What did the Hanover boss vote for?
Things are now getting messy in the dispute over the child vote
December 13, 2023, 1:54 p.m
What does managing director Martin Kind know that the rest of Hannover 96 doesn’t? After the DFL vote on the investor deal, this question suddenly concerns everyone who is interested in football. Will the deal still be over, what will happen to the 79-year-old and what happens next?
Martin Kind’s loud silence is becoming a threatening political issue for German professional football. The question marks behind the voting behavior of the managing director of Hannover 96 in the investor deal are causing ever greater upheaval and could jeopardize the entry of a financier.
Kind doesn’t want to let anyone look at his cards and even questions the statements of other clubs in view of the secret vote. “Nobody knows whether the clubs that are now declaring that they voted no actually voted that way,” the 79-year-old told “Bild”.
Kind has been at loggerheads with the parent club’s management for some time. She had instructed him to reject the deal. Child, however, is considered a supporter. Since an investor’s entry would have been canceled if there was another no vote or abstention, the focus is on Child – who only fought in court in April to remain as managing director of the professional department in the legal dispute with the registered club.
If the multimillionaire agreed to join the club against the instructions of the second division club’s management, there could be legal repercussions. Kind has now been asked by the club to report his voting behavior at the meeting of the German Football League (DFL). Although Kind is obliged to provide information to the club, he had not done so by midday on Wednesday. A board member confirmed this to the SID.
The incredible explosiveness of 50+1
A list in “Bild” of the clubs’ voting behavior suggests that Kind agreed. The list includes all twelve clubs that are said to have not agreed. Hanover cannot be found among them. However, if Kind sticks to his reference to the secret vote and does not explain himself publicly, the vote would hardly be contestable.
“It was a secret election. The DFL achieved a two-thirds majority. It’s a clear majority,” said Kind on Sport1: “I’m not commenting on the parent club’s statements at all. I won’t take part in speculation. “
What is explosive in this case, however, is the DFL’s statement from October last year about “compliance with the 50+1 rule under the specific circumstances in Hanover”. In it, the league association reminds us of the club’s “unrestricted right to give instructions” to the management.
DFL denies responsibility
The club’s chairman Sebastian Kramer nevertheless blamed the DFL for the “lack of clarity regarding 50+1 from the eV’s perspective”. Kramer told “Bild” that “a decision may have been reached due to the active inaction of the DFL that would not have come about if it had been consistently enforced, i.e. through requirements to implement the 50+1 rule.”
This “possibly enabled a result that was favorable to the DFL through this decisive vote.” The decision therefore lacks “legitimacy”. “We informed the DFL about the instructions and suggested postponing the vote if it could not be ensured that Mr. Kind’s voting behavior was understandable,” said Kramer: “You can now see the result.”
Immediately after the meeting, the DFL leadership denied questions about possible inconsistencies regarding Child. “In this case, Mr. Kind, as managing director, is initially authorized to represent the DFL at general meetings,” said co-managing director Steffen Merkel: “As far as any internal instructions are concerned, if they exist, from our point of view this concerns the internal relationship of a club.”
Sports lawyer does not see deal at risk
Sports lawyer Paul Lambertz does not believe the planned investor deal in German professional football is at risk, despite the internal dispute at Hannover 96. “I don’t see the investor deal failing,” the lawyer told the German Press Agency.
“Even if we had a breach of duty by Kind, I don’t see any claim for damages,” said Lambertz and added: “Negotiations should now be held with the investors and probably more money will come to the clubs. This means there will be no damage.” The parent club has no right to sue under association law, although other clubs could challenge the decision.
Several fans spoke out against the deal before the vote. “The fact that some fans see the value of football as being jeopardized by investor involvement is not a legal interest whose violation would justify a claim for damages,” said Lambertz.