More seriously though, I'm sticking with "was" in this case. Technically you're right. Was would be past indicative, for something that's true or factual, and were would be past subjunctive, something that's not real or true. So since it's a thing wished for or speculated on it'd be if I were the club. In this particular case, though, the technically correct gives ground before spoken usage. I basically said if it was me, and I would never word it as if it were I. If you were trying to say if I ruled the world would you really say if I were the king instead of if I was the king? (Also notice I began that sentence with if you were rather than if you was, but that's a different usage case, and one where you'd definitely be correct in what you're saying.)
But really, are we now discussing past subjunctive clauses vs. past indicative clauses here on the forum?
(I can just see it now, descriptivists vs prescriptivists having fistfights in the bleachers at our next match at Yankee Stadium.)
