The club leadership of third division Rot-Weiss Essen was recently criticized sharply. Now Pfeifer, Rang and Oelert take a stand in an interview.
There was unrest at the last home game of the third division soccer team Rot-Weiss Essen. On numerous posters, the club leadership of the traditional club was criticized, some of it sharply. “Amateurs at the helm,” said some, while others accused the supervisory board of ‘cronyism’ on the banners. Individual members of the supervisory board were also ridiculed. In the run-up to the Annual General Meeting at Messe Essen this coming Sunday, the withdrawal of financier and former official Sascha Peljhan continues to be a topic of conversation.
In an extensive interview with this editorial team, the RWE management has now responded to the allegations and other current topics. In the first part of the interview, board members Marc-Nicolai Pfeifer and Alexander Rang and supervisory board chairman Lothar Oelert talk about the fan protests, the chaotic last AGM and the inglorious departure of Peljhan.
During the last two home matches, there were numerous posters with very clear criticism of the club’s management, especially of the supervisory board. What is the club’s position on these expressions of displeasure?
Marc-Nicolai Pfeifer: Of course we have noticed this – it would be bad and ignorant not to. From the point of view of the board, I initially perceive a very good cohesion in all committees. Nevertheless, in our position we have a responsibility to constantly engage in dialogue with members and fans in order to accept objective criticism and also to deal with it. Personally, I approach the matter with an open mind, as I have only been in the job for a few months. But what I have to say and what the respective responsible people can also take for themselves: the development in the recent past is to be evaluated positively for the time being.
Has there been any kind of exchange with the critics? Recently there has often been talk of an opposition. It is debatable whether this is the right term. But there are people who are dissatisfied.
Pfeifer / Oelert: The term ‘opposition’ may have been chosen a little with the aim of getting more attention. If there are other opinions among 12,000 members, that’s perfectly normal. It is a democratic process and definitely beneficial for the overall development of the association. The election committee will be elected next Sunday and there are two new candidates.
There is currently a lot of opposition to the supervisory board. How do you explain this?
Alexander Rang: I have been with the club since September 2023 and worked with the old board. At the beginning of my time on the board, I was mainly involved in sales and in an observational role with regard to the overall situation in the club, from May to June I had overall responsibility and now I am on the board team with Marc. Obviously, there is a certain amount of resentment in the old board, but you also have to ask critical questions. Where does this displeasure come from, how did it develop and why is it now growing more and more? We are working hard to further professionalize and increase efficiency. We want to be more competitive, we not only want to get into the 3rd division, but we also want to develop there. To do this, there were many issues that we had to address and tackle, and we also had to and still have to make unpleasant decisions. After the inglorious last AGM, I realized that the supervisory board had indeed fulfilled its task very decidedly and, of course, tightened its control function. That is what every club member rightly expects of the board. And, of course, everything was more tightly timed and structured. This has certainly led to resentment at one point or another in the board. As for the supervisory board, I can only emphasize that I have always received support when it was needed. That’s how cooperation should work. That absolutely characterizes this supervisory board, in addition to the continuity we have in this body.
Individual members of the board have also been defamed. The age structure of the supervisory board is said to be inappropriate and there is said to be too little sporting expertise. What do you say to these accusations?
Lothar Oelert: In my opinion, the supervisory board is full of expertise – and from a wide range of different fields. And the work is done in an atmosphere of great trust. And that helps us a lot in our work. I hope that we can address the issues on Sunday in a very objective manner. And it would be nice if the so-called opposition would present their arguments. Then we could discuss it, even have a heated debate if we wanted. That’s our job, and it’s the only way to get better at it. I think it would be good if we could all pull together for RWE. We need that in sales, in sponsoring, in our cooperation with the city of Essen and not least in the sporting area. We should look ahead, we want to achieve a lot. We need to be united in pursuit of the goals we have set ourselves. We want to live them. When I see the banners and read the words, it’s like a world is collapsing for Waldemar Wrobel. He lives RWE. And I hardly know anyone who brings as much sporting expertise to the job as he does. After all, he is our coach who has taken us from insolvency to promotion, practically from nothing. He has also been working in the scouting sector of professional football in Germany and Europe for ten years. He knows exactly what is going on in professional football. And as for saying there is a lack of sporting expertise, I don’t know where we would get it from otherwise. I am happy to continue to count on his sporting expertise.
Will you be standing again in next year’s supervisory board elections?
Oelert: As I already mentioned at the beginning of my role on the supervisory board, I am happy to make myself available. The signal is set, I would like to continue to put my heart into RWE.
The impression has been created that there was no longer harmony between the former board of directors around Marcus Uhlig and Sascha Peljhan and the supervisory board. In the end, the rifts were obviously too deep. Should these things have been communicated more transparently by the club?
Pfeifer: I would like to comment on this briefly from my neutral point of view and also use this interview to create transparency. Self-critically, we as a club should have done this earlier. First of all, after it became known that I was leaving 1860 Munich, I had several offers from the second and third divisions and I deliberately chose Rot-Weiss Essen, also because the supervisory board convinced me. In his manner, in his values, also in the topics that arose with the then board of directors. Especially after a general meeting like that, which did not cast a good image of Rot-Weiss Essen. In terms of the past, I tried to better understand the former board and their issues with the supervisory board. The annual general meeting certainly contributed to the supervisory board’s more intensive, deeper and more closely controlled approach. This naturally leads to discussions. As a result, the topic may have become a little more emotional.
Oelert: The indisputable starting point was last year’s desolate general meeting. On the supervisory board, it was immediately clear to us, on the one hand, that we had to support the management board, but on the other hand, we also wanted the controlling to be better and more tightly controlled. We went into this very deeply and ultimately positioned ourselves in such a way that no accounting issue that had arisen around this troublesome date with the Annual General Meeting was left open. We clearly showed at the small AGM with Hans-Henning Schäfer that we support the club and also took over the presentation. We also saw that with Sascha Peljhan as CFO, things were going in the right direction at that point. We then set up a controlling system with a tight reporting structure and improved further structures. When Marcus Uhlig then sent word that he was asking for his contract to be terminated because he simply no longer had the strength for the tasks, we complied with his request and then ultimately agreed to end the collaboration at the end of May 2024. We respected that. It also gave us as the supervisory board a bit of breathing room to look for a successor. Sascha Peljhan then also indicated that he wanted to resign with Marcus Uhlig. At that point, we even made Sascha Peljhan some offers to continue working together. He rejected them. He also did not want to enter into a trial period with the new board members.
How did Sascha Peljhan justify that?
Oelert: He didn’t. He just rejected it. There have been several offers to talk, all of which have been rejected so far. Only people who talk can be helped, but then please talk to each other and not about each other. The discussion should always take place at the table, where controversial discussions are welcome. The image that the former board was not treated with respect is not true. There were offers of talks – from us, from Alexander Rang, from the election committee, from the honorary council and from the supervisory board. Everyone has made extensive efforts. What can we improve, what can we clear up? Especially when statements are made that put individuals above the club. Or when there are statements that reduce the desire for the club to be successful in the future, then I also have a personal issue with my responsibility. I want to convey the message. Nobody should place themselves above the club.
Rang: I have experienced the supervisory board meetings. They were demanding due to the tasks at hand, but always characterized by mutual respect. I am totally surprised that the cooperation of both predecessors is assessed as so negative. Nor can I explain to myself what should have happened between Sascha and me. The criticism was also directed strongly at me. I first learned about the dispute with Sascha Peljhan from the newspaper. However, I did notice a certain discord or displeasure, which was evident from the fact that he initially wanted to continue his sponsorship at the end of February 2024 and only canceled it at short notice after I specifically asked him about it. When Thomas Wulf (commercial director, editor’s note) came on board, whose attitude has so far proven to be completely important and correct, it was said that Sascha Peljhan would be leaving at the end of May, but then it was suddenly changed to May 11. This was another indication of his displeasure.
Rot-Weiss Essen: Peljhan took on three roles at RWE
Then at some point it was said that he would like a table with us after all. We then kindly pointed out to him by email what the price for this package would be and what we would suggest, in order to show him the necessary appreciation. And here we have to distinguish between three roles with him. Firstly, he is a club creditor, then he is an ex-sponsor and ex-official. And it also depends on which role the request is made from. And in this case, he made the request from the role of ex-sponsor. Legally, for compliance reasons, I am obliged to make a reasonable offer. There was no response, not even to my renewed request.
Unfortunately, we couldn’t get through to him, he wasn’t willing to talk. So I asked the council of honor to take on the issue. Sascha is a member, I’m a member. They should seek a conversation, but there was no willingness to talk either. And I find that difficult in a club when someone takes on such a role, when they are constantly talking about the club without giving reasons or facts.
You have described how you reacted to the last chaotic AGM. But how did these problems arise? How were the problems dealt with in the supervisory board?
Oelert: Nothing happened that the supervisory board was not aware of. Rather, I believe that inadequate communication led to the supervisory board having to provide much stronger and more detailed support, especially after the funds were deployed. The supervisory board did not always get the answers it needed, or at the right time. From my perspective, there were no transgressions on the part of the supervisory board with regard to a possible violation of the duty of control.
But the report of the board of directors did show that a deficit had arisen.
Oelert: There was no deficit at all. The loan agreements have been in place for quite some time. We just didn’t call in the money at first because we didn’t need it. So there was still a buffer. At the moment the money was called in, we naturally tried to significantly increase the probability of promotion. Then it is also effective as a loan, as a subordination loan. That was also a conscious choice. Why? When someone provides us with money, we have a duty to the supervisory board to make this as tax-neutral as possible for the club. So we had to find a way to ensure that no tax-effective payments were triggered, so that it was fully available to the club and the sports budget. At no point was the club insolvent or over-indebted. This is a normal procedure, a normal business process, which is of course reflected in the figures. In the end, the disaster was the communication and the fact how it ultimately came about. That’s where we intervened. We are a healthy club and in my opinion we are on the road to success, really good success, and we can be proud of that.
To bring this into the present: is the cooperation between the board and the supervisory board currently working so well that there will be no unpleasant surprises at the AGM on Sunday?
Oelert: I assume so.
Read on Friday in part 2 of our RWE interview: The RWE leadership around Pfeifer, Rang and Oelert talks about the annual reports, the development of the sponsors and further goals of the club.