Dunav (Ruse) published a sharp statement against the Bulgarian Football Union after the 0:1 defeat by Levski. The club expressed serious dissatisfaction with the refereeing decisions and the lack of sufficiently clear communication with the management of the football headquarters.
The players of Ruse addressed a total of eight public questions to the Bulgarian Football Union and its committees. The main reason for their reaction was the last match with the “blues“, in which, according to Dunav's position, Levski captain Kristian Dimitrov should have been sanctioned for roughing in the knee area of José Cabarcas.
In their declaration, the club also questioned the way in which the football headquarters considered their previous complaints. They demand an explanation regarding the contradictory answers, the work of the football delegates, the imposition of financial sanctions and the way in which the funds collected from fines are used.
Among the other topics on which Dunav is seeking clarity are the regulation for the use of foreign football players, the fees for additional seats and the distribution of solidarity payments from UEFA.
The Ruse club announced that they will file an official complaint about the refereeing in the match with Levski. In addition, they insist that the Bulgarian Football Union provide public and specific answers to all eight questions posed.
Here is Dunav Ruse's position:
"The most dangerous moment for Bulgarian football will be the one in which no one cares anymore.
When people stop arguing, asking and expecting justice. When „this is how it is“ becomes a sufficient explanation for everything.
Football Club “Dunav“ — these are people for whom the club, the city and football matter. Therefore, we are addressing public questions to the management of the Bulgarian Football Union and its relevant committees that have long deserved clear answers:
1. What is the criterion for a red card and when does VAR intervene?
In our last match, our player was forced to leave after a foul, which in our opinion requires a direct red card. There was not even a yellow card for the situation itself. Why was there no review of the pitch? What is the assessment of the Referee Commission and will it be explained publicly?
2. What is true in the answers to our complaint after the match with Lokomotiv Sofia in Ruse?
In your written response, you state that you have no objections to the referee. At the meeting with the Referees' Commission and its chairman, you tell us that the same referee has been held responsible — a penalty. For what then? What measure was imposed, for what period and how does it combine with his subsequent appointments — in an intermediate round days later, and then again in the First League?
3. How can we have confidence in communication with the BFU when we receive contradictory answers?
We have repeatedly extended invitations to the chairman of the Referees' Commission and the president of the BFU to visit Ruse. Why have these visits not yet taken place? When will there be a direct conversation on the spot with a club that works for football, children and the community in this part of Bulgaria?
4. Who evaluates the work of the delegates and who is responsible for their decisions?
In our last meeting at 2:20 p.m., the delegate informed us that the technical conference would begin at 3:00 p.m. instead of the explicitly stated time of 3:30 p.m. — one hour before the start of the match.
Is this his decision, or is it by order of the Bulgarian Football Union? If there is such an order, why was the club not notified in advance? What necessitates a last-minute change that affects numerous officials and the entire organization?
5. Who is responsible for the tension and where does the money from the fines go?
When emotional reactions of football players, coaches and managers are sanctioned, are the actions of the referees and delegates that preceded these reactions also evaluated? At the meeting with the Referee Commission, we discussed the role of officials in controlling tension. How is their performance of this responsibility assessed?
Are the financial sanctions for chants and emotional reactions proportionate? Where is the line between behavior that deserves punishment and the right to express disagreement? Should the fear of the next fine keep clubs silent?
What is the total amount of proceeds from fines and financial sanctions? Who decides what they are used for and where is the public report on the specific activities financed with them?
6. What is the policy for more Bulgarian footballers?
Along with the requirement for Bulgarian footballers, last season the use of up to seven non-EU players was allowed. This season the maximum is now eight — for 25,000 euros for each of the three additional places above the basic quota of five.
How does this increase opportunities for Bulgarian players? What is the result of the announced model and how does it affect the competitiveness of clubs with smaller budgets?
7. Where do the funds from these fees go?
What is the total amount of the fees due and what funds have actually been received? What are they used for, who determines their distribution and where can clubs and the public see a specific report?
8. Why do UEFA solidarity payments serve as a release from a separate obligation to the BFU?
UEFA distributes part of the revenue from European tournaments to clubs outside their main phase in order to support their development and competitive balance.
On what legal basis do these funds replace the compensation fee for non-compliance with the requirement for Bulgarian footballers? How does the exemption from it guarantee equality and protect clubs that comply with the rule and rely on the provided compensation?
We respect every sports rival and have no claims against opposing teams. Our questions are to the Bulgarian Football Union and are about the conditions in which we all work and build Bulgarian football.
The questions are public. Let the answers be so.
Football Club Dunav from Ruse
* We will file an appeal in accordance with the established procedure and pay the necessary fee in order to receive an official response to the referee decisions to which we have claims. We expect public answers to the remaining questions as well."