What is it?
In the core of the matter is, who should in the future have to the Bundesliga soccer team Hannover 96: the members or a group of investors led by the club President Martin kind? The hearing aid manufacturers, at the next regular General meeting on may 23. March 2019 retirement as President of the e. V., as an Investor wants to make, is the managing Director of most subsidiaries of the Association and in the investors group, Sales & Service GmbH the largest shareholder. Here you can read more about Martin child.
Okay. And what is new?
In the recent conflict, it is the convening of an extraordinary General Assembly (MV). The goal: There are three Supervisory Board to dismiss members that are included in the child-bearing. You, the Opposition accuses the “community of interest Per club 1896” (IG), to have Deals waved through, to the detriment of 96. That child has bought 51 percent of the Management-GmbH for the price of 12,750 euros, and have been allowed to approve the members of the Supervisory Board never said IG spokesman Robin Krakow: “A report commissioned has estimated the value of the GmbH to ten million euros. Because it determines the managing Director.”
Is a dismissal at all possible?
In the Club’s articles of Association is: “An extraordinary MV is to be convened by the management Board on the written request of at least five percent of the members within five weeks of receipt of the request.” 1310 signatures were collected, 1145 would have been enough. Nevertheless, 96 denied an extraordinary MV. “The three members of the Board have already declared that they will no longer be a candidate,” – said in a statement on the 96-Homepage. “There is no rational reason not to, the ordinary MV to be seen.”
the club boss Martin kind
As argued by the child-bearing?
A corresponding MIRROR-request remained unanswered. It is clear that The Bureau argued that costs and process issues. The three councils would be voted out of an extraordinary MV, is likely to take place in a new election only in a further extraordinary MV, so the legal position of the child-bearing. In two and a half months, so three members ‘ meetings have to be held. The cost of up to 240,000 euros. The Opposition holds the sum was too high and said that two meetings would be sufficient.
Why has the Opposition in such a hurry?
Here the 11. December in the game, and the fight to preserve the 50+1 rule, the child would have rather abolished today than tomorrow. On Tuesday, the Permanent court of arbitration of the DFL is expected to decide whether a child receives for 96, a derogation from the 50+1 rule. In the summer, the DFL had rejected the still. The “criterion of ‘substantial support’ as a precondition for the granting of an exception to the 50+1 rule is not fulfilled,” wrote the League. Child have not been transferred over 20 years of at least the average amount of grants of the respective main sponsor.
what are the chances?
It would be no Surprise if the arbitral Tribunal decides, again, against a child. Child could then pull in front of a court of competent jurisdiction, to bring 50+1 in General case, even this step would not be a Surprise. In the strategy of the opponents as supporters of child in years to operate, could have played a Central role. Because, should tilt the majority in the Supervisory Board for the benefit of the child-enemy, could also be the application in Frankfurt, withdrawn – not to would be a lawsuit against 50+1.
Also sporty it runs bad for Hannover – the club is in the Bundesliga’s second-to-Last
The dispute in Hannover is, therefore, a dispute about the 50+1 rule?
Yes. But it is also a question of who should lead after the announced withdrawal of child in the coming March, Hannover 96, and who, in the future, the managing Director. While the Opposition wants to have it from the e. V. to choose, would the Board want to have a child, that he is determined by the investors.
The Management-GmbH, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the e. Vs., determines the managing Director of the Company, the professional company. Whose powers have been extremely limited, because he has almost all of the decisions by the Supervisory Board of the KGaA approve. In this Supervisory Board eight members, but only two come from the Association sit as a whole and have no voting rights. So child goes in addition to an open confrontation to the DFL. Because this approach is a clear break of the 50+1 rule. That child has not reported to the relevant articles of Association amendments to the DFL at the beginning of October, first of all, there is likely to have also caused Trouble.
What could be behind the provocation?
critics say that a child to be harmful to its course, the license for 96 – or at least a point deduction. In Hanover, many believe, therefore, that child takes the conflict with the DFL aware of in purchase to achieve in a second step, the main objective: “Regardless of whether it comes to the withdrawal of a license or a lesser penalty against both, he could sue then, in order to bring the 50+1 rule on the judicial bench,” says the IG.
in order for the legal processing would be taken, which could end in a few years, the European court of justice. How to decide is controversial.