The dispute over the child vote is now getting dirty

What does managing director Martin Kind know that the rest of Hannover 96 doesn't? Following the DFL vote on the investor deal, this question is suddenly on the minds of everyone with an interest in soccer. Will the deal still fall through, what will become of the 79-year-old and what will happen next?

Martin Kind's loud silence is becoming a threatening political issue for German professional soccer. The question marks behind the voting behavior of the managing director of Hannover 96 in the investor deal are causing more and more turmoil and could jeopardize the entry of a financier.

Kind is still unwilling to let anyone look at his cards and, in view of the secret ballot, is even questioning the statements made by other clubs. "Nobody knows whether the clubs that are now saying they voted no really voted that way," the 79-year-old told Bild.

Kind has been at loggerheads with the management of the parent club for some time. The latter had instructed him to reject the deal. Kind, however, is considered a supporter. As the entry of an investor would have been ruled out in the event of another no vote or abstention, the focus is on Kind - who only won his right to remain as managing director of the professional division in court in April in the legal dispute with the registered club.

Should the multi-millionaire have agreed to join the club against the instructions of the top management of the second division club, there is a threat of legal repercussions. Kind has since been asked by the club to inform the German Football League (DFL) of his voting behavior at the meeting. Although Kind is obliged to provide information to the club, he had not done so by midday on Wednesday. This was confirmed by a board member to the SID.

The incredible controversy surrounding 50+1

A list of the voting behavior of the clubs published by "Bild" suggests that Kind had agreed. The list includes all twelve clubs that are said not to have agreed. Hanover is not among them. However, if Kind sticks to his reference to the secret ballot and does not explain himself publicly, the vote would hardly be contestable.

"It was a secret ballot. The DFL has achieved a two-thirds majority. It's a clear majority," said Kind on Sport1: "I won't comment on the statements of the parent club. I will not take part in speculation."

However, the DFL's statement from October last year on "compliance with the 50+1 rule under the specific circumstances in Hannover" is explosive in this case. In it, the league association recalls the club's "unrestricted right to issue instructions" to the management.

DFL denies responsibility

Nevertheless, club chairman Sebastian Kramer reproached the DFL for the "lack of clarity regarding 50+1 from the e.V.'s point of view". It was "possibly due to the active inactivity of the DFL that a decision was made that would not have been made if the 50+1 rule had been consistently enforced, i.e. by imposing conditions on the implementation of the 50+1 rule," Kramer told Bild.

As a result, "a result pleasing to the DFL may have been made possible by this decisive vote". The decision therefore lacked "legitimacy". "We had informed the DFL about the instruction and suggested that the vote be postponed if it could not be ensured that Mr. Kind's voting behaviour was comprehensible," said Kramer: "We can now see the result."

Immediately after the meeting, the DFL top management denied questions about any inconsistencies with regard to Kind. "In this case, Mr. Kind, as managing director, is first of all entitled to represent the club externally at DFL 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 law expert does not see deal jeopardized

Sports lawyer Paul Lambertz does not believe the planned investor deal in German professional soccer 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, adding: "Negotiations with the investors should now begin and presumably more money will come to the clubs. There is no damage as a result." The parent club has no right of appeal under association law, but other clubs could challenge the decision.

Several fans had spoken out against the deal before the vote. "The fact that some fans see the value of soccer as being jeopardized by the entry of an investor is not a legal right whose violation would justify a claim for damages," said Lambertz.