The parties did not bring evidence in relation to those players with whom they had an employment relationship that season, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I accept Mr. Sharetsky's testimony that these were not the ones who returned after retiring to the third division and that this state of affairs is relatively rare (p. 38, lines 24-25). Thus, it was not proven before me that the plaintiff was intended for a designated position, such as a goalkeeper. In fact, everyone agrees that the plaintiff is intended to be a full-fledged member of the group , and therefore here too the tendency is to assume that the parties' intention was not to create an employee-employer relationship.
'In real time' and as explained above, the plaintiff also agrees that the parties did not reach any detailed or written arrangement and that his employment was not reported to the National Insurance Institute or the Tax Authority. In fact, the plaintiff testified before us that at the time of the incident, he had already spoken to Mr. Zadeh, but they had not yet formally "sat down" with him (see, for example, p. 13, lines 4-5), and he could not even give a clear version of the date on which that "closure" was to take place. In other words, the fact that an agreement on working conditions was formed after the training period tipped the scales towards the assumption that there was no employment relationship between the parties at the time of the accident. I will return to Hapoel Katamon's letter regarding the payment of reimbursement of expenses later.
As to the beginning of the engagement, and as stated in the factual chapter, there was a major dispute between the parties as to who contacted whom in order to join the group. In other words, did Mr. Zadeh proactively contact the plaintiff or was it the opposite. Although, in general, Mr. Zadeh's testimony was to a considerable extent tendential, and despite his unnecessary attempt to significantly diminish the plaintiff's professional abilities, my opinion is that on this issue his version is more plausible than the plaintiff's. This is in light of the fact that everyone agrees that this was an inactive player who was returning to training. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the initiative willbe for someone whose achievements in the previous season are proven. and in view of the plaintiff's age, who was close to 32 at the time, that is, he was relatively advanced in the industry. The implication of the matter for our matter is that the plaintiff's application to train in the group can also show that the purpose of the parties was not necessarily to create an employment relationship, but rather to allow the plaintiff to integrate into the group, to the extent he deems it appropriate, as one of the members of the faculty and even if in monetary consideration other than wages.