[ad_1]
PFC Levski won in the first instance the lawsuit filed by the club in the Sofia District Court against former mentor “Blue” Stanimir Stoilov. The CPC ruled that there is indeed an agreement between Levski and the coach signed in 2016, but the BGN 70,000 for which the dispute is not due. The second instance: the Sofia City Court will analyze the case on September 30 of this year, reports Sportal.
The testimony of three witnesses given in the first instance is very interesting. These include former Levski CEO and club legend Nasko Sirakov, as well as the club’s chief accountant.
This is what the Sofia District Court said in its ruling:
“To establish the facts of the case relevant to the dispute, vocal evidence was collected through the examination of the EIG, NPS and IIP witnesses.”
Levski’s chief accounting officer says he was unaware of the annexes and that he had seen the May 26, 2016 deal, presented by then-CEO K.B. (BA is most likely referring to Konstantin Bazhdekov), who stated that he had been made to sign it, so he was surprised that the company had no monetary obligations to Stanimir Stoilov.
“Witness D., the plaintiff’s chief accountant, states that upon termination of his contract as head coach at the club, he was paid everything. He claims that all documents related to employment records are kept in the accounts since there are no T., and that the club did not practice signing additional agreements and annexes to employment contracts, did not know about the annexes to the defendant’s employment contracts in 2004 and 2006. She stated that she had seen the procedural agreement of 05.26.2016 presented by the Executive KB irregular, who shouted that it had been forced to sign it, which surprised her since the company had no monetary obligations to the SS Evidence that the accused had not presented orally since 2008, No there were written claims to the club that the player be paid in no way, and soccer players and coaches received bonuses for the results according to the internal Rules of the club. b, by management decision, they did not need to sign any additional agreements or annexes. Premiums accrued during the month in which results were achieved. The defendant was also paid payroll premiums as everything was accounted for, “the CPC decision read.
The second witness C (BA probably refers to Nasko Sirakov) stated that the company’s obligations were not only for Stoilov and him, since the sums were large. She says that in May 2008, she attended a meeting at the TB office. (BA probably refers to Todor Batkov), who was promised that in 2-3 days he would be paid everything, but the sums had not been paid. He knew that in 2013, a small part of what was owed was paid because he was invited to train, but after he refused, no payment was made. He claims that many clubs are filing similar cases to keep their license.
“From the testimony of the witness S. it is established that the plaintiff company remained indebted not only to the SS, but to him, since the sums were quite large. The obligations to the accused were contractual. He says that he attended a meeting in TB’s cabinet in May 2008 along with the defendant, who was promised that within 2-3 days of establishing the correct amount on the accounting report he would be paid everything, but the sums had not been paid He knew that in 2013, a small part of the amount owed to S. was paid by TB. The case of PL because he was invited to train, but after refusing, the payment did not continue. He claims that he learned of the agreement made by S. to pay him the fee owed. He doesn’t know if the defendant addressed B He claims that many clubs have filed lawsuits for their debts in order to obtain a court certificate and amounts not owed, which saved the license.into account, but it happened but also to give money by hand in the form of bonuses or wages, “reads the CPC decision.
The third witness P. claims that he submitted the attachments from Levski’s executive director Pavel Kolev in the first days of February 2019, who stated that he saw them for the first time.
“Witness P. – The Legal Counsel for the applicant dated 01.11.2016 stated that after receiving a copy of the 2004 and 2006 annexes in late January 2019, he presented them to the Executive Director of the Club – PK in the first days February 2019, who in turn stated that he saw them for the first time, and after verifying the accounting of the club it was discovered that the annexes presented were not available and that there were no authorizations for the benefit of the lawyer TB, who at that time , in accordance with the statutes of the company, had taken the position of “president of the club”, writes in a decision then the CPC.
[ad_2]
