I’ll copy my post from the club forum here, with so much opinion and so little knowledge going on here:
The primal evil
In June 2025, the supervisory board approved a budget increase for the recent 2025/26 season. This budget increase was decided on the initiative of Hasan Ismaik’s representatives. The eV representatives unanimously voted against it, but were outvoted by the double voting rights of the chairman of the supervisory board. The additional expenses were not covered by our own income, but Ismaik’s representatives assured that loans from HAM (Ismaik’s investment company) would close this gap.
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/sport/tsv-1860-muenchen-etat-kader-seeboeck-ismaik-li.3276441
Why didn’t the eV prevent this budget increase with 50+1?
In principle, the association would have been entitled to prohibit the management from using the budget approved by the supervisory board. However, there would then have been a risk of being prosecuted (also legally) by the Ismaik side for acting against the best interests of the KGaA (i.e. the gaming operating company of which Ismaik owns 60 percent).
Why was the liquidity gap so surprising?
In mid-February, Ismaik’s supervisory board Biel Ballester Relat declared in writing (!) that he could “as a representative of HAM confirm that we will continue to meet our obligations as loan creditors as before. In fact, on May 21st, exactly 13 (!) days before the deadline for submitting the licensing documents, the termination of this loan for 2.7 million euros occurred, which is the cause of the forced relegation. Alleged misconduct regarding accounting was cited towards him as a co-shareholder, these allegations have so far been devoid of any substance, especially given the fact that he has occupied the majority of the supervisory board (!) since he joined.
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/sport/1860-muenchen-kunden-3-liga-ismaik-kredit-gekuendigt-abstieg-regionalliga-li.3489178
Why wasn’t an agreement on a new loan agreement reached?
In the course of the loan termination, Ismaik made seven demands:
– proper financial reporting and establishment of a compliance and financial reporting system by September 30, 2026”
– “Appointment of a neutral external financial expert by June 30, 2026”
– “Spending restrictions to ensure strict earmarking of new funds”; “Strict adherence to the approved budget”
– “Avoid disparagement”
– “Restructuring of KGaA by October 31, 2026 on the basis of an agreed restructuring plan to be completed by June 30, 2026.”
– “Waiver of the eV’s right of first refusal” (was collected again quite quickly)
Some of these points are actually standard in the context of companies and could have been demanded by Ismaik’s representatives at any time in recent years if they had actually not been adhered to, others are either not implementable (“waiver of denigrations” -> there are court rulings that the denigrations implied by this, e.g. the flag with Ismaik’s face crossed out, are covered by freedom of expression) or are clearly in contradiction to the 50+1 rule. In particular, the “appointment of a financial expert” was interpreted to mean that an additional managing director with veto rights should be appointed. The eV’s authority to issue instructions to the management would therefore have been no longer applicable. A key condition of 50+1
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/sport/1860-muenchen-kunden-3-liga-ismaik-förderen-kredit-li.3489813
https://sechzger.de/live-ticker-tsv-1860-muenchen-ev-vs-ham-international-ltd/
https://www.tsv1860.de/de/news/artikel/fragen-und- Answeren-zur-entwicklung-in-der-tsv-muenchen-von-1860-gmbh-co-kgaa
How did the negotiations go?
According to everyone involved, intensive negotiations had already taken place since the loan agreement was terminated (hence, for example, the elimination of the claim regarding the eV’s right of first refusal). According to those involved, there were basically two draft contracts. The current status can best be found in today’s SZ article:
“On Tuesday morning, the eV representatives had drawn up a version of the contract in which they accepted Ismaik’s demands, provided they were permissible under association law.”
Ismaik’s lawyers responded: “Unfortunately, the documents are not acceptable to HAM (Ismaik’s company; editor) and need to be revised. In particular, we cannot accept the reservation ‘as far as permitted by association law’. We need a clear commitment from everyone involved that we want this solution without loopholes, so that there are no excuses not to play along after the funds have been paid.” That is “at least the clear instructions we received from HAM. Either everyone agrees to this rescue plan or we cannot save the club.” The letter concludes with the request: “Can you confirm that the eV will not let the club be relegated to the fourth division because it insists on this reservation? We need confirmation at short notice.”
What this specifically means, and according to the SZ, was also communicated by the eV side, was that Ismaik gave the co-partner eV the choice of whether the license would be refused due to a liquidity gap or whether it would be refused due to a clear violation (all points were also coordinated with the DFB in advance) against the 50+1 rule. Again in the SZ: “According to SZ information, the fact that a debt only affected HAM and not the KGaA or even the parent club was also the result of in-depth advice on insolvency law.”
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/sport/1860-muenchen-license-3-liga-wahl-ismaik-li.3493346
In summary:
Ismaik and his deputies initiated a budget increase against the will of the eV. He canceled the loan due to cover this gap 13 days in advance, citing flimsy and/or unfulfillable conditions. It has been proven that the eV was explicitly prepared to meet all demands that were compatible with the licensing requirements within the framework of the German 50+1 rule and thus a license for the 3rd league. Only Hasan Ismaik is responsible for the lack of an agreement, as his demands would in any case have resulted in no license being granted. As of now, he remains a co-partner in the regional league, but will have to face legal consequences because he has breached the contract by unilaterally terminating the loan agreement
Why did Ismaik do that?
Is there a God? Does life have meaning? These questions are probably easier to answer. As of now there are only losers from this campaign, the only hope remains that maybe. but there is still some possibility (possibly also due to Ismaik’s breach of contract) of resolving things somehow. Or he can give it a try and finally sell his shares, even if he has just destroyed virtually all of their value.
2025… the “evil” arose in June 2025… aren’t you serious? 1860 has been financially run horribly for decades and has not completed a financial year for at least 40 years without ending up with a red number that someone had to balance.
But last year and Ismaik are NOW to blame??? Really now? People people… Mismanagement has been a basic lion virtue… for… oh knows how long.