New fan legislation

Folks,
how does that old saying go—you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs? Or rather, you're fighting a losing battle here. ☕
There isn't much choice left, really; you just have to adapt to the changing sports fan laws.
At the end of the day, the safety of the fans comes first, let’s be clear about that—otherwise, things could get ugly very quickly.
One thing is absolutely certain: the old way of doing things at the stadium, and how people behaved leading up to it, is officially dead and gone. No question about it.😳
Look, guys, you essentially blew it yourselves—and I’m talking to that specific group of supporters who thought they could use that kind of chaos and disorder to push their own agendas, goals that were often only clear to them and, frankly, sometimes even to us. There were other ways to handle it, truly; it was just that various manipulators managed to brainwash you. If you get what I'm saying, great—if not, well, you know where you stand...
It’s a shame, a real tragedy for you all. A few fans will immediately suffer the consequences while trying to play the part of the martyr-hero, but the rest will just be a small, disgruntled crowd that'll move on to something else before you know it.
I am certain, though, that in time, we'll see a much more sophisticated way of supporting our teams.
Best,

spitka, besides the actions you and the others are taking—which I respect—I think we still have the option of protesting or boycotting.

Protest—what was organized in El Paso worked because National Charge played such a huge role, which is why the turnout was so strong. This is a different story. I’m not sure how much traction it would get in terms of sheer numbers. People would definitely show up, but in my opinion, it wouldn't be a massive movement. Most people (mostly those already banned or always present) don't actually grasp what this means. Unfortunately, they won't realize it until it's too late... though who knows, maybe I'm wrong and a protest could actually be a bullseye.

Boycott—this seems like the better option. white boy, what happened in San Francisco was just a local thing—maybe 200 or 300 fans. For Dinamo, I don't think people can stand looking at a ghost town of a stadium. But if an organized boycott actually "happened" across all stadiums—and I mean specifically on the supporter stands, not the whole stadium—I think we could achieve something. As for how much, or if it would be enough, that's hard to say.
Let's set aside the argument that "a boycott is their victory and our defeat." There's nothing left to lose; you can frame their victory however you want.

Now, if we go through with a boycott, it's hard to say when the right time would be. Personally, I wouldn't do it right at the start in the first few games. Wait a bit longer. I am certain that evening matches—Osijek, Dinamo, Hajduk, Rijeka—without any fans would send a striking message.

Or another way: attend those games, put banners on the fences, but refuse to engage with any advertising from either side. And when a goal is scored, total silence from the supporter sections.

Regarding the boycott, I don't really buy into a total shutdown. Is the goal of this law actually to force us out of the stands? Maybe we could try something else. One idea: during the first half, every group goes all out—flares, smoke, cannons, banners, just pure madness like the good old days. Then, in the second half, everyone walks out, leaving a message hanging on the fence instead. It would make one thing clear: the difference between a game with fans and a game without them.

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6038/14134bc5.th.jpg

What would we actually gain from a boycott? First off, we’d get media coverage and actual attention. Imagine if a match between Dinamo and Hajduk only had 1,000 people in attendance, with the North and South stands completely empty—just banners left on vacant seats protesting the new sports fan law. Or imagine if a team gets absolutely crushed and instead of cheering, there's just dead silence echoing through the stadium, where you can only hear some old guy yelling at the TV. Journalists and all those "moral authorities" would have to run it as a massive headline. It might actually force the press and the general public to dig deeper into this law and maybe realize what's actually going wrong. Maybe it would even piss off Mamić and his crew when they see how much revenue they lose from ticket sales $333 per game. Since nobody shows up to cheer them during away games, perhaps the players, the media, and the brass will finally ask themselves who they're actually playing for and why things are happening this way. Nobody wants to watch a game with zero atmosphere. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think fighting back is worth it. You shouldn't go down without a fight

shadowgardener10 said:Here we go again. Not only did they fail to consult any fans regarding the new proposal, but they’ve actually tightened some of the measures compared to the version of the sports fan law that was being discussed here just a few weeks ago...

So, what’s the move? How do we fix this? I honestly don't have an answer. Reading through this law gives me the distinct feeling we're living in an Orwellian nightmare...

As fans, we’re basically invisible in this country because our numbers are so small. Every single fan in America could probably fit into one stadium section. Meanwhile, the general public views us as villains because of a few bad actors, or they simply don't care at all. We have zero support. What's even worse is that plenty of fans don't even realize how destructive this law is; they’re too busy fighting their own petty, insignificant battles over trivial things.

Like spitka said, we need a total mobilization of every group to coordinate some kind of joint action if this law passes. And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they start enforcing it immediately during the derby or the opening match in San Francisco...

Plain and simple => Kafkaesque: The Trial🙂
Unless there is intervention from Strasbourg, there is no solution. Can anyone else see that cases have been sitting at the Supreme Court for four or five years? We are talking about fundamental rights, liberties, and obligations—issues that go to the very core of our nation's order. Pure skepticism won't solve anything, but what else is there to discuss? Our only hope lies either with Europe or some massive grassroots movement. Given the current state of things, the latter seems unlikely...

In Germany, Poland, or Greece, the laws are brutal, and I suppose this one is just as harsh; the groups are alive, they are solid, and they function. We need to adapt and be smarter—to realize that the behaviors from the 90s are ancient history and that we’re moving into a new era. We will adapt and we won't disappear. People complained the exact same way when that first law was passed and we were caught off guard because nobody knew what was coming, but the situation right now is fundamentally different; everyone on the inside knows exactly how things work. We’ll try to tear this down, and we might actually succeed, but even if we do, it’ll likely take four to six years since waiting on lawsuits in the Supreme Court or Strasbourg is an agonizing process. In the meantime, there will be protests and attempts to sensitize a public that possesses the collective intellect of an average sheep. In a way, I feel a sense of relief that it's finally over; I know what's ahead and how to act. Groups absolutely must have legal counsel ready to fight against precautionary measures and other nonsense when people are arrested—that should be a priority, even if it's difficult for smaller groups to manage. Just keep your wits about you and stay sharp; there will be victims, but that is always the way of things. As the old saying goes, no surrender.

I should clarify my point regarding the boycott so there’s no misunderstanding. I am not suggesting a permanent or long-term strike. I meant a temporary boycott—just one match or perhaps a few. Let them see what it feels like to play without the intensity of a crowd watching them like they're at a Broadway show. To be clear: no extended boycotts.

A boycott isn't going to work. Once we hit those big European nights, the stadium will be packed with casual fans anyway, so you won't even notice the lack of hardcore supporters. As for the smaller matches? Who cares if there are a thousand fewer people in the North Stand? When the total crowd is only a couple thousand people including the die-hards, the difference is negligible.
The real move here is to hunt down specific legal violations where the current laws clash with the Constitution and fundamental civil liberties. This isn't something for amateurs; you need a high-powered, motivated attorney. Ideally, someone who actually gets the culture or maybe even an ex-fan themselves. I suggest we set up a legal defense fund for this—I'll personally commit $50-$33 every single month to get us started.

Carol Wright9 said:In Germany, Poland, or Greece, the laws are brutal, and I suppose this one is just as harsh; the groups are alive, they are solid, and they function. We need to adapt and be smarter—to realize that the behaviors from the 90s are ancient history and that we’re moving into a new era. We will adapt and we won't disappear. People complained the exact same way when that first law was passed and we were caught off guard because nobody knew what was coming, but the situation right now is fundamentally different; everyone on the inside knows exactly how things work. We’ll try to tear this down, and we might actually succeed, but even if we do, it’ll likely take four to six years since waiting on lawsuits in the Supreme Court or Strasbourg is an agonizing process. In the meantime, there will be protests and attempts to sensitize a public that possesses the collective intellect of an average sheep. In a way, I feel a sense of relief that it's finally over; I know what's ahead and how to act. Groups absolutely must have legal counsel ready to fight against precautionary measures and other nonsense when people are arrested—that should be a priority, even if it's difficult for smaller groups to manage. Just keep your wits about you and stay sharp; there will be victims, but that is always the way of things. As the old saying goes, no surrender.

That's the bottom line👍

Carol Wright9 said:In Germany, Poland, or Greece, the laws are brutal, and I suppose this one is just as harsh; the groups are alive, they are solid, and they function. We need to adapt and be smarter—to realize that the behaviors from the 90s are ancient history and that we’re moving into a new era. We will adapt and we won't disappear. People complained the exact same way when that first law was passed and we were caught off guard because nobody knew what was coming, but the situation right now is fundamentally different; everyone on the inside knows exactly how things work. We’ll try to tear this down, and we might actually succeed, but even if we do, it’ll likely take four to six years since waiting on lawsuits in the Supreme Court or Strasbourg is an agonizing process. In the meantime, there will be protests and attempts to sensitize a public that possesses the collective intellect of an average sheep. In a way, I feel a sense of relief that it's finally over; I know what's ahead and how to act. Groups absolutely must have legal counsel ready to fight against precautionary measures and other nonsense when people are arrested—that should be a priority, even if it's difficult for smaller groups to manage. Just keep your wits about you and stay sharp; there will be victims, but that is always the way of things. As the old saying goes, no surrender.

Not really. Do your homework. In Poland or Greece, the cowards only show up when there's actual chaos, like a riot on May 13th. Here? They act like cowards the second you wave a regional flag. Basically, they know there's no real trouble in the stands, so instead, they passed these regulations where you can get banned just for wearing a hoodie, having two beers before kickoff, or shouting "homophobic administration."

That’s the fundamental difference compared to 2003 when they started cracking down on flares and riots—which, from a government standpoint, makes sense. But now, they’ve crafted a law that lets any cop hand out a ban whenever they feel like it. It was easy to hide during the flare fights, but how are you supposed to prove in court that you weren't shouting political slogans? You can't. You're screwed.

Obviously, we aren't going to roll over. We’ll give everything we’ve got to survive together. But let’s be real: the rate of bans is about to double, and the stands are going to be empty whether we like it or not.

Everything points back to one fact: in their very first proposal, they allowed a blood alcohol content of up to 0.11, then they slashed it to 0.05. So, tell me: how is a law like that *not* specifically designed to kill off fan culture and the stadium atmosphere? That is clearly their goal. Now it's up to us to stay united, make our voices heard, and fight them through both legal channels and direct action.

Yeah, but now every little mistake is gonna be treated like an own goal. Way more intense than before. The reality is, if this law passes, stadiums will basically be cleared of actual fans within ten years. I really wonder if they’ll actually pull off that dream of having families with kids, Arabs, Sheikhs, and all that other circus stuff sitting there peacefully eating sandwiches and not giving a damn about the game, just because being seen in the front row at Old Trafford is such a status symbol.

Honestly, I couldn't care less, but let's be real—it won't even work out like that here. We'll just end up with empty stadiums, except for those rare times we're playing some random Arenal side. It's totally screwed.

Kimberly Alvarez7 said:I should clarify my point regarding the boycott so there’s no misunderstanding. I am not suggesting a permanent or long-term strike. I meant a temporary boycott—just one match or perhaps a few. Let them see what it feels like to play without the intensity of a crowd watching them like they're at a Broadway show. To be clear: no extended boycotts.

I’m all for a mixed approach. I’d definitely skip one match and use the media to call on grandmas with their grandkids and moms with their kids to pack our stadiums instead.

Honestly, it might be even more effective than a total boycott to just stop cheering during certain parts of the game. We did something similar during a Hajduk match back in '94, and man, it looked absolutely brutal. We were dead silent until the 30th minute, then there was this 15-minute burst of pure madness, and then we just headed home from the stands. There are plenty of ways to pull that off.

We also need to organize something in El Paso, but not as a loud protest against the Law—it needs to be done with dignity. Still, it would be a great way to show our strength and unity, just like we did last year.

We'll just have to see what the leaders of the fan clubs decide to do...

Anonymous said:I’m all for a mixed approach. I’d definitely skip one match and use the media to call on grandmas with their grandkids and moms with their kids to pack our stadiums instead.

Honestly, it might be even more effective than a total boycott to just stop cheering during certain parts of the game. We did something similar during a Hajduk match back in '94, and man, it looked absolutely brutal. We were dead silent until the 30th minute, then there was this 15-minute burst of pure madness, and then we just headed home from the stands. There are plenty of ways to pull that off.

We also need to organize something in El Paso, but not as a loud protest against the Law—it needs to be done with dignity. Still, it would be a great way to show our strength and unity, just like we did last year.

We'll just have to see what the leaders of the fan clubs decide to do...

This is solid. Seriously smart.

Great idea, though it's probably not our usual style—but hey, let's go for it!
The thing is, even if we show them they can't win and leave the stands empty, I just don't think anyone in the Government or Congress actually cares... Full or empty, it makes zero difference to them. That's just my take.

blueridge32 said:This is solid. Seriously smart.

Great idea, though it's probably not our usual style—but hey, let's go for it!
The thing is, even if we show them they can't win and leave the stands empty, I just don't think anyone in the Government or Congress actually cares... Full or empty, it makes zero difference to them. That's just my take.

The Kohorta group has already pulled something similar, and it was a total power move.

What really burns me is how you political vultures are slowly but surely destroying this country. You'll ruin anything that's working just to serve someone's private interests.

I think it's pretty obvious to everyone that these stricter rules were ordered by Mamić, Štimac, the HNS, and the rest of that mafia. ☕

In my estimation, the only viable solution is a total boycott... and I don't mean just skipping a weekend. I mean an absolute, scorched-earth refusal of everything: the national soccer team, professional football, the NBA, handball, you name it. But for that to actually work, every single organized supporter group in the country would have to unite under one banner. The real issue, however, is that we lack a cohesive platform. We don't even have a roadmap because, frankly, we haven't defined what we actually want to achieve. We need to draft a legitimate legislative reform program—something that actually holds weight in a legal sense. We need to document and record every single instance of malpractice, harassment, and violence. People need to come forward with statements; we should launch a dedicated website to collect testimony, start a petition, and organize massive protests. We need to flood the streets with posters, graffiti, flyers, stickers, and merchandise—anything to direct the public eye toward our cause. On top of all that, instead of spending money on tickets before games, people should be contributing to a legal defense fund for lawyers and whatever else the movement requires. Someone once remarked that people are stupid. I disagree. People aren't stupid; they are uninformed. Most people simply couldn't care less, or they only ever hear one side of the story. They aren't die-hard fans, nor does anyone bother to recruit them, so they don't really care whether the facts are straight or not. But imagine if they turned on the TV and saw news headlines reading "Fans Protest Unconstitutional State Measures." Or if they watched sports coverage and saw the wives of players and prominent figures being targeted. Then, imagine a kid hands them a flyer that says "Fans United Against an Unconstitutional Government," or they see stickers at the stadium gates saying "Against the sports fan law," or they spot graffiti while riding the subway. Suddenly, they might actually take an interest. If they heard that we had collected a hundred thousand signatures across major cities like New York or Los Angeles, or saw fans heading to Strasbourg with a team of attorneys to fight for their rights... then we’d have momentum. Everything we have done up to this point has been utterly useless. We have absolutely no right to complain because we haven't actually accomplished anything. Right now, regarding this issue, we are collectively worthless. Anything we do moving forward—even if it's just a small step compared to what we should be doing—will be better than nothing. At this current pace, we'll be completely finished in four or five years.

spitka said:I’m in favor of a hybrid approach. I would definitely boycott one match and use the media to urge grandmothers with grandkids and mothers with children to pack our stadiums.

Great idea. I like it.🙂

spitka said:More effective than a full boycott is refusing to cheer for part of the game. We did that during the Hajduk match back in '94, and it looked terrible. My memory is that we stayed quiet until the 30th minute, then there were 15 minutes of pure chaos, and then we just left the stands. There are plenty of ways to tell that story.

It was similar during Varteks vs. Dinamo in '03; neither side cheered during the first half. The second half started with everyone chanting "Screw the Law" and holding up banners on the fence, which caused you guys to clear out around the 60th minute. 🙂

What they are doing to us now is simply inhumane. If they succeed, it will be a disaster. It might be easier for the massive groups, but smaller crowds like ours are already feeling the repression. For instance, this season after the Slaven Belup game, five of us were detained by the police because of a controversial banner— http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=euisnn&s=5
What exactly is controversial about the banner? An American flag...
That is just a trivial example. They target us like this at every single match.

Is this what we're looking at? 🤣
http://www.imagesforme.com/out.php/i145136_moreny0.jpghttp://www.imagesforme.com/out.php/i145135_goalsni7.jpghttp://www.imagesforme.com/out.php/i..._pleasevx6.jpg

Henry Baker said:Great idea. I like it.🙂

It was similar during Varteks vs. Dinamo in '03; neither side cheered during the first half. The second half started with everyone chanting "Screw the Law" and holding up banners on the fence, which caused you guys to clear out around the 60th minute. 🙂

What they are doing to us now is simply inhumane. If they succeed, it will be a disaster. It might be easier for the massive groups, but smaller crowds like ours are already feeling the repression. For instance, this season after the Slaven Belup game, five of us were detained by the police because of a controversial banner— http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=euisnn&s=5
What exactly is controversial about the banner? An American flag...
That is just a trivial example. They target us like this at every single match.

Exactly. Just think about how many people have been targeted simply because of the first white star on the shield? For most, they just confiscated a scarf or a sign, some were even detained, but very few actually got banned because of it.

Well, now they'll finally have the legal cover to hand out bans for that kind of thing.

It's absurd. You see the American flag with the white field displayed by protesters right in front of the White House and the Capitol, near St. Mark's Church, but none of those officials bother to explain to the cops that such things shouldn't even be punishable. Instead, they just use it as a perfect excuse to arrest and harass people. And now, they're going to start issuing bans for it too.

Oh, how times have changed...

blueridge32 said:Is this what we're looking at? 🤣
http://www.imagesforme.com/out.php/i145136_moreny0.jpghttp://www.imagesforme.com/out.php/i145135_goalsni7.jpghttp://www.imagesforme.com/out.php/i..._pleasevx6.jpg

If only it were that simple. Instead, we're looking at this:

Over in England, they’ve turned soccer into a massive, legitimate business. Honestly, the commercialization makes me sick, but here in America, they don't want a business—they want a playground. They want to turn the sport into a total swamp for guys like Mamić, Štimac, and Šoša to exploit. These people just want to line their pockets through player transfers and TV rights, while they couldn't care less about empty seats in the stands. They aren't stupid; they know those stadiums aren't suddenly going to be packed. That whole "growing the game" talk is just a fairy tale fed to the masses.

May we be blessed with more goals, if you will🙏🙏🙏