:Your first squad. Let me ask you something else. Do you really think your boycott this Saturday would work if everyone from the Port crossings was just shuttled over to Borongay instead?

It absolutely would! Because those people didn't just happen to head straight to the port instead of downtown by accident...

I have concerns regarding the authority granted to those compiling blacklists.
Generally speaking, any organization maintains some form of disciplinary committee tasked with evaluating whether an individual has violated the bylaws or damaged the entity's reputation. From there, they can impose various sanctions—whether that means suspending membership rights, revoking membership entirely, barring access, or issuing fines. It is a standard practice, unfortunately, regardless of whether you are dealing with a private corporation or a non-profit.
(You see plenty of examples within government agencies where leadership installs cronies who lack any relevant expertise, only to subject qualified individuals to disciplinary boards when they push back. They cycle through punishments until they eventually force someone into retirement. It’s seamless. The laws are often structured specifically to allow this kind of power tripping. I am speaking from firsthand observation.)

What is more intriguing is the motivation behind these blacklists and the flow of information between the club and law enforcement. analogheron19 makes a fair point; while legislation might change, we should view these blacklists as a pretext. Now that momentum has built, the focus is shifting toward the issues that actually matter to the public: the finances. People want to know how the major clubs are funded, their organizational structures, why bylaws are ignored, the influence of Mamić's agency, the selection process for the national team, the whereabouts of certain players, and the status of disgraced judges. There is also the matter of pressure being applied to athletes and those infamous clauses discussed on TV...

The strategy now should be to remain persistent and vocal on all fronts without becoming overly aggressive or making fools of ourselves; there will be plenty of opportunities to address fan-related matters later. We simply need to be smart, people. 👍

analogheron19 said:Laws can be changed, too. Now that everyone’s actually paying attention, we should probably get some legal experts together and propose amendments to those unconstitutional sections ASAP. Since there's no safety net right now (it's urgent), maybe we could even get support from the big names in the legal community because politicians are looking for attention ahead of the election cycle. If we don't grab this moment, I guess it's on us.

That's my point—we have to milk this political spotlight while it lasts.
And just keep repeating the same thing like a broken record: if we're being scrutinized, why aren't Mamić, Šupraha, and the rest of that crew with their shady records being targeted?😵

Everything should be on the table. Just please, let’s not have anyone suddenly "remember" to organize a joint protest outside the Capitol. No, this way is much better—we'll just kill them with paperwork. Honestly, I think nothing hits them harder than being blindsided by forum threats and pure disbelief. For God's sake, we've been sitting here in total shock for five years now. We do nothing but stare in disbelief.

Anonymous said:Spot on.
Basically, the crackdown on those goods worked perfectly. It’s a massive blow to everyone who ever rode for the Bad Boys.

🤣🤣🤣

Robin Anderson8 said:That’s exactly my point. We need to grab this momentum while we have it. Right now, the spotlight is on us, and the political machine is actually paying attention for once. It's like when a small startup suddenly gets a massive feature on the front page of the Wall Street Journal—you don't just sit there and nod; you capitalize on that noise immediately. We have to leverage this public interest and push our agenda before the news cycle moves on to the next thing. If we don't strike while the iron is hot, we're just wasting a golden opportunity.
It’s like listening to a bunch of parrots in a room, just mindlessly repeating the same tired talking point over and over again. "If we're the ones being scrutinized, why aren't Mamić, Šupraha, and the rest of that crowd with the massive criminal records getting hauled in too?" Honestly, give me a break. It's the same broken logic every single time.😵

You can't give them two days of peace. It’s constant. Every single time, someone feels the need to jump in and start lecturing us about some idiotic law, those damn blacklists, or dragging up all that old bullshit from the big shots and the corrupt elites. Honestly? It’s gotten to the point where just staying quiet is treated like a crime.

Radio just reported that Suker’s skipping the meeting. Instead, they’re having the first VP, Zdravko Mamić, take the lead.🤣

I am currently reviewing the data. Everything looks solid. cosmicbear15 says:
The radio reports that the CEO won't be attending the meeting. Instead, the first Vice President, Zdravko Mamic, will lead the session.🤣

Šuker is just a puppet. The real boss will be running the meeting. It’s crystal clear.

Thomas Flores7 said:Carhart..
Man, please don't come at us with those conspiracy theories right now. It’s not like we’re all part of their crowd, and they aren't part of ours either.
If the club hadn't stepped up yesterday, we would have been the ones left holding the bag. I honestly don't understand why there's this sudden urge to mock things during such critical moments. Some of our actions carry more weight because we currently have a massive following, whereas other groups operate on a different scale. That doesn't automatically make them traitors. If we were stuck in a situation where only 200 people showed up, things would look very different. We have to accept the reality of where we stand and figure out how to move forward from here. If we start attacking each other with knives, rockets, sledgehammers, or vouchers—whatever else you want to throw in—we're just going to end up failing. Right now, we're at our weakest point, regardless of what anyone claims. I remember once posting on this forum that I'd never support anything involving the Bad Boys, but I realize now I was wrong. Sometimes you just have to take a step back, stay calm, and use your head. Instead of getting caught up in ego, let's focus on the bigger picture. Let's think about what that actually means. If we can't find common ground due to our own rigid ideas, then let's not be the ones to mess everything up for the rest of the community.

That's the heart and soul of the matter right there! 👍
United we stand - divided we fall!!

Zachary Sullivan2 said:The radio just announced that Suker won't be making an appearance at the session—instead, they’re letting the first Vice President, Zdravko Mamić, take the lead.🤣

Tatta just won't let this case go. 🍿 There’s simply no room for wonder here. 🍿