Second division team Hannover 96 wanted to vote no in the decision about DFL investors, professional boss Martin Kind (79) apparently disregarded the corresponding instructions from the club bosses. That could cost Kind the job as professional boss at 96…
Without the Hanover vote (24 voted yes, exactly the limit for the required two-thirds majority), the investor application would have been rejected. BILD spoke to Hanover’s eV boss Sebastian Kramer.
BILD: Mr. Kramer, despite clear instructions from the club’s board of directors, managing director Martin Kind apparently voted yes for Hannover 96. What do you think?
Chandler: “We can’t say anything concrete about it yet. First of all, we are surprised by the individual voting results of the clubs that commented on this, because there was a clear instruction and it couldn’t have been implemented.”
President horrified by referee attack “A shame for Turkish football”
Club waiting for child response
Have you already had contact with Mr. Kind?
“Not personally. Today, in our capacity as the sole shareholder of Hannover 96 Management GmbH, we asked Mr. Kind in writing to state whether he adhered to the instructions or whether he specifically voted no.”
Did Mr Kind confirm that he voted yes?
“The answer is still pending.”
Is the association board now involving the responsible supervisory board of Management GmbH with the aim of removing Martin Kind as managing director?
“If it turns out that the instructions were ignored, we will of course have to seriously consider how we deal with the situation. The supervisory board of Hannover 96 Management GmbH was informed in advance about the instructions to Mr. Kind, so they are in the know.”
Red line crossed
Will the club’s board challenge the result of the DFL vote or file a lawsuit against its validity?
“The parent club has no right of action under association law, but other affected clubs and associations can challenge the decision. But basically: In the last few days, the DFL has often been talking about red lines that supposedly should not be crossed.”
So has the DFL itself crossed a red line?
“We have long felt how little we can make of it. Since the middle of last year, the DFL has been asked to practically reinstate the 50+1 rule in Hanover as a licensing requirement and to once again observe its own statutes and licensing regulations. Nothing has happened since then. Even a personal conversation with the DFL at the beginning of the year didn’t change anything.”
“Active inaction by the DFL”
With what consequences?
“The result is that a decision may have been reached due to the active inaction of the DFL that would not have been reached if it had been consistently enforced, i.e. through requirements to implement the 50+1 rule. As a result, a result that was favorable to the DFL may have been made possible by this decisive vote, with far-reaching consequences.”
Does this mean the voting result is invalid?
“The DFL’s decision therefore lacks legitimacy, especially since such a narrow decision seems unsuitable for such far-reaching measures anyway. The DFL itself said that in the spring. It’s actually not possible to cross the red line any further. The nature of the vote was also surprising. Why secret and who requested this?”
Have you already had contact with the DFL?
“We had informed the DFL in advance about the instructions and the lack of exchange and suggested that the vote be postponed if it could not be ensured that Mr. Kind’s voting behavior was understandable. You can now see the result. There was no response from the DFL to our letter, and no one has contacted us afterwards.”
Your conclusion?
“The DFL no longer seems to have to take the clubs into account because they have moved so far away from the grassroots that secret elections are being held in order to be able to go their own way.”