"We will add that even if the defendant's claims that the plaintiff did not agree to continue with the previous conditions and requested an increase are correct, Mr. Cohen's testimony shows that when the plaintiff had already agreed to continue – even under the previous conditions – the owner of the group no longer agreed to do so."
- However, in our opinion, when Maccabi Netanya offered Amos the renewal of the contract on the same terms, even though at a later date than the date set out in section 9(b) of the Severance Pay Law, and when Amos did not reject this offer for reasons of action based on the understanding that the agreement would not be renewed (for example, and without exhausting it, because he had already signed an agreement with another team), all the more so when in previous years the renewals of the agreement were made at a later date than the three months aforesaid, the defect of the delay in the offer was cured. In such a case, the non-renewal of the agreement is rooted in Amos himself, who insisted on upgrading his salary.
In this regard, we will turn to the circumstances of Hapoel Be'er Sheva player Shlomo Iluz, as presented in the first judgment in his case[37]: Iluz played professional soccer for many years with the Hapoel Be'er Sheva team. At the end of the 1995/96 season, at the age of 37, Hapoel Be'er Sheva informed him that he would not be able to be a lineup player and offered him the position of assistant coach for the period 1.8.1996 - 30.5.1997 - an offer to which Iluz accepted. After his first season as an assistant coach, the sides parted ways. In 2002, Iluz filed a claim for severance pay due to his time as an actor. As part of the proceeding, Iluz claimed that when he was not offered to renew his contract as a player three months before the end of the 1995/96 season, he was fired, and therefore he was entitled to claim severance pay for the period of his employment as a player. The Regional Court dismissed the claim for reasons that are not required in our case. In the framework of the appeal that was accepted, this court ruled that in the circumstances of the case, the entitlement to severance pay must be examined taking into account the events at the end of the contract as an assistant coach. This court saw fit to address the claim of the actor (Iluz) that a violation of section 9(b) of the Severance Pay Law is sufficient to establish a cause, and held as follows: