The DFL has confirmed that the decision to allow an investor to enter the league association’s business was “effectively and lawfully taken”. A possible violation by managing director Martin Kind of Hannover 96 against the parent club’s instructions is the club’s responsibility.
The vote on Monday (December 11, 2023) was secret, which made it impossible to understand who voted and how, the DFL said. “With a secret vote, no conclusions can be drawn about individual voting behavior,” said the DFL. The DFL wrote that all people voting were authorized to represent their respective clubs at the time of the vote. The decision was therefore “effective and lawful”.
Parent association demands information from the child Voting behavior
Martin Kind’s vote may have been decisive. With 24 “yes” votes, there was exactly the required two-thirds majority. The parent association had instructed Kind to vote “no”. Since more than ten clubs already have information or confirmation about their rejection of investor involvement, the assumption remains that Kind voted “yes” contrary to the instructions.
“We have asked Mr. Kind in writing to provide us as the parent club with information about how he voted,” said Sebastian Kramer, CEO of Hannover 96 e. V., in conversation with the Sportschau. “The answer is currently pending.” The DFL was informed of the directive on Friday. “A postponement was suggested if it could not be understood that Mr. Kind was voting in accordance with instructions,” said Kramer. Child and the club have been at odds for years.
Child’s vote cannot be verified
Only Kind himself knows how exactly he voted. At the request of the committees, the vote in the DFL was carried out secretly with a ballot paper and urn. Kind pointed out to the Sportschau that the vote was secret.
The fact that ten clubs are known to have said “no” does not provide any security, says Kind in the Bild newspaper. “No one knows whether the clubs that are now declaring that they voted no actually voted that way,” said Kind. In the “Neue Presse” he indicated that he wanted to respond to the parent club, but would not disclose his voting behavior. At the same time, he expressed himself positively about the vote and the possible investor deal.
The office of the German Football League (DFL)
DFL: Instructions only apply to the club itself
The process is relevant in connection with the 50+1 rule. The DFL only published a statement on this in October 2022: “In the DFL’s opinion, what is crucial for compliance with the 50+1 rule at Hannover 96 is that Hannover 96 e. V., as the sole shareholder of Hannover 96 Management GmbH, continues to have an unrestricted right to issue instructions to the management of Hannover 96 Management GmbH.” The question now arises as to whether this right to issue instructions could be applied to the vote.
The German Football League is not responsible for the fact that Child may have acted against instructions from the parent club of Hannover 96 when voting as managing director of Hannover 96 GmbH & Co. KG. The DFL writes that instructions regarding the current process “Basically only within the internal relationships of a respective club” works. From the DFL’s perspective, this means: The matter is solely a matter for Hannover 96, not the DFL. Even if the 50+1 rule is anchored in their statutes.
The DFL managing directors Marc Lenz and Steffen Merkel
Association law expert: DFL vote hardly contestable, but 96 violates 50+1
Lars Leuschner, association law expert at the University of Osnabrück, does not see the DFL’s decision as a major threat. One could ask whether it is legitimate to refer to a tolerated violation of the 50+1 rule. “An abuse of the power of representation seems hardly justifiable”, he said in an interview with Sportschau. It would only come into consideration if it were certain that “All representatives who voted for the resolution would have known that the child was acting contrary to instructions.”
However, Leuschner is critical of the general structure at Hannover 96. The parent club’s authority to give instructions is practically ineffective because “It is impossible for a child to be removed against his or her will.” The reason: A four-member supervisory board has to decide whether to remove Kind from office in the event of violations – but two representatives there come from Kind, so it can always create a stalemate situation. “In my opinion, this clearly violates the DFL’s 50+1 rule. A right to give instructions that is virtually impossible to enforce is not enough to ensure the dominant influence of the parent club.”
The 50+1 rule states that the majority of shares in a club should always be in the hands of the members. The influence of investors is therefore limited.