Double no for Athletic’s president

Items 4, 5, and 6 on the general meeting’s agenda were a priori the items likely to cause the most controversy, according to previous meetings held between the club and its members. Participants initially approved an authorization that allows the Board to provide funding in excess of 10% of the previous budget’s spending, up to a maximum of 25%, as needed. Of the 641 subscribers who voted, 421 said “yes” and 189 said “no.”

Gorka Kubes, a member of the Board of Directors, was responsible for developing the agenda related to the new fee proposal for 2025. “This is a proposal to correct some of the imbalances without requiring additional fees in the short term or increasing the annual fees paid,” our current partners said. A proposal to correct the differences between similar positions and stagger jumps between blocks and lines in a fairer way. In short, it represents a gradual readjustment and a proposal for the future that strengthens the athleticism we all need in the coming years. ”

All participants who spoke said, among other things, that the proposal “is not clearly explained, violates equality in front of members, lacks market data and, in some cases, even that it is a scandalous increase.” “It’s about correcting the imbalance that comes with changing the stadium,” Uriarte said. The vote was significant, with 114 votes in favor, 448 votes against, and 22 blank votes.

second refusal

The board also did not proceed with draft regulations for clubs. His proposal was hotly contested and rejected with 196 votes against, 70 votes in favor, and 40 blank votes.