The management of third-division club Rot-Weiss Essen has recently come under heavy criticism. Now Pfeifer, Rang, and Oelert have responded in an interview.
There was unrest at the last home game of third division soccer club Rot-Weiss Essen. Numerous posters sharply criticized the management of the traditional club. “Amateurs at the helm,” said some, while others accused the supervisory board of “nepotism” on banners. Individual members of the supervisory board were also mocked. The withdrawal of financier and former official Sascha Peljhan continues to be a topic of discussion in the run-up to the annual general meeting at Messe Essen this coming Sunday.
In a detailed interview with this editorial team, the RWE management has now responded to the accusations and other current issues. 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 Peljhan’s inglorious departure.
At the last two home games, numerous posters displayed very clear criticism of the club’s management, especially the supervisory board. How does the club feel about these expressions of discontent?
Marc-Nicolai Pfeifer: Of course we noticed that – it would be terrible and ignorant not to. From the perspective of the board, I initially perceive a very good level of cohesion in all committees. Nevertheless, in our position, we have a responsibility to engage in constant dialogue with members and fans in order to listen to objective criticism and address it. Personally, I approach the matter with an open mind, as I have only been here for a few months. However, what I must say, and what those responsible can also claim for themselves, is that the developments in the recent past can be considered positive for the time being.
Has there been any form of exchange with the critics? There has been a lot of talk recently about opposition. It is debatable whether that is the right term. But there are people who are dissatisfied.
Pfeifer / Oelert: The term opposition may have been chosen to some extent to attract more attention. With 12,000 members, it is completely normal for there to be different opinions. It is a democratic process and is certainly beneficial for the overall development of the club. The election of the election committee will take place this coming Sunday and there are two new candidates.
There is currently a lot of headwind for the supervisory board. How do you explain that?
Alexander Rang: I have been with the club since September 2023 and worked with the previous 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 at the club. From May to June, I had overall responsibility and now I am part of the board team with Marc. There is obviously some discontent within the previous board, but we also need to take a critical look at things. Where does this discontent come from, how did it arise, and why is it growing stronger now? We are working intensively on further professionalization and increasing efficiency. We want to be more competitive; we don’t just want to reach the third division, we want to develop further there. To achieve this, there were many issues that we had to address and tackle, including making unpleasant decisions, and we must continue to do so. After the inglorious last AGM, I realized that the supervisory board had very much fulfilled its role and, of course, tightened its control function. That is what every club member rightly expects from the board. And, of course, everything was more tightly scheduled and structured. That certainly led to discontent in some quarters of the board. As far as the supervisory board is concerned, I can only emphasize that I have always received support when it was needed. That is how cooperation should work. This, along with the continuity we have in this body, is what sets this supervisory board apart.
Individual members of the board have also been defamed. The age structure of the supervisory board is said to be unsuitable 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 has a great deal of expertise – and from a wide range of disciplines. And the work is based on an extraordinary level of trust. That helps us a lot in our work. I hope that we will be able to address the issues very objectively on Sunday. And it would be nice if the so-called opposition would put forward its arguments. Then we could discuss them, even controversially. That’s our job, and it only makes us better. And I think it would be good if we could find a way to all stick together for RWE. We need that in sales, in sponsorship, in our cooperation with the city of Essen, and not least in the sporting arena. We should look ahead; we want to achieve a lot. We need unity to achieve the goals we have set ourselves. We want to live them. When I see the banners and hear the words, Waldemar Wrobel’s world falls apart. He lives and breathes RWE. And I hardly know anyone who brings as much sporting expertise to the table as he does. After all, he is our promotion coach, who achieved promotion from virtually nowhere after the club went into insolvency. In addition, he has been working in professional soccer scouting in Germany and Europe for ten years. He knows exactly what’s going on in professional soccer. And to say that there is a lack of sporting expertise, I don’t know where else we would get it from. I am happy to continue to count on his sporting expertise.
Will you stand for re-election to the Supervisory Board next year?
Oelert: As I explained at the beginning of my role on the supervisory board, I am happy to make myself available. The signal is clear: I would like to continue putting my heart into RWE.
The impression has been created that there was no longer harmony between the former executive board 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 briefly on this from my neutral perspective and also use this interview to create transparency. Self-critically, we as a club should have done this earlier. First of all, after my departure from 1860 Munich became known, I received several inquiries from the second and third divisions and deliberately chose Rot-Weiss Essen, partly because the Supervisory Board convinced me. In its nature, in its values, and also in the issues that arose with the board at the time. Especially after a general meeting like that, which did not paint a good picture of Rot-Weiss Essen. With regard to the past, I tried to gain a better understanding of the former board and the issues they dealt with by talking to the supervisory board. The annual general meeting certainly contributed to the supervisory board exercising more intensive, deeper, and closer control. That naturally leads to discussions. So the issue has perhaps become a little more emotional.
Oelert: The undisputed starting point was last year’s disastrous general meeting. On the one hand, it was immediately clear to us on the supervisory board that we had to support the executive board, but on the other hand, we also wanted to improve and tighten up our controlling. We went into great depth and ultimately positioned ourselves in such a way that no accounting entry and no issue that had arisen in connection with this unfortunate date of the annual general meeting remained unresolved. At the small AGM with Hans-Henning Schäfer, we clearly showed that we support the club and also took over the presentation. We also saw that, with Sascha Peljhan as CFO, things were on the right track at that point. We then set up a controlling system with close reporting and improved other structures. When Marcus Uhlig then announced that he was requesting the termination of his contract because he simply no longer had the energy for the tasks, we complied with his request and ultimately agreed to end the collaboration at the end of May 2024. We respected that. It also gave us, as the supervisory board, a little breathing space to look for a successor. Sascha Peljhan then also indicated to us that he wanted to step down with Marcus Uhlig. At that point, we even made Sascha Peljhan several offers to continue working with us. He declined. He also did not want to try working with the new board members on a trial basis.
How did Sascha Peljhan justify this?
Oelert: He didn’t. He just declined. Several offers for talks were made, all of which have been rejected so far. Only people who are willing to talk can be helped, but then please talk to each other and not about each other. Discussions should always take place at the table, where controversial issues can also be discussed. The impression that the former board member was not treated with respect is not true. Offers to talk were made – by us, by Alexander Rang, by the election committee, by the honorary council, and by the supervisory board. Everyone made extensive efforts. What can we improve, what can we clear up? Especially when statements are made that place individuals above the club. Or when statements are made that diminish the desire for the club to be successful in the future, then I also have a personal responsibility to address the issue. I want to convey that message. No one should place themselves above the club.
Rang: I attended the supervisory board meetings. They were challenging due to the tasks at hand, but always characterized by mutual respect. I am completely surprised that the cooperation between my two predecessors is viewed so negatively. I also cannot explain what is supposed to have happened between Sascha and me. The criticism was also directed strongly at me. I first heard about the dispute with Sascha Peljhan in the newspaper. However, I did sense a certain discord or discontent, simply because he initially wanted to continue his sponsorship until the end of February 2024 and then, after I specifically asked him, canceled at short notice. When Thomas Wulf (commercial director, editor’s note) arrived, whose attitude has so far proved to be completely important and correct, it was said that Sascha Peljhan would be leaving at the end of May, but suddenly it became May 11. This was further evidence of his displeasure.
Rot-Weiss Essen: Peljhan held three roles at RWE
Then at some point, he said he would like to have a table with us after all. We responded by email in a friendly manner, showing him the appreciation he deserved, and told him what the price for this package would be and what we were proposing. And here we have to distinguish between three roles he plays. First, he is a lender to the club, then he is a former sponsor and former official. And it also depends on which role the request is made from. And he made the request from his role as a former sponsor. From a legal point of view, I am obliged to make a reasonable offer for compliance reasons. There was no response, even after I asked again.
Unfortunately, we were unable to reach him; he was not willing to talk. I then asked the honorary council to take up the matter. After all, Sascha is a member, and I am a member. They should have sought a discussion, but there was no willingness to talk. I find that difficult in a club when you are in a position where you are constantly talking about the club without giving any reasons or facts.
You described how you reacted to the last chaotic AGM. But how did these problems arise? How were the problems dealt with by the supervisory board?
Oelert: Nothing happened that the supervisory board was not aware of. I believe that insufficient communication led to the supervisory board simply having to provide much stronger and more detailed support, especially after the funds had been used. The supervisory board did not always receive answers in a timely manner. From my perspective, there were no misconducts on the part of the supervisory board with regard to a possible breach of its supervisory duties.
But the management board’s report did indicate that a deficit had arisen.
Oelert: No deficit arose. The loan agreements have been in place for some time. We just didn’t draw on the money at first because we didn’t need it. So there was still a buffer. When the funds were called upon, we naturally made every effort to significantly increase the likelihood of promotion. Then it is also effective as a loan, as a subordinated loan. This was also a conscious decision. Why? If someone provides us with money, we on the Supervisory Board have a duty 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 would be fully available to the club and the sports budget. At no point was the club illiquid or over-indebted. This is a completely normal procedure, a completely normal business transaction, which is of course reflected in the figures. In the end, the disaster was the communication and how it ultimately came about. That’s where we stepped in. 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 that into the present: Currently, the cooperation between the executive board and the supervisory board is working so well that there will be no unpleasant surprises at the AGM on Sunday?
Oelert: I assume so.
Read part 2 of our RWE interview on Friday: The RWE management team led by Pfeifer, Rang, and Oelert talks about the annual reports, developments with sponsors, and the club’s further goals.