Article 13.1 of the Athletic Club statutes: “The principle of equality of all associated persons is established, without any discrimination on the basis of birth, race, sex, religion, opinion or any other personal or social condition”. As a personal condition, I would classify the economy and seat choice of each partner.
There is no more differentiating element between partners in obligations and rights when calculating their quota than the cost corresponding to the chosen location in the stadium. As much as some make absurd comparisons, whether you like it or not.
We are not a community of neighbors with payment based on participation fee. We do not have it, we are all the same. Neither is a corporation where we have an equity stake and in proportion to it, to the number of shares acquired, responsibility or right to dividends. Don't kid us!
Controversial 30%
Invention of the current directive, this controversial 30%, without precedent or mention when presenting the latest budget and fees, establishes distinctions between partners in order to return the least amount possible. They qualify it as solidarity, but they claim more from some than from others, ultimately ceasing to be all equal.
The current directive, without counting on anyone, defends that part of the annuity of our card is destined to other concepts, and intends to withhold 30% from us, affirming that part of the quota for our town is destined to grassroots football and women's football , among other things.
Supporting said destiny, and being all equal in entry to Lezama, in right to vote, the votes of one and the other are equal, all being able to present ourselves as president, manager, compromise partner, equal in rights and obligations, illogical and unfair to create first-rate partners , second and even third; making some pay triple than others based on their taste for one location or another in San Mamés.
Desirable sanity and waistline to give it a spin. A flat rate would be reasonable: everyone paying the same for what we enjoy in the same way. The same amount, in short.
Does anyone understand that a member of the Lower Main Tribune should allocate triple to youth football than another who chooses the Animation Grada to watch Athletic? When asking the member the cost of their fee, the only argument is the seat chosen, exclusively.
I cannot support anything other than dividing the cost of these items equally among the 44,000 members, respecting the equality that our Statutes define. With a waist it is more feasible to try to move the Assembly forward.
Other possibility
Suggestion: eliminate that unsolidarity 30% and a proportional refund to all members of the amounts corresponding to the matches not played in San Mamés. After said return, charge the members the same fee as in 2020. At the end of the year, we would make the same account.
Next week I will comment on the accounts. At the time of this writing, Mr. From the Sources.
If nothing goes wrong, here in seven days.