The plenary session in Alicante saw the corporate declaration pushed by Compromís and United We Can fail to advance on its central demand. The call urged Enrique Ortiz to settle contractual debts with various public institutions and to consider selling the club to backers capable of restoring Hercules to its former standing. It argued that both the current ownership and management had effectively been stripped of control, a claim meant to reframe the club’s governance. Points one and three did move forward when the council expressed its solidarity with Hercules fans who feel disheartened and demoralized by the direction taken under Ortiz. Point three proposed a transfer of the agreement to the ownership structure of Hercules Club de Fútbol SAD, signalling an intent to reorganize ownership in line with investor and fan aspirations. In the end, the broader corporate declaration gained little traction, with its fate sealed by a point-by-point voting process that left the majority of the text largely unaltered. The second point, the most significant in scope, faced rejection from the coalition partners PP, Ciudadanos, and Vox, effectively blocking the attempt to alter the club’s ownership trajectory through the declared plan. During the session, Xavi López and Natxo Bellido spoke on behalf of United We Can and Compromís, joined by figures from the Herculanos Association, including its president Quique Tébar. They were joined by VOX’s Mario Ortolá, Ciudadanos’ José Luis Berenguer, and several members of the city government, including Lara López and a representative from the PSOE, all participating in a discussion that underscored the political complexity surrounding the club’s future.
Quique Tébar, president of the Asociación Herculanos, attended the plenary with his partner David Rubio and made a pointed public statement within the Town Hall. He argued that Hercules had lost much of its essence, recalling the club’s centennial roots and the values that had long defined its culture. The appeal was framed as a call to accountability, insisting that Enrique Ortiz should be pressed to liquidate outstanding debts and relinquish shares when necessary. Tébar asked attendees to decide clearly which side they stood on, casting the debate as a moral test about stewardship and loyalty to the club’s legacy. In their remarks, fan groups emphasized that Hercules represents far more than a football club; it stands as a defining emblem of the city of Alicante and a source of local pride that reaches beyond the sport itself.
Consequently, the City Council signaled its sympathy with the Hercules supporters and positioned itself as the sole body capable of pressuring Ortiz in relation to the third clause. The council’s stance suggested that the approved measures, if enacted, would bring the club closer to the situation it experienced in the previous season, maintaining continuity while addressing the supporters’ concerns. The developing dynamic highlighted a broader tension between financial solvency, governance, and the cultural significance of the club for the residents of Alicante. As the dialogue unfolded, stakeholders from multiple political backgrounds recognized Hercules as a symbol worth defending, even as negotiations and possible restructuring moved through the political arena. The outcome illustrated how local governance could intersect with sport to shape the long-term prospects of a community institution once celebrated for its historical contributions and its capacity to unite a diverse fan base around a shared identity and pride.