AGREEMENT REACHED BY THE GROUPS ATHLETIC EUP, ATHLETICen ALDE BUSTIKO GARA, IZORAGARRIAK TALDEA, PLATFORM OF AFFECTED NORTH TRIBUNE BAJA AND OTHER INDEPENDENT COMMITTEES
It would be a mistake and want Athletic to sit back and support budgets that we consider detrimental for the Club, as they were in December. It is not a question of saying yes for yes when there are better options for the Club that have not been tried to listen or contemplate.
Nobody is in the “No for the No”. Our position arises from the analysis of the proposal that they put to vote, looking for what in our point of view is to contribute to the Club. We are not motivated by any personal interest but rather a great concern in the face of the institutional drift situation and the terrible management carried out by the Board of Directors.
These people, who are willing to collaborate and contribute, are the ones that the President seemed to be addressing in his post-assembly analysis, where he stated that he was opening a process of listening, reflection and debate.
Without pretending to be more than anyone else, the entire social mass must know that no one of those of us who expressed ourselves at the time for the “NO” have been addressed from the Board seeking understanding, different ideas and contributions of any kind. Much less to explain the reason for the changes that were to take place in this new approach to Accounts and Budget.
Contrary to what some interested parties want to understand, we are not supporters of “No for No”, nor do we understand “Yes for Yes” in any way. Our position is based, justified and argued on the reasons that we cite below, and we hope it will be shared by a wide mass of Commitment Members equally concerned about the very delicate situation the Club is going through, and that does not mean that things have improved in the green , of which we are glad more than anyone. Just as the reasons for the previous “NO” were not marked by sports, now we are not going to change our mind because the team is giving us joy.
There are plenty of reasons for “NO”. We list some of them:
* Quotas 2020: The recently essential and unequal 30% between partners that we were ordered to resign, has evaporated. A wrong reading was made of the previous Assembly. The majority of compromised members were not opposed at any time to helping the Club and disbursing a fair amount. The Board of Directors, on the other hand, opts to pull Reserves and weaken the Club in the future, as they already did at the close of the 2019 financial year.
* Quotas 2021: There is no serious proposal or Plans B in the face of what could happen in this year and the next, ignoring whether in 2021 it will return to San Mamés. It is clear that the 2020-2021 season we will not see any game. We have serious doubts as to whether we will do it in the September-December period. They propose zero quota for now and to study the situation again in October. Approving this proposal means totally forgetting the 2019-2020 season and the paid and unenjoyed matches. Neither amount has been returned, nor is a solidarity and equitable effort requested.
– Weakening of Assets (For everything the Provision is pulled and everything is attributed to COVID losses)
– Waiver of help from partners in equal parts (Before 30% was essential)
– They present a new proposal where they “park” the conflictive until October, generate confusion with their proposals, and make it extremely difficult to understand them.
– The imminent agreement with the staff to reduce spending for this concept in December, seems to continue to be so in February, and although they affirm that it is included in the Budget, they do not specify and seem to also leave it for October.
– They present a Zero Quota for 2021 but affirm that it will be re-studied in October depending on the evolution of the pandemic, something difficult, even legal, since the quotas for 2021 must be approved in these budgets and not at the end of this year , in those of the new season 21/22, pretending that they are retroactive.
– They leave important decisions in limbo exclusively seeking approval in the Assembly, but postponing problems and solutions to them.
– The quotas for the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 years seem to obey different criteria and the explanations in this regard, far from clarifying, cause more and more confusion.
– Pretending a “Yes” as a vote of confidence with its precedents does not seem like a valid reason.
– They emanate confusion and incoherence
Our “NO” is a “NO” for the good of Athletic. We consider that the worst thing for Athletic is to support this proposal and the ability to manage it on the part of those who have not demonstrated having the approval in the management by the social mass.
For all this, WE WILL VOTE NO to points 1, 2 and 3 that the board presents to us for a vote in the Assembly.
February 18, 2021