The applicants argued that the state's support for the association in the sum of NIS 13.5 million does not improve the damage that is the subject of the application for approval. According to them, the state did not claim this; This is inconsistent with the support tests by virtue of which the funds were transferred; The majority opinion of the Claims Committee did not accept this position; And the support cannot be attributed specifically to the damages resulting from the prohibited transfers. This is in light of the extent of the deficit in the Association's coffers at the time. The association also did not take this benefit into account when it determined the amounts it wanted to collect from the teams, and it did not present such a claim to Adv. Sol.
It was further argued that the respondents' attempt to rely in this context on a letter from the Ministry of Culture and Sport should be rejected. According to them, this letter is inadmissible; He was not presented to Adv. Sol; It contradicts the state's update announcement; It was hidden by the Ministry of Finance spokesperson; He does not specify numbers; And it does not testify to the "healing" of the damage caused to the Association.
- The Applicants referred to the Claims Committee and its conclusions. In their view, the committee's conclusions should be examined in two stages: In the first stage the independence of the committee and the manner of its work will be examined; And in the second stage Its conclusions will be examined.
With regard to the independence of the committee , it was argued that the burden is on the association to prove that the committee acted in good faith, in the absence of a conflict of interest, independently and while striving to investigate the truth.
In this context, the applicants argued that the date of the appointment of the committee and the circumstances of the appointment raise serious concerns regarding the independence of the committee and the good faith in its appointment. This, inter alia, was in light of what was said in the hearing related to its establishment, which indicated that the intention of the appointment was to "bury the affair." It was also argued that the majority opinion in the committee included conclusions that were not discussed in the presence of Adv. Meiri, including the recommendation to deduct the sum of NIS 5 million from the soccer teams, which Adv. Meiri was exposed to only when the draft report was forwarded to him.