BAT Case No. 2048/23 Hapoel Holon BC vs.

Christapher Johnson
In Front of the Basketball Arbitral Tribunal

Hapoel Holon BC (Registered in Israel)

Represented by Adv. Roi Rozen and/or Adv. Avishay Efergan and/or Adv. Mohamed
Rizka and/or Adv. Shay Kadosh, and/or Adv. Amit Akiva
From Rozen Law Offices
7 Metzada St. (14th Floor), Bnei-Brak, Israel
Email: Office@rozen-law.com / roi@rozen-law.com / amit@rozen-law.com
Tel: +97237165158; Fax +97237165159
(the: <Claimant= or <Club=)

Vs.
Christapher Johnson, U.S. Passport No. 497091004
Represented by Adv. Izik Avisar & Adv. Eran Dagan
From AVISAR Law Office
23 Begin RDd., Levinstein Tower, Tel Aviv, Israel
Tel: +97235600574; Fax +97235667754
E-mail: office@avisar-law.com

(the: <Respondent= or <Player=)

CLAIMANT'S REPLY TO THE RESPONDENT'S ANSWER

In accordance with the Honorable BAT's Arbitrator orders and Arbitration Rules of the
Basketball Arbitral Tribunal, the Club is hereby respectfully submitting his reply to the
Respondent's Answer (hereinafter: the <Reply= and <Answer= respectively) in front of the
honored Basketball Arbitral Tribunal (hereinafter: the "BAT" or the <Tribunal=).

A. Preamble

1. This Reply to the Respondent's Answer is submitted on behalf of the Club, pursuant to the
honorable arbitrator's decision on 18.1.2024, granting the Club the right to reply to the
Respondent's Answer.

2. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the Club denies all paragraphs and claims raised by the
Player as part of his Answer.

1
3. As detailed in this Reply, the Respondents' Answer to the Claimant claim is unfounded,
outrageous, and made in bad faith. The Player's Answer appears to be a cynical attempt to
create a defense where none exists, resorting to inventing facts in an incorrect and
outrageous manner.

4. The facts stated in the Answer are flawed and do not correspond to reality. It should be noted
that the Player makes various claims in his answer, all embarrassingly aimed at concealing
the simple fact that, according to the clear and simple agreement between the parties, he is
obligated to pay the Club the buy-out compensation, due to his wish to terminate the
agreement with the Club and to earn more money in a richer club. Simple as that.

5. Furthermore, the arguments raised by the Player in his Answer are either unsupported by
any relevant document or are based on documents that are irrelevant to this arbitration.

6. In this context, it should be noted that the Answer was accompanied by documents that are
not in English, and they lack a certified translation into English. Therefore, these documents,
as well as the claims related to them, should not be considered.

7. Before addressing the claims mentioned in the Answer on their merits, it is important to note
that, as a rule, the claims made in the Answer are exaggerated and irrelevant to the
procedure. They appear to be an attempt to conceal the simple fact that, due to the negligence
of an agent who failed to pay attention to the buyout clause in the Player's agreement, the
Player is now seeking in extreme bad faith to evade his payment obligation as stipulated in
the contractual agreements between the parties.

B. The Claimant's Comments to the Respondent's denied allegations

8. The Claimant does not dispute the content of sections 13-26 in the Answer.

9. About Section 27: This section, along with the (incorrect) facts it describes, which are
reiterated in the Player's written Answer, highlights the lack of good faith demonstrated by
the player in his submission.

9.1. Mr. Shlomo Isaac is not the owner of the Club, and specifically, he has not been
associated with the club or its NPO which holds the Club since 2020.

9.2. Accordingly, all the claims and facts attributed to Mr. Isaac that appear in the
Player's Answer are not relevant to this arbitration procedure. They amount to

2
 nothing more than a failed attempt to construct a defense for the Player where
none exists.
10. About Sections 28 - 33:

10.1. Regarding the Player's claim that the Club's owner was arrested - as mentioned,
Mr. Shlomo Isaac is not the Club owner, and he is not part of the Club since 2020
and actually, contrary to the Player's claim, he was never arrested.

10.2. Regrading the Player's claim that the Israeli Corporations Authority (the "ICA")
rejected the Club's request to receive an annual regulatory approval – The NPO
which operates the Club indeed receive the mentioned refusal at first.

However, on 13.6.2023, only one month after the refusal, the ICA has granted
the requested annual regulatory approval.

10.3. Regarding the Player's claim that he was aware of the rumors surrounding the
Club's ability to continue his agreement – the Club cannot be held responsible for
rumors reaching the Player. Only the facts on the ground should be considered.
The Club fulfilled its obligations in full, by paying the Player all his wages
according to his entire period in the Club. Additionally, the Player never
complained to the Club about delayed payments, knowing he would receive all
his due wages, which indeed occurred.

11. The Claimant does not dispute the content of section 33 in the Answer.

12. About Sections 34 - 35:

12.1. The claims made in these Answer's sections are categorically denied. It is notable
that the Player did not provide any supporting documents for the alleged
statements attributed to the Club's CEO.

12.2. The actual actions of the Club's CEO were entirely within the norms of sports
management. He explored the option of offering the Player an extension of the
agreement, contingent upon the Player accepting a reduced salary in the first year.
This proposal was made in good faith, considering the Player's age and the
likelihood of him finishing his career at the Club.

12.3. However, at no point, the CEO indicated to the Player or his agent that the Club
was contemplating terminating the contract unilaterally.

3
13. About Sections 36 - 38: Once again, the Player has made irrelevant claims that are not related
to the conflict between the parties.

13.1. The club does not dispute that a liquidation petition was filed against the NPO
(not against the club) on June 12, 2023.

13.2. However, it is important to note that this is merely a petition, and the procedure
is ongoing and expected to continue for an extended period and the Club is certain
that the petition will not be accepted. This petition was not affected the
relationship between the Player and the Club in any manner.

13.3. It is evident that since the Player lacks substantial defense claims, he resorts to
raising irrelevant claims that have no relevance to this arbitration procedure.

13.4. To avoid any misunderstanding and contrary to the Player's claim, it cannot be
established or concluded that, as a result of the petition that was submitted, the
Club would be unable to fulfill the agreement with the Player, including the
additional year of the agreement, and the Club was not forced to terminate the
agreement at no point.

14. About Sections 39 - 44: Not surprisingly, given the fact that the Player has no substantial
defense to the claim submitted by the Club, he blatantly distorts the facts, acts in bad faith,
and simply lies at worst, or is unaware of the facts at best. For the avoidance of doubt, the
Club will now outline the sequence of events as they are.

14.1. Contrary to the false claims made in the Answer, on June 10, 2023, before the
liquidation petition was filed against the NPO, the Player's agent sent a
message to the club's CEO. In this message, the agent clearly informed the CEO
that, considering the Club's budget for the next season and the expected
professional position of the Player, the Player believes it is time to explore new
options in the market.

14.2. In response, the CEO checked with the agent whether the Player wished to
terminate the agreement immediately. Out of kindness, he even offered the Player
the option to explore other opportunities without terminating the agreement at that
stage.

14.3. The agent's response was unequivocal. He informed the CEO that the Player
wanted to terminate the agreement immediately, stating, "Yes, we will opt out."

4
 14.4. As a result of the agent's and Player's decision, the CEO requested the agent to
email him the official request to opt out from the agreement so he can report it to
the Club's board members. Three days later, on 13.6.2023, the agent sent the
official email to the Club, formally requesting to opt out of the agreement.

A copy of the correspondence between the agent and the CEO is attached herewith
and marked <A=.

14.5. As evident from the attached correspondence and the agent's email (referenced in
section 44 of the Answer), the Player's claims and factual descriptions are
demonstrably false.

14.6. There is no causal link between the liquidation petition and the Player's desire to
leave the Club. In addition, The CEO never requested the Player to relinquish the
USD 20,000 opt out option for the Club to terminate the agreement, and the agent
never indicated that the Player's wish to leave was due to any "uncertainty"
regarding the Club's future.

14.7. It should be emphasized that there was never any uncertainty about the Club's
future. As evidence of this, the Club is currently competitive in both the local
league and European competition, with a strong roster that ranks highly in the
league.

14.8. Furthermore, this is not a mutual termination of the agreement, as the Player
unilaterally exercised his buy out option, and contrary to the Player's claim, the
agent never informed the CEO that the Player agreed to waive his right to
compensation, since the CEO never asked that.

14.9. It is important to note that all the claims in these sections of the Answer lack
documentary support, and the Player failed to provide any evidence for his
assertions. This is not surprising, as these claims seem to be products of his
imagination rather than grounded in reality.

15. About Sections 45 - 47: The Player's decision regarding the timing of the opt-out notice sent
through his agent to the Club was entirely at his discretion. Not one person within the Club
forced him to act before the end of the period in which he could announce his opt out from
the agreement, which was on July 10, 2023.

5
 15.1. As the agent stated to the CEO in the attached correspondence, the Player did not
wish to wait and preferred to exit the agreement immediately, on June 13, 2023.
As the agent's message stated, "it's time to explore his other options at this time".

15.2. It appears that if the Player had delayed his but out option from the agreement
until the last day when he had the possibility to do so, he would have risked losing
good offers from other clubs.

15.3. Furthermore, the Player was aware that the Club would not remain owing him a
single dollar, as it had throughout the entire period of the Player's employment at
the Club. Consequently, he had no concerns about informing the Club of his opt
out even before he had received all the payments due to him from the Club. As
evidence of this, the Club did pay the Player all the payments due to him, and the
Player cannot have any complaint in connection with that.

16. About Sections 48 – 50: The Club has no observations, as those sections lack information
and documentation to confirm the statements made within them.

17. About Sections 51 – 53: The Club did authorize the Player's release to Hapoel Jerusalem BC
and requested that the Player sign a termination balance statement, as is customary with all
the players who leave the Club.

17.1. However, the reason the Club did not raise any issues with the Player's registration
at Hapoel Jerusalem is straightforward. According to the agreement between the
Club and the Player, the deadline for the Player to pay the buy out compensation
was on August 31, 2023 (as stipulated in section R of the agreement).

17.2. Since this deadline had not yet passed and considering that the Club did not
anticipate any issues with the Player fulfilling his obligation to pay the
compensation, the Club saw no reason to hinder the Player's move to another club.
This decision was also made out of respect for the Player's contributions to the
Club during his years of service at the Club.

17.3. In fact, at this time the Club did not contact the Player to demand the buy out
compensation because, as per Article R of the agreement, the deadline for the
payment had not yet arrived.

6
18. About Sections 54 – 58: Once again, as the Player lacks substantial defense against the
Club's clear contractual right to receive the buy out compensation, he makes claims that are
unrelated to this arbitration procedure and even more troubling lacks any documents
confirming his assertions.

18.1. Regardless of the validity of the Player's claims, they do not impede the Club from
receiving the buy out compensation it is entitled to from the Player.

18.2. Moreover, the Club wishes to emphasize that the Player underwent all required
medical tests at the Club and passed them successfully. accordingly, it is not
surprising that in also in Hapoel Jerusalem, the Player has been playing from the
beginning of the season without any restrictions.

19. About Sections 59 – 61: On August 30, 2023, one day before the deadline for the Player to
transfer the buy out payment to the Club, the Club's CEO indeed sent a letter to the Player's
agent. The purpose of the letter was to clarify the Club's stance on receiving the buy out
payment as stipulated in the agreement. The CEO also attached the Club's bank account
details for the Player to facilitate the payment transfer.

19.1. In response, the agent sent a message to the CEO that the Club founds shameful.
In this message, the agent attempted to deny the Player's obligation to pay the buy
out payment, making claims that the Club has refuted as detailed in this Reply.

19.2. It goes without saying that the Player's past role as the Club's captain and his
dedication to the Club do not exempt him from fulfilling his obligation to pay the
buy out payment as outlined in Article R of the agreement between the parties.

19.3. Furthermore, the agent claimed in his message that"in all of our conversations
and those you had with Chris not once this clause mentioned until today". This
statement by the agent simply underscores the true reason behind the Player's
refusal to pay the opt-out compensation.

19.4. It appears that the agent neglected his duties by either forgetting or being unaware
of the buy out payment clause. Consequently, he had no issue with guiding his
client (the Player) to unilaterally request release from the Club.

19.5. The agent's expectation that the CEO should have mentioned the buy out payment
obligation earlier is unfounded. The agreement between the parties is clear and

7
 unambiguous. It is understood that if the Player requests to be released from the
agreement, he must fulfill his obligation to pay the buy out payment to the Club.

20. About Sections 62 - 63: unsurprisingly, the Player's tries to distort reality.

20.1. The Club did not terminate the agreement with the Player, nor did it fire him. As
proven and detailed in the Request for Arbitration as well as in this Reply, it was
the Player who chose to opt out from the agreement unilaterally.

20.2. It should be noted that despite the Player's statements, until the date of submission
of this Reply, the Player has not filed any claim against the Club in any legal
court. Even if such claim will be filed by the Player, the Club is confident in its
position, as it has paid all the payments due to the Player for the period of his
employment at the Club.

20.3. Despite the Player's attempts to falsely claim that he waived his right to receive
compensation from the Club, he has not provided a single document to
substantiate this assertion. The reason for this is clear: this claim is simply untrue.

21. About Sections 64 – 68: The Club denies the claims mentioned in these sections, which in
fact repeat the Player's claims in the previous sections of his Answer, in accordance with
above in this Reply.

21.1. Regarding the claim that all American players, including the coach, have left the
Club, the Club asserts that the Player is once again making unfounded statements
unrelated to the matter at hand.

21.2. The Club refreshed its staff and changed the coach solely for professional reasons.
Furthermore, the claim that all American players have left is demonstrably false.
For instance, the Club's player C. J. Harris continues to play for the Club in the
current season, which contradicts the Player's assertion.

21.3. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Club currently pays its players, an
exceptionally high salary. This would not have been possible if the Player's claims
regarding the Club's alleged difficult financial situation were true.

22. About Section 69: The Player's claim is highly unusual, as the Club will demonstrate.

8
 22.1. As per article R of the agreement, the Player was obligated to make the buy out
payment by August 31, 2023

22.2. There is no legal basis or justification for the Club to withhold any payments due
to the Player as long as the deadline for the buy out payment has not passed.
Furthermore, the Club did not anticipate that the Player would neglect his
obligation and refuse to fulfill his duty as stipulated in the agreement by not
paying the buy out payment.

22.3. To be clear, on the day the CEO of the Club issued the payment demand (August
30, 2023), all payments due to the Player from the Club had already been
disbursed to him.

22.4. This is another example illustrating that the Club fulfills all its obligations towards
the Player, while the Player, on the other hand, is preoccupied with inventing
peculiar facts and arguments to evade the payment obligation imposed on him.

23. About Sections 70-75: Given that there is no need to reiterate what has already been stated
in this Reply, the Club denies the claims mentioned in these sections, which in fact repeat
the Player's claims in the previous sections of his Answer, in accordance with above in this
Reply.

24. About Sections 76-77: Based on the information provided in this Reply and in the Request
for Arbitration, the Claimant is confident that it has unequivocally demonstrated that the
Club did not terminate the agreement with the player; rather, it was the Player who
unilaterally requested to be released from the agreement and subsequently left the club.

24.1. Therefore, the Club maintains its request that the honorable BAT determine that
the Player must pay the club the agreed buyout amount of USD 60,000, as
specified in clause R of the agreement. Additionally, the Club seeks
reimbursement of its legal expenses in the amount of EUR 7,500, as well as
compensation for non-monetary damages caused to the Club in the amount of
EUR 5,000.

24.2. Additionally, the Club denies and opposes the Player's claim that the demand for
compensation for breach of the agreement in the amount of EUR 5,000 is
"baseless". In fact, by failing to fulfill his obligation to pay the buy out payment
to the Club, the Player has breached and continues to breach the agreement

9
 between the parties. As a result, he is liable to compensate the Club for this breach
of contract, in addition to the buyout amount he is obligated to pay for his
premature exit from the agreement.

Additional Comments
25. In his Answer, the Player repeats that the Club requested him to waive the agreed
compensation as per the agreement in case the Club terminates the agreement earlier than
stipulated, and that the agreement was terminated unilaterally by the Club, or at most,
mutually.

26. The Club cannot avoid from asking, why the Player did not request clarification from the
Club regarding its waiver of the buyout payment if he asked to leave before the agreement's
end. Furthermore, why did the agent not request any documentation from the Club to
confirm his claim regarding the mutual early termination of the agreement, thus waiving
their right to compensation? Also, why did the Player not provide any documentation to
support his claim that he informed the Club of his waiver of the compensation?

27. The answer to these questions is simple: the Player cannot provide such documents or prove
that he requested them because his claims are simply untrue. They merely represent an
unsuccessful attempt by the Player to avoid his contractual obligation to pay the Club the
buyout compensation as outlined in Section R of the agreement.

28. Throughout his Answer, the Player makes assertions that are, at best, unrelated to this
procedure and, at worst, simply untrue.

C. Evidence
29. According to Section 9 of the BAT Regulations, the written evidence the Claimant is relying
on, apart from the evidence mentioned in the Request for Arbitration, is the copy of the
correspondence between the agent and the CEO of the Club, which is attached to this Reply
as Appendix <A=.
D. Summary

30. In light of the above, the honored Arbitrator is hereby requested to fully accept the Request
for Arbitration.

10
31. The Player's Answer is inappropriate, and its contents should not be accepted. This is based
on the provisions of the agreement between the parties, the lack of attached documents to
confirm his claims, and his improper attempt to evade his payment obligation by making
irrelevant claims.

32. Given the terms of the agreement between the Club and the Player and the evidence which
the Club provided in this procedure, the honored Arbitrator is hereby requested to determine
that the Claimant is entitled to the full payments as requested under Chapter III of the
Request for Arbitration.

______________
Roi Rozen, Adv.
Player's Representative

Date: 21 February 2023.

11
 Appendix A
A copy of the correspondence between the
agent and the Club's CEO

12
13