The case of Uli Hoeneß leaves Günther Jauch and the ARD no rest. The discussion before the trial (“Does Hoeneß have to go to prison?”) Was followed by the debriefing a week later. The result: yes, he must rightly be […]
The case of Uli Hoeneß leaves Günther Jauch and the ARD no rest. The discussion before the trial (“Does Hoeneß have to go to prison?”) Was followed by the debriefing a week later. The result: yes, he must rightly be behind bars. But does that end the case? Not at all. Because apparently a whole lot could come to light that only a few suspect at the moment.
The focus of the evening in the Gasometer was Hans-Ulrich Jörges, member of the “stern” editor-in-chief and a Hoeneß friend. Well, at least he is regarded as such. Some of his statements were more reminiscent of the saying: If you have friends like that, you don’t need enemies. Others would say, however, that true friends tell the truth, as uncomfortable as it may be. Pick something! Jörges offered quite a bit of discussion material.
First of all, because he stated that the former president of FC Bayern Munich had laid the foundation stone for his decision to refrain from going into revision, to return to society as a role model after serving his sentence. No one should get away with evading such tax sums, said Jörges. But in a society that is “poor in role models”, Hoeneß could take on such a role again through repentance.
Where did Hoeneß ‘millions really come from?
You may think about it how you want, but Jörges indicated that repentance needn’t have been meant so seriously. Because: “The research is not over yet.” What is meant are the work of his own employees, the journalists who uncovered the Hoeneß case. Jörges let it be known that Hoeneß could have lied that the money with which he started playing in Switzerland did not come from Adidas boss Robert Louis-Dreyfus. So where from then? Jörges only made a vague hint in the direction of dubious football deals. Unfortunately, moderator Jauch left it at that.
But one can obviously be curious whether the public prosecutor’s office will not go into revision due to this possibility of inconsistencies. In any case, the former Justice Minister Herta Däubler-Gmelin said that Hoeneß of course “cannot be convicted twice for the same act”. But first of all it has to be clearly defined what “the deed” actually is. That will be clarified in the written grounds for the judgment. Anything beyond that would be material for a new charge.
Is the CSU also involved in the case?
So the case is far from completely off the table. On the contrary, are there any further adversities brewing about Hoeneß? And what role did the alleged politician friends of the Bayern boss play in uncovering the crime? Jörges indicated that information was specifically passed on by the CSU. The goal: to burst the Hoeneß bomb in the big election year of 2013 so early that it does not become a millstone for Bavarian politicians shortly before the vote. Again one would have wished for more details, but Jörges with his answers and Jauch with his questions remained too vague.
It got emotional when the term social parasite came up. Hoeneß had defended himself in court against being referred to as such. After all, he has already paid millions in taxes and put a lot of money into charitable projects. “The donations are no longer worth anything,” said entrepreneur Thomas Selter. “The statement that he is not a social parasite, I find completely wrong.” Däubler-Gmelin also found the actions of the 62-year-old as “humanly indecent”.
Hartmann as snappy as Rudi Völler once did
One man who jumped Hoeneß aside, however, was Waldemar Hartmann. The sports journalist has known “Uli” for 40 years, so it went without saying that he understood the term “something completely different”. He thinks much more that Hoeneß could become president of FC Bayern again after serving his sentence, “if he wants to”.
Jakob Augstein also believes this in his own way. The publicist criticized the “carpet of roses” that Hoeneß laid out on the way to prison for a “terrible exaggeration” of a personality that “many will help up again. If we would take care of all the fallen as we did for him, it would be very nice. “
A small dispute broke out between Hartmann and Augstein, in which “Weißbier-Waldi”, as it has been called since his legendary interview with the then national coach Rudi Völler, aped in the direction of Augstein as viciously as Völler against Hartmann himself. The discussion advanced it wasn’t, it was always amusing.
“Main Department of Envy and Resentment”
The discussion then drifted away. Even if Jauch tried again and again to “come back to the Hoeneß case”, his guests got lost in a very general discussion about tax avoidance, about the abolition of voluntary disclosure, about too high and too low taxes in Germany, in short and in the words of Hartmann: in a “classic German discussion, main department envy and resentment”.
Augstein wanted to discuss “what kind of society we want”. Selter warned against condemning the millions of honest entrepreneurs in Germany for having a minimal proportion of tax evaders. Augstein, on the other hand, hung up on the term “sinner” and found “criminal” much better. Jörges demanded that there should be “no way out” for tax evaders. And Däubler-Gmelin found the discussion just “confusing”.
It remained that the last word in the Hoeneß affair has probably not yet been spoken. If the researchers at “stern” actually find something, it should be interesting again. Until then, all we can do at home is brooding over Jauch’s question: “Doesn’t each of us have a little Hoeness in us?”