TAS - CAS 2025-A-11669

CAS 2025/A/11669 Apollon Limassol FC v. Pablo Javier Machin Diez ARBITRAL AWARD delivered by the

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

sitting in the following composition:

Sole Arbitrator: Mr Hervé Le Lay, Attorney-at-Law in Paris, France in the arbitration between Apollon Limassol FC, Limassol, Cyprus Represented by Mr Alkiviadis Papantoniou of AP Sports Law Office, Athens, Greece

Appellant and Pablo Javier Machín Diez, Spain Represented by Mr José Manuel Ortega Calderón and Mr Guillermo L ópez Arana, Madrid, Spain and Mr Marc Cavaliero , Mr Jaime Cambreleng Contreras, Mr Francis Berney and Ms Carmen Carmen Cañete García-Ferrer of Cavaliero & Cambreleng, Geneva, Switzerland

RespondentCAS 2025/A/11669 – Page 3

I. PARTIES

1. Apollon Limassol FC (the “Appellant” or the “Club”) with registered office in Agiou Andreou 204, Limassol, Cyprus, PO. Box 53205, 3031, is a professional football club, affiliated to the Cyprus Football Association (the “CFA”), which in turn is a member of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”).

2. Mr Pablo Javier Machín Diez (the “Respondent” or the “Coach”) is a football coach and citizen of Spain.

3. The Appellant and the Respondent are collectively referred to as the “Parties”.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. Below is a summary of the main relevant facts selected by the Sole Arbitrator after thorough review and consideration of the Parties’ written and oral submissions and adduced evidence in their entirety. This background information is given for the sole purpose of providing a synopsis of the matter in dispute. Additional facts and allegations may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the discussion of law and merits that follows.

thorough review and consideration of the Parties’ written and oral submissions and adduced evidence in their entirety. This background information is given for the sole purpose of providing a synopsis of the matter in dispute. Additional facts and allegations may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the discussion of law and merits that follows.

A. The Employment Relationship between the Club and the Coach

5. On 23 December 2023, the Parties entered into a series of contracts governing their employment relationship, valid from the date of signature until 30 June 2025, notably: a) The Codified Employment Contract of Technical Staff Members agreed between the Cyprus Football Association and the Cyprus Football Coaches Association

(the “Federative Contract”), a standard employment contract prescribed by the CFA for all employment relationships between its members and their technical staff; b) The Employment Contract (the “Employment Contract”) , fixing certain specific conditions of the employment relationship between the Club and the Coach; and c) The Supplementary Agreement (Annex to Employment Contract) between Apollon Football Public Ltd and Pablo Javier Machín Diez (the “Supplementary Agreement”), fixing additional conditions of their employment relationship.

6. The three contracts are jointly referred to as the “Contracts”.

B. The Termination of the Employment Relationship

7. On 12 May 2024, the Club played its last match of the 2023/2024 season.

8. On 13 May 2024, one-to-one meetings between the Coach, the coaching staff and the general director of the Club took place. At this occasion, the members of the coaching staff were informed that their employment contracts were being terminated, with effectCAS 2025/A/11669 – Page 4

as of 1 July 2024. The Club further informed the Coach of its intention to terminate the Contracts.

9. On 14 May 2024, at the first day of the off -season, the Coach departed Cyprus to take his holidays. The Coach returned to Cyprus on 22 May 2024.

10. On 17 May 2024, the Coach informed the Club that he would agree to the mutual

Contracts.

9. On 14 May 2024, at the first day of the off -season, the Coach departed Cyprus to take his holidays. The Coach returned to Cyprus on 22 May 2024.

10. On 17 May 2024, the Coach informed the Club that he would agree to the mutual termination of the Contracts, against compensation in the amount of EUR 300’000.

11. On 27 and 30 May 2024, the Club reverted to the Coach’s proposal and submitted a counteroffer of 40% , increased on 30 May 2024 to 50% “of the total amount of next year”, as well as outstanding salaries. These counteroffers were refused by the Coach respectively on 27 and 30 May 2024.

12. On 1 June 2024, the Club entered into a new employment relationship with a different head coach.

13. On 28 June 2024, the Club sen t a termination notice to the Coach (the “Termination

Notice”).

14. On 4 July 2024, the Coach replied to the Termination Notice, stating that the Club had terminated the Contracts without just cause and requested payment of the total amount of EUR 418’590 as outstanding remuneration for the 202 3/2024 season as well as compensation for the termination of the employment relationship under the Contracts.

15. On 15 July 2024, the Club replied to the Coach’s request indicating that

(i) the compensation clause of the Supplementary Agreement was not valid; (ii) even if it was valid, the compensation clause would only apply to the amounts of the Supplementary Agreement and (iii) the amounts requested by the Coach as outstanding salaries were wrongly calculated.

16. On 24 November 2024, the Coach found new employment with the Qatari football club Umm Salal Sport Club Co. , valid from 25 November 2024 until 30 June 2025 . This employment relationship was prematurely terminated by the Qatari club on 21 January

2025.

C. Proceedings before the FIFA Players’ Status Chamber

Umm Salal Sport Club Co. , valid from 25 November 2024 until 30 June 2025 . This employment relationship was prematurely terminated by the Qatari club on 21 January 2025.

C. Proceedings before the FIFA Players’ Status Chamber

17. On 6 November 2024, the Coach filed a claim against the Club before the Players’ Status Chamber of the FIFA Football Tribunal (the “FIFA PSC”) , which was notified to the Club on 29 November 2024. • On 9 December 2024, the Club submitted its response to the claim to the FIFA PSC.

18. On 24 June 2025 , the FIFA PSC rendered its decision Ref. No. FPSD -16966

(the “Appealed Decision”). In particular, the Appealed Decision provides as follows: “1. The claim of the [Coach], is partially accepted.CAS 2025/A/11669 – Page 5

2. The [Club] must pay to the [Coach] the following amount(s): - EUR 19,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1

April 2024 until the date of effective payment; - EUR 19,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2024 until the date of effective payment; - EUR 19,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2024 until the date of effective payment; and - EUR 360,000 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 28 June 2024 until the date of effective payment.

3. Any further claims of the [Coach] are rejected.

4. The claim of the [Club] is rejected.

5. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.

6. Pursuant to art. 8 of Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of

4. The claim of the [Club] is rejected.

5. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.

6. Pursuant to art. 8 of Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision, the following consequences shall apply:

1. The [Club] shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.

2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.

7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the [Coach] in accordance with art. 8 par. 7 and 8 of Annexe 2 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

8. This decision is rendered without costs.”

19. Thereby, in the Appealed Decision, the FIFA PSC granted the Coach’s claims in their entirety, considering notably that (i) it had jurisdiction over the present dispute per Article 4 of the Supplementary Agreement, (ii) the Club terminated the employment relationship without just cause, (i ii) the Coach did not contribute to the termination of the employment relationship, and that, accordingly (iv) the Club was to compensate the Coach for termination without just cause pursuant to the Contracts. In this regard, the FIFA PSC considered that compensation should be calculated pursuant to Article 2 of the Supplementary Agreement, which was neither imbalanced nor disproportionate, and that accordingly, the Coach was entitled to payment of the residual value of theCAS 2025/A/11669 – Page 6

FIFA PSC considered that compensation should be calculated pursuant to Article 2 of the Supplementary Agreement, which was neither imbalanced nor disproportionate, and that accordingly, the Coach was entitled to payment of the residual value of theCAS 2025/A/11669 – Page 6

Contracts, amounting to a global amount of EUR 417’000 (i.e., EUR 360 ’000 and EUR 57’000 in outstanding salaries) plus interest at a rate of 5% per annum.

20. The Appealed Decision was notified to the Parties on 21 July 2025.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

21. On 11 August 2025, the Appellant filed a Statement of Appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) against the Respondent with respect to the Appealed Decision, pursuant to Article R47 of the Code of Sports -related Arbitration ( 2025

Edition) (the “CAS Code”) , Articles 49(1) and 50(1) of the FIFA Statutes and Article 24(5) of the FIFA RSTP . The Appellant, inter alia, requested to refer the dispute to a sole arbitrator.

22. On 22 August 2025, the Respondent agreed to the appointment of a sole arbitrator.

23. On 30 September 2025, after several extensions of its time limit, the Appellant filed an Appeal Brief (the “Appeal Brief”) , which the CAS Court Office circulated to the Respondent on 1 October 2025.

24. On 2 December 2025, the CAS Court Office, on behalf of the President of the Appeals Arbitration Division, informed the Parties of the appointment of the sole arbitrator as

follows (the “Sole Arbitrator”):

Sole Arbitrator: Mr Hervé Le Lay, Attorney-at-law, Paris, France

25. On 12 January 2026, after several extensions of its time limit, the Respondent submitted his Answer to the Appeal Brief (the “Answer”).

follows (the “Sole Arbitrator”):

Sole Arbitrator: Mr Hervé Le Lay, Attorney-at-law, Paris, France

25. On 12 January 2026, after several extensions of its time limit, the Respondent submitted his Answer to the Appeal Brief (the “Answer”).

26. On 3 February 2026, after having consulted the Parties, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties of the Sole Arbitrator’s decision to hold a hearing on 18 March 2026 by video-conference.

27. On 16 February 2026, the CAS Court Office issued the Order of Procedure, which was duly signed by the Parties.

28. On 18 March 2026, a hearing was held by video-conference. Besides the Sole Arbitrator, who was assisted by Ms Delphine Deschenaux-Rochat, Counsel to CAS, the following

persons attended the hearing:

For the Appellant:

• Mr Alkiviadis Papantoniou, counsel;
• Mr Vasileios Fotiou, counsel.

For the Respondent: CAS 2025/A/11669 – Page 7

• Mr Jesús Manuel Ortega Calderón, counsel;
• Mr Jaime Cambreleng Contreras, counsel;
• Ms Carmen Cañete García-Ferrer, counsel.

29. At the outset of the hearing, both Parties confirmed not having any objections to the way the proceedings had been conducted up to this stage. Both Parties were given full opportunity to present their case, submit their arguments and answer the questions posed by the Sole Arbitrator . Before the hearing was concluded, both Parties expressly confirmed that they had no objections on the way the procedure or the hearing had been conducted.

IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

30. The following outline is a synthesis of the Parties’ arguments and submissions which the Sole Arbitrator deems relevant to decide the present dispute. Although this summary does not comprise each and every contention advanced by the Parties and may not include explicit reference to all their arguments, the Sole Arbitrator has nonetheless

30. The following outline is a synthesis of the Parties’ arguments and submissions which the Sole Arbitrator deems relevant to decide the present dispute. Although this summary does not comprise each and every contention advanced by the Parties and may not include explicit reference to all their arguments, the Sole Arbitrator has nonetheless carefully considered all the submissions made by them. T he Parties’ written and oral submissions, documentary and witness evidence, and the content of the Appealed Decision were all taken into consideration.

A. The Appellant

31. In its Appeal Brief dated 30 September 2025 , the Appellant submitted the following prayers for relief: “In view of the arguments presented with our Appeal Brief, we request by the honourable Sole Arbitrator to overturn the Challenged Decision and decided that: E.1 The Respondent was liable for the termination of the employment relationship.

The Club terminated the employment relationship with just cause and the Respondent was liable for the termination of the contract and shall pay compensation to the Club, as per article 6 Annex 2 FIFA RSTP. The compensation shall be equal to:

I. EUR 340,000, as the remaining value of the terminated Employment Contract and

Supplementary Contract, plus

II. EUR 120,000, as the replacement costs that the Club incurred in order to replace the Claimant, plus,

III. EUR 359,000 as the amounts that the Coach gained from his new employment after the termination of the employment relationship with the Club, plus:

IV. 5% interest p.a. as from the date that the Club submitted its Counter -claim before the FIFA PSC, i.e. from 09.12.2024.CAS 2025/A/11669 – Page 8

E.2 The Respondent contributed to the premature termination of the employment relationship. Subsidiarily, in case Your Court finds that the Club had no just cause to terminate the employment relationship, we hereby request by Your Chamber to decide that the Respondent equally contributed to the Termination of the employment relationship and

E.2 The Respondent contributed to the premature termination of the employment relationship. Subsidiarily, in case Your Court finds that the Club had no just cause to terminate the employment relationship, we hereby request by Your Chamber to decide that the Respondent equally contributed to the Termination of the employment relationship and that, on this basis, no compensation shall be awarded to the Respondent. E.3 The calculation of the compensation Subsidiarily, and in case Your Court finds that the Club shall pay compensation to the Respondent, we present the following requests:

I. To decide that the compensation shall be calculated on the basis of art. 6 para. 2

Annex 2 FIFA RSTP, and that it shall be subject to mitigation by the deduction of the amounts received by the Respondent from his new employment and the adjustment of the compensation due to the contribution of the Respondent from his new employment and the adjustment of the compensation due to the contribution of the Respondent to the early termination of the employment relationship. In addition, we request that

II. the compensation payable to the Respondent shall not include the amounts in relation to allowances and the GHS fees (i.e. total amounts of EUR 20,000 and EUR 3,180 respectively).

III. Subsidiarily, in case Your Court finds that art. 2.2 of the Supplementary Agreement is exclusively applicable, we request that the compensation payable to the Respondent shall be calculated exclusively upon the amounts of article 1.2 of the Supplementary Agreement and that the said amount shall be further reduced by the court, due to the general conduct of the Respondent which contributed to the premature termination of the employment relationship . We request that the compensation payable to the Respondent under this clause shall not include the amounts in relation to allowances (i.e. total amount of EUR 20,000).

IV. Subsidiarily, in case Your Court finds that art. 2.2 of the Supplementary Agreement applies in combination with art. 6 para. 2 Annex 2 FIFA RSTP, we request that the

amounts in relation to allowances (i.e. total amount of EUR 20,000).

IV. Subsidiarily, in case Your Court finds that art. 2.2 of the Supplementary Agreement applies in combination with art. 6 para. 2 Annex 2 FIFA RSTP, we request that the compensation payable to the Respondent shall not include the amounts in relationship to allowances and the GHS fees (i.e. total amounts of EUR 20,000 and EUR 3,180 respectively), and that the said compensation shall be further reduced by your Court, due to the general conduct of the Respondent which contributed to the premature termination of the employment relationship.

V. Subsidiarily, in case Your Court finds that article 2.2 of the Supplementary Agreement extends to the amounts provided in both the Supplementary Agreement and the employment Contract, we request by Your Chamber to decide that the compensation shall not include the amount sin relation to allowances and the GHS fees (i.e. total amounts of EUR 20,000 and EUR 3,180 respectively), and that the said compensation shall be further reduced by Your Court, due to the generalCAS 2025/A/11669 – Page 9

conduct of the Respondent which contributed to the premature termination of the employment relationship. Also, we request that the total compensation shall be further reduced, considering the general conduct of the Respondent and his contribution to the premature termination of the employment relationship.”

32. The submissions of the Appellant, as contained in its written submissions and oral pleadings, may be summarized, in essence, as follows:

a. Principally, the Coach breached the Contracts and shall pay compensation to the Club for the early termination of the employment relationship • The termination of the Contracts was justified by the Coach’s misconduct . In particular, the Coach, (i) was unjustifiably absent from the Club’s activities and seat for a period of 45 days without any communication or information about the day of his return to the Club’s facilities and activities; (ii) was unjustifiably absent from

particular, the Coach, (i) was unjustifiably absent from the Club’s activities and seat for a period of 45 days without any communication or information about the day of his return to the Club’s facilities and activities; (ii) was unjustifiably absent from the Club’s pre -season preparation and activities, not providing coaching and training services to the Club’s players; (iii) did not show any interest regarding the recruitment of his coaching staff, and consequently the first team did not have a complete coaching team at the start of the pre -season. Further, the Coach (iv) violated his obligations relating to the scheduling of training and preparation of friendly matches of the team; (v) did not participate in the planning for the incoming and outgoing transfers and releases of players for the new season; (vi) did not fulfil his exclusive obligation of managing the first team; (vii) was not diligent and professional in the provision of his services to the Club, and generally (viii) was not interested at all for his role as Head Coach and his responsibilities to prepare for the new season. • As the Contracts were terminated with just cause, the Club is entitled to receive compensation from the Coach pursuant to Article 6, para . 2, Annex 2 of the FIFA RSTP. • Accordingly, the Coach shall be ordered to pay compensation corresponding to (i) EUR 340 ’000, for the residual value of the Contracts, (ii) EUR 120’000, for replacement costs incurred by the Club, (iii) USD 359 ’100, for excess amounts received by the Coach compared to what he would have earned under the Contracts. b. Subsidiarily, no compensation shall be paid as the Coach contributed to the early termination of the Contracts • In case of regulatory lacuna in the FIFA Regulations, Swiss law applies . Pursuant to Article 44 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (SCO”), compensation can be reduced or eliminated entirely where the injured party contributed to the incurred damage. Pursuant to Article 337b SCO, the Sole Arbitrator has discretion in

to Article 44 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (SCO”), compensation can be reduced or eliminated entirely where the injured party contributed to the incurred damage. Pursuant to Article 337b SCO, the Sole Arbitrator has discretion in determining the amount of compensation when termination is not exclusively caused by one party. • The Coach’s contractual breaches contributed to the early termination of the Contracts, leaving the Club no reasonable alternative but to terminate the Contracts.CAS 2025/A/11669 – Page 10

• As the Coach equally contributed to the early termination of the Contracts, he is not entitled to any compensation.

c. Subsidiarily, if compensation is due, it must be calculated pursuant to Article 6, para. 2, Annex 2 of the FIFA RSTP, as the compensation clause in the Supplementary Agreement is inapplicable • Contrary to the assessment in the Appealed Decision, the compensation clause is neither clear nor unequivocal: FIFA and CAS have the possibility, under the clause, to test it against “the circumstances of this specific case”; • In the circumstances of this specific case, the compensation clause is excessive and disproportionate considering the real damages suffered by the Coach and his contribution to the early termination; • The compensation clause is inapplicable as it is disproportionate considering that (i) the Coach provided services for only 4 ½ months and was employed by the Club for only 6 months , whereas the liquidated damages clause foresees compensation corresponding to 18 months of services; and (ii) the Coach had found new employment on 25 November 2024, at which time the Coach would have received three full salaries if the employment relationship had not been terminated. • As the compensation clause of the Supplementary Agreement is inapplicable, the compensation shall be calculated pursuant to Article 6, para. 2, Annex 2 of the FIFA RSTP; • The compensation shall therefore be calculated as follows: the residual value of the employment relationship, minus the value of the Coach’s income from his

compensation shall be calculated pursuant to Article 6, para. 2, Annex 2 of the FIFA RSTP; • The compensation shall therefore be calculated as follows: the residual value of the employment relationship, minus the value of the Coach’s income from his employment with the new Club, i.e., US$ 359’100. d. Subsidiarily, if the Panel decides that the compensation clause is applicable , compensation shall be calculated exclusively on the basis of the amounts due under the Supplementary Agreement • The compensation clause provides that “ the breaching party shall compensate the other with the full residual economic value of the present contract ”, thereby the Parties expressly agreed that compensation shall be calculated solely on the basis of the amounts due pursuant to the Supplementary Agreement; • Even if the terms of this clause are not clear, and the common intention of the Parties cannot be determined by the Panel, the in dubio contra stipulatorem principle justifies applying compensation restrictively (as limited to the terms of the Supplementary Agreement) as the compensation clause was drafted by the Coach; • Furthermore, any allowances foreseen under the Supplementary Agreement shall not form part of the compensation as they were conditioned to the incurrence of expenses for accommodation in Limassol and business travel for external matches;CAS 2025/A/11669 – Page 11

• The compensation shall be further mitigated considering that the Coach contributed to the early termination of the contract. • The liquidated damages clause should be reduced pursuant to Articles 163(3) SCO on the grounds that it is excessively high or manifestly unjust.

e. Subsidiarily, if the Panel finds that compensation shall include all amounts contained in the Supplementary Agreement and in the Employment Contract, compensation shall not include allowances and shall be reduced by 2,65% • Allowances payable for the 2024/2025 season shall not form part of the compensation as the Coach did not incur any expenses regarding accommodation in Limassol and flight tickets to and from Limassol in relation to his professional obligations after the employment relationship was terminated;

• Allowances payable for the 2024/2025 season shall not form part of the compensation as the Coach did not incur any expenses regarding accommodation in Limassol and flight tickets to and from Limassol in relation to his professional obligations after the employment relationship was terminated; • The compensation shall be further reduced considering that the Coach contributed to the early termination of the contract; • The compensation shall be further reduced by 2,65% pursuant to the terms of the Employment Contract, corresponding to the contribution to the General Healthcare System, deducted from the net monthly salary.

B. The Position of the Respondent

33. In his Answer dated 13 January 2026 , the Respondent filed the following prayers for relief: “To dismiss the present appeal and fully uphold the Decision of the Players’ Status Chamber passed on 24 June 2025; To order the Appellant to bear the costs of the arbitration and to contribute substantially to the legal fees incurred by Mr. Pablo Machin in, at least, CHF 25,000.”

34. The submissions of the Respondent, as contained in his written submissions and oral pleadings, may be summarized, in essence, as follows:

a. The Coach did not contribute to the early termination of the Contracts by the Club • The Club has repeatedly altered its position as to the alleged breach first alleging the Coach’s “departure” from Limassol to be the cause for termination, which then became an “unjustified absence” and lastly a mere “absence”. • In these proceedings, the Club claims, inter alia, that the absence from Limassol for a period of 45 days justifies the termination of the Contracts. The period of absence fell in a period of sporting inactivity between the end of the previous season (13 May 2024) and the start of the pre-season (on 8 July 2024). It is customary and even encouraged for players and sporting staff to take their holidays during thisCAS 2025/A/11669 – Page 12

period; The Club was aware that the Coach would take his holidays and depart

(13 May 2024) and the start of the pre-season (on 8 July 2024). It is customary and even encouraged for players and sporting staff to take their holidays during thisCAS 2025/A/11669 – Page 12

period; The Club was aware that the Coach would take his holidays and depart Cyprus during this period. • If the Club genuinely understood the Coach to be “ unjustifiably absent” it should have contacted the Coach or at least issued a warning prior to the termination , allowing the Coach to remedy the alleged breach, which the Club did not do; Such prior warning was mandatory as demonstrated by CAS case law. The Case law referred to by the Appellant confirms that the non-mandatory character of the prior warning is limited to certain cases and instances of exceptionally serious breaches which cannot be applied to the present case. • The Club’s CEO made settlement offers to the Coach, precisely during the period in which the Club now retrospectively alleges the Coach was committing serious contractual violations. This shows that the Club did not consider the Coach to be in breach at the time. • It is irrelevant that the Club was not informed of the Coach’s exact return date as the pre-season was only to start on 8 July 2024 (which was publicly announced) and they agreed that they would be “separating for summer”. • The Coach also participated in the Club’s planning for the 2024 /2025 season; The Coach, together with his staff, prepared a training program for the players, including a precise schedule covering the period between the end of the 2023 /2024 and the start of the 2024/2025 pre-season already in April 2024; The first version of the preseason training plan was shared with the Club’s team manager, Mr Socratis Socratous, on 23 April 2024; This version was modified after further consultation with the teams’ doctor; The pre-season training plan comprised notably (i) the date set for the player’s arrival, (ii) the date set for medical tests, (iii) the off-season plan

Socratous, on 23 April 2024; This version was modified after further consultation with the teams’ doctor; The pre-season training plan comprised notably (i) the date set for the player’s arrival, (ii) the date set for medical tests, (iii) the off-season plan for the players’ to stay in shape, (iv) the training sessions taking place in Limassol, (v) the training sessions taking place in Platre (mountain training) , (vi) the period in which the first team would travel abroad, (vii) the potential friendly matches and (viii) the expected competition period for the 2024/2025 season. • It can also not be reproached that the Coach was “[not involved] in the Club’s planning for the new season ” as the Contracts were terminated before the start of the pre-season. • The Coach