Emad Meteab Set To Play Againat Zamalek Tomorrow

[havanatopia]

Well it looks as though the Egyptian guys are signing off and disappearing back into the ether from whence they came, leaving Portland Bill as the most exotic poster on here - sorry Havanatopia!

Thank you for dropping by guys. Speak to you all again at the weekend - when Meteb finally signs!

Perfectly alright Rudolf.. perhaps I should spice up the avatar a bit then?.. Since Fidel has resigned i guess it could well be in order to reflect the new, more open, and reformist times we find ourselves in. Need some time to do my research for appropriateness. We may all need cheering up soon.

[si_aston]

A copy of a PM I just sent to a mate...

Ah. See, I like to think I'm pretty clued in on what happens not just in the footie world but, more importantly, the City world.

And yet, I haven't a clue. What I WANT to believe is this: we said he is signing subject to a work permit, we are still waiting for the work permit, so there is no need to comment until the deal is done. I really hope that's the case and that we sign one of the best African strikers.

What I can't help but believe is this (which seems to be the accepted version of events now): we said he can't play, an agent ***** us about and tells the player he CAN play, so he plays, we find out and tell them to **** off. They play the victim and say "oh we didn't know blah blah" which is possible, because the agent is clearly a bell. We don't know something didn't get lost in translation. However, an instruction that "YOU WILL NOT PLAY IN THIS GAME" is not difficult to understand and is, frankly, impossible to misconstrue.

Somewhere along the line an Egyptian has ###### up. Be it Emad Meteb, his agent, or Al-Ahly, SOMEONE has played him when we expressly said he couldn't.

I want to sign Meteb and hope we sign him, but I can't help but feel that the bid being accept for Michael Mifsud is too convenient in its timing. When all this Meteb shit is happening, we suddenly have a bit accepted? Doesn't wash with me I'm afraid.

My basic take is that we have got too ###### off with the Egyptians. It's an annoying conclusion but it's a conclusion nonetheless. They've taken the piss for too long. I do accept we have to appreciate that cultural differences and negotiations require a certain amount of patience when dealing with other continents but saying "he will not play" cannot be misconstrued as "he will play".

Thus I suggest we steal Mifsud from Coventry, limit our dealings to the EU and move on swiftly. We need to.

Excuse the French.

[Akira]

The club i feel have to make a statement tomorrow, as the silence isn't good for anyone. We thought it was bad first time round, when we were on the verge of 'signing' Meteb.

I still hope the deal goes through, even if he did play for the Egypians.Yes there should be a finger pointed, and consequences because of it, but don't terminate the deal because of it.

[si_aston]

The club i feel have to make a statement tomorrow, as the silence isn't good for anyone. We thought it was bad first time round, when we were on the verge of 'signing' Meteb.

I still hope the deal goes through, even if he did play for the Egypians.Yes there should be a finger pointed, and consequences because of it, but don't terminate the deal because of it.

I'll just copy what I wrote to you mate, hope you don't mind.

You're right mate, the silence is frustrating. There's two ways of taking it.

1) Nothing's changed. We said we're after a work permit and we will wait until that's delivered before saying the deal is signed, sealed, delivered.

2) Number 1 is b***ocks. We got royally, and LEGALLY ###### by the Egyptians and they are now on the legal and moral high ground.

I'm personally inclined to believe it's number 2. Can you remember City ever signing a play from outside of Europe? We are novices in this respect and have been taken for a ride. Meteb, legally, played for Al-Ahly on Sunday night, and as such we have no ground to stand on. Yes, we're angry, but there's no legal standpoint. Work permit nonsense is b***ocks, because he more than exceeds the requirements.

Patience is a virtue in this case, I just hope everyone can exercise it.

[Mr Gow]

We don't want you playing against Zamalek, whats so difficult about understanding this statement? Although i dearly would love to see Meteab putting on the red shirt for City every saturday i really ca'nt see how that is possible now. GJ and SL were clear in their request for him not to play in this match but he did. Moteab clearly said he wanted to play in this match from the start and did, no confussion there. So because Moteab is such a great player should GJ bend the rules for him? forgive him? sweep it under the carpet? If we go ahead with this signing now what kind of singnals are we putting out to the other city players or even potential city players? One rule for one and another rule for the other? This club is now run the GJ way thank goodness, anyone remember the handgranades? Johnson has come here and sorted the disrupted players out and sent them packing Stewert Phillips, GJ is the captain of our ship ans has done a fantastic job getting things done his way and has the respect of all the city staff. I'm affraid Emed Moteab is not bigger than this club now matter how big he is in the soccer world and his poor decsion to play against zamalak is all his own making.I don't think GJ has much choice other than to walk away from this saga now and keep face

[walshy-shuffle-carl-shutt]

And we thank you all for your great hospitality in your forum.Because Bristol City team wearing Red shirts as Our Club Al-Ahly, we became fans for Bristol .

Concernig meteb signing to Bristol, I'm really confused. but i guess it's over(dead).

bolllocks you stirring it up cos you don't want to lose him understandable but all the smae b***ocks on your part.

Emad deal alive IMO

[Red]

If Mifsud agrees terms with City today The Emad deal is dead!

The fee for for Mifsud is around the same as we were going to pay to the Egyptian.

Radio Bristol.

[havanatopia]

If Mifsud agrees terms with City today The Emad deal is dead!

The fee for for Mifsud is around the same as we were going to pay to the Egyptian.

Radio Bristol.

Just heard that on the web radio brizzle but they did NOT mention for the same fee.

They also did not quote BCFC just that this was going to happen and that was that... why did they not reveal a source? very odd. Do we accept that their reporting can be as inaccurate as the EP?

[downendcity]

GJ planned to sign Metaeb and Mifsud, but realised it could be dangerous.

He realised that City fans, used to watching a low scoring team every week, could be in shock if the team started scoring 2/3/4 goals every game, and they couldn't even begin to estimate the effect of having 2 strikers capable of scoring 20 goals in a season.

The clubs solicitors advised that there would be a real possibility of fans in the Dolman staying in their seats for the full 90 minutes ( or 96 against Palace) and a danger that older fans collapsing with shock. This would result in potentially huge claims for damages against the club - the Dolman fans would miss their buses or be late home for tea if they got caught in the rush, and fans collapsing with shock at seeing so many goals would be mentally scarred and could leave them needing long term medical and nursing care. The costs of such claims could financially cripple the club

As a result, it was decided to sign only one of them in order to minimise the impact on fans and so they had to find a way out of one of the deals. Emad playing on Sunday gave the opportunity they needed.

Of course, we know that the club will hide the truth, so the party line will be that they couldn't trust the Egyptian club after the player played against the club's wishes, but now you know the real reason.

[Big Jon]

I still feel we will sign Emad Meteb and Mifsud as we were after 2 strikers

[Guest churchill gaffer]

I really do think, enough is enough.

City should now come out and say if the Meteab deal is still on or off.

Nobody knows what is happening now!

And I for one is now fed up trying to find out.

It really does hit my enthuisiasm for City for six.

It is so boring now trying to find out!

The Evil Post says one thing. And Radio Sag saying something else.

And then you hear so many different stories from people!

Example. A City Coach was supposed to have come into Budgens Garage in Churchill Yesterday, and said to one of their staff that the deal was definately Off!

I really do hope that Mifsud is not the same price as Meteab. I don't think he is worth the same. IMO, IMO!

Lets hope I am wrong!

[icamanicity]

Just heard that on the web radio brizzle but they did NOT mention for the same fee.

They also did not quote BCFC just that this was going to happen and that was that... why did they not reveal a source? very odd. Do we accept that their reporting can be as inaccurate as the EP?

The wdp understands that although the mifsud fee is undisclosed, it is lower than the £1.5 that was agreed for emad meteb. I think that if mifsud signs today, i think we will get a statement from the club about "metebgate" imho...

[formerly known as ivan]

why do so many people think if we sign mifsud then the mateb deal wont happen?

gary wanted two strikers. no way would our offer for mifsud be over £1m if he has only a year left on his contract.

bottom line, gary either still wants mateb to sign or doesnt, regardless of other players. if he don't then its a hugh disappointment and a real lack of ambition, my own opinion.

also think its matebs only chance of leaving to play in europe cus once other clubs see what we have been through with al-ahly from start to finish (whatever the finish is!), i cant see any other team wanting to do business with them. so i would guess he really wants the deal to go through.

[Guest DanC]

Without any facts we are all just speculating now really. For all we know we may have gave him permission to play, GJ said he couldn't play, He then did, We had a bid accepted for another striker and the press have picked up on that and could now be speculating that the deal is dead. They could be making 4 or they could be making 5.

IF we didn't give him permission to play I am going to agree with the posters that said that his club never wanted him to leave in the first place. They have made this transfer as difficult as they can and now they could possible be keeping there star player just like they always wanted. What possibly could have happened is Emad went back over there and was getting ready to say his goodbyes and pack his stuff etc. His club ring/talk to him and say they have been in contact with BCFC and they have now agreed to let him play in that game. The club know that by him playing it would be a violation of the contract and BCFC would possibly cancel the deal, Just what they would want.

He then plays and after the game is informed that BCFC never gave any permission to play. His club then say well the representation company informed us that BCFC said you can play. BCFC then proceed to cancel the deal, Emad is upset about it but he believes that the representation agency is to blame and not his club, Just what his club wants him to believe.

I hope somehow he still does sign and will keep my fingers crossed. OK he played in a game he shouldn't have. Lets just get him over here and away from his club as his club seem to be making it very difficult for us to sign him.

[matar]

from EP: Emad Meteb's agent today said he was hopeful the striker's £1.5m transfer to Bristol City would still go through. The 25-year-old Egyptian international last week agreed the terms of a three-year contract with the Coca-Cola Championship club after passing a medical in Bristol. But his proposed move to England was plunged into doubt when he played for Egyptian champions Al-Ahly in Sunday's Cairo derby against Zamalek. City manager Gary Johnson last week confirmed Meteb was a Robins player subject to being granted a work permit and claimed Al-Ahly had agreed to cancel his registration forthwith. But the Egyptian champions did no such thing and instead selected Meteb to start the CAF Champions League encounter. He subsequently played the entire 90 minutes, apparently without City's consent.

so hopefully he is still coming

[parkender78]

British shit....oh sorry mate, I meant no offense to the Brits here.

Ha HA camel camel camel attack the post not the poster

[Chessels Chick]

from EP: Emad Meteb's agent today said he was hopeful the striker's £1.5m transfer to Bristol City would still go through. The 25-year-old Egyptian international last week agreed the terms of a three-year contract with the Coca-Cola Championship club after passing a medical in Bristol. But his proposed move to England was plunged into doubt when he played for Egyptian champions Al-Ahly in Sunday's Cairo derby against Zamalek. City manager Gary Johnson last week confirmed Meteb was a Robins player subject to being granted a work permit and claimed Al-Ahly had agreed to cancel his registration forthwith. But the Egyptian champions did no such thing and instead selected Meteb to start the CAF Champions League encounter. He subsequently played the entire 90 minutes, apparently without City's consent.

so hopefully he is still coming

Yesterday's news I'm afraid - today's Evil Post saying same as WDP that deal is off if as expected Mifsud signs today.

I do think it is partly down to GJ style and him not wanting it to seem that anyone has got one over on him. I wonder if this is one time when he needs to swallow his pride or whatever and accept it is the way the Egyptians seem to do business - only have to read some of stuff about the transfer saga of Wigan getting their guy to see it is not done the "English" way. They like to make things difficult!

Bit embarassing for the club if it is called off after all the photos and interviews of him at the Gate ... but maybe less embarassing than signing someone who appears to have gone against his new managers orders ...

[Guest churchill gaffer]

Without any facts we are all just speculating now really. For all we know we may have gave him permission to play, GJ said he couldn't play, He then did, We had a bid accepted for another striker and the press have picked up on that and could now be speculating that the deal is dead. They could be making 4 or they could be making 5.

IF we didn't give him permission to play I am going to agree with the posters that said that his club never wanted him to leave in the first place. They have made this transfer as difficult as they can and now they could possible be keeping there star player just like they always wanted. What possibly could have happened is Emad went back over there and was getting ready to say his goodbyes and pack his stuff etc. His club ring/talk to him and say they have been in contact with BCFC and they have now agreed to let him play in that game. The club know that by him playing it would be a violation of the contract and BCFC would possibly cancel the deal, Just what they would want.

He then plays and after the game is informed that BCFC never gave any permission to play. His club then say well the representation company informed us that BCFC said you can play. BCFC then proceed to cancel the deal, Emad is upset about it but he believes that the representation agency is to blame and not his club, Just what his club wants him to believe.

I hope somehow he still does sign and will keep my fingers crossed. OK he played in a game he shouldn't have. Lets just get him over here and away from his club as his club seem to be making it very difficult for us to sign him.

CS said he was'nt allowed to play, under the rules of getting a work permit!

I heard him on Radio Sag.

If this is the case, then maybe we knew it would take longer to get a work permit.

Once again we are all Chinese whispering again!!!!!!

[edson]

Ah... well this is the thing. All this is underpinned by an assumption our end of the deal is all okay. And that's what I meant in my last reply, we don't know that, there are two sides to every story, and in this deal our 'side' includes representatives we're paying.

That being the case, how can we possibly be sure we've not cocked up our end of the deal? We're not just vouching for Gary J, SL and Colin here, we're vouching for at least two agents or representatives in our employ, who could have caused this problem.

And I can't vouch for them and I won't. If between them we haven't got our part of the deal right, then yes, it's quite possible Al Ahly and Emad all thought playing on Sunday was quite legitimate. We all simply assumed him playing wasn't okay based on what our club told us.

But we have to assume (with reason) that our club's entire announcement was underpinned by the belief the agreements and understandings would be accurately communicated to Al Ahly. Gary J's declarations were worthless until the agent WE were paying, did his bit.

And consider this scenario - not the only possibility but one example - City felt they secured the player's agreement but agreed to complete the transfer deal and sign papers a week later. They gave this instruction to our representative to communicate this completion plan to Al Ahly.

Without the same context, him saying to Al Ahly, they'll complete the deal next week (with the significance that this falls after the Zamalek game) might easily register with Al Ahly as their right to play the player before then. Why should they perceive any other interim obligation?

It strikes me even from a logical perspective that OUR agent is a massive part of this deal and the dispute occurring now must have so much to do with him. Furthermore no one seems to accept that what happened at AG was this representatives responsibility to communicate.

You say it isn't vaguely plausible that Al Ahly and Emad didn't known what they were doing was wrong, but again the messenger was this agent (don't forget Emad came to AG but didn't speak English) so again logic dictates it traces back to someone we are paying.

So we have this absolute dependence on OUR agent to communicate these terms, not only that but WE accept a request to delay completion by a week (and why has no one asked why we did this!?) yet with both these decisions of OURS, we seem surprised it caused any confusion!!?

EDIT: Or put more succinctly, we conceded ground on this Zamalek game from the start (we agreed to the deal being completed after it) and we trusted a foreign agent we were paying to fill in the blanks for Al Ahly. Surprise surprise, he didn't. Not Emad or Ahly's fault.

Of course, what you say is possible.

However, Emad does understand English perfectly well. He understood all of Adam's questions, but chose to reply in his mother tongue so as not to make mistakes and be misquoted.

The reason, as I see it, for the conclusion of the deal being put back to the 21st, was because Gary was off to Portugal until the 20th and Emad wanted the opportunity to go home, pack his bags and say goodbye to the Al Ahly fans at the game.

I cannot accept that the Zamalek game wasn't discussed at that point, and that it wasn't made absolutely clear by Gary that Emad was not to play.

I can see how someone may have told him and Ahly that the decision had been overturned at our end at a later date. But if that was done by the agent he'd do it knowing he'd lose his cut, so I don't see what he would gain.

The only party with anything to gain by playing him in the Zamalek game was Al Ahly, which is why I can't dismiss them as being free from guilt in this.

[simon uk]

from EP: Emad Meteb's agent today said he was hopeful the striker's £1.5m transfer to Bristol City would still go through. The 25-year-old Egyptian international last week agreed the terms of a three-year contract with the Coca-Cola Championship club after passing a medical in Bristol. But his proposed move to England was plunged into doubt when he played for Egyptian champions Al-Ahly in Sunday's Cairo derby against Zamalek. City manager Gary Johnson last week confirmed Meteb was a Robins player subject to being granted a work permit and claimed Al-Ahly had agreed to cancel his registration forthwith. But the Egyptian champions did no such thing and instead selected Meteb to start the CAF Champions League encounter. He subsequently played the entire 90 minutes, apparently without City's consent.

so hopefully he is still coming

Is this todays post, or something redone from Mondays paper?

I have to agree with other posters, this is really frustrating. However, if it doesnt go through, then after wembley, 14000 season tickets and Carle being sold and Williams brought in to free up the cash, and Lansdown saying they want to concentrate on automatic, they had better have someone else lined up, in addition to Mifsud (who I think will be very good, but if he signs and the club announce the emad deal has collapsed it will still be an anticlimax). If when the season starts and we are struggling, there could be a real backlash because of the perceived lack of ambition or ability to get things done.

Si.

[Cobby the red]

I agree Emad looks a real steel at the price and come on he did not get injured and he was are number 1 target it is not

often we can say we got the one player we were really after.

Lets just get him here and move on we all said we needed two new strikers and we would have them

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

I agree Emad looks a real steel at the price and come on he did not get injured and he was are number 1 target it is not

often we can say we got the one player we were really after.

Lets just get him here and move on we all said we needed two new strikers and we would have them

I think we're in real danger of making ourselves a laughing stock here. Why would we want to terminate the deal? The bloke hasn't even got a work permit yet! If we aspire to play amongst the big boys, then we need to be able to handle situations like this. If we sacked a player every time they stepped out of line, we'd probably have no one left. If they terminate this deal, because Meteb has 'disrespected' the club (give me strength) then it will seriously damage my faith in the Lansdown/Johnson partnership. We should be big enough, mature enough and clever enough to be able to deal with this situation and still have the player in a City shirt at the start of the season.

[matar]

Is this todays post, or something redone from Mondays paper?

I have to agree with other posters, this is really frustrating. However, if it doesnt go through, then after wembley, 14000 season tickets and Carle being sold and Williams brought in to free up the cash, and Lansdown saying they want to concentrate on automatic, they had better have someone else lined up, in addition to Mifsud (who I think will be very good, but if he signs and the club announce the emad deal has collapsed it will still be an anticlimax). If when the season starts and we are struggling, there could be a real backlash because of the perceived lack of ambition or ability to get things done.

Si.

yesterday

[Big Jon]

Were not signing Emad just be told by a freind who has a informant

[bristolcitysweden]

from EP: Emad Meteb's agent today said he was hopeful the striker's £1.5m transfer to Bristol City would still go through. The 25-year-old Egyptian international last week agreed the terms of a three-year contract with the Coca-Cola Championship club after passing a medical in Bristol. But his proposed move to England was plunged into doubt when he played for Egyptian champions Al-Ahly in Sunday's Cairo derby against Zamalek. City manager Gary Johnson last week confirmed Meteb was a Robins player subject to being granted a work permit and claimed Al-Ahly had agreed to cancel his registration forthwith. But the Egyptian champions did no such thing and instead selected Meteb to start the CAF Champions League encounter. He subsequently played the entire 90 minutes, apparently without City's consent.

so hopefully he is still coming

Transfer of registrations are not made over night. The new club shall first apply for it to their FA and enclose the contract with the player. That contract was signed Tuesday or Wednesday last week. The English FA must then administrate the request and send it over to the Egypt FA who shall answer them within one week. The Egypt FA shall contact Al-Ahly to get an confirmation that they got a deal with City. Could all this possibly have happened before the end of Friday? No way.

But we have an cogent oral agreement with AL-Ahly about the transfer and the player had his medical. It's self-evident to anyone who can walk upright that you don't play for your old club after a medical. This has not to be said even if it was in this case. If a contract says it shall be established in two copys it's not necessary to state that each party shall have one copy. It self-evident that one party shall not keep both copys and stick one up his ass - you don't need a paragraph about it.

If you got the message you can play despite having had your med you better check it not only once but twice.

Common sense. Saying anything else is pure stupidity.

A oral agreement is cogent also in Egypt - even if you can't use the player in an important match.

[Olé]

We don't want you playing against Zamalek, whats so difficult about understanding this statement? Although i dearly would love to see Meteab putting on the red shirt for City every saturday i really ca'nt see how that is possible now. GJ and SL were clear in their request for him not to play in this match but he did. Moteab clearly said he wanted to play in this match from the start and did

But we accepted the request to complete the deal after the Zamalek game!!? Why has no one put more emphasis on that point. We had the guy in Ashton Gate and yet we accepted their request to complete a week later. We opened the door for what happened next.

We gave a concession to them that clearly related to the Zamalek game and are now somehow surprised and angered that anything happened. We let the player return to his club without the deal completed or ownership transferred and apparently think we could control the player!!?

As for GJ's thinking on this (this morning's paper is more concrete about the disrespect angle) much as I dearly support the guy, he'll come off as petty after all the 'number one target for months' comments, this is such a high line to take and leaves a very sour taste in the mouth.

The rap always was that he does well moulding a team out of lesser players but can't deal with the big players. Not suggesting for a minute that I don't trust GJ but it is sad that he can't add that string to his bow, as I wonder how far we can go if we can't sign players such as this.

We'll never compete in the Premier League on domestic talent only, we need to be able to take the lumps and the bumps that come with signing complex yet cost-effective foreign deals, if we are to really push on. This is the first test and we're walking away from it on a pride issue...

[Chessels Chick]

But we accepted the request to complete the deal after the Zamalek game!!? Why has no one put more emphasis on that point. We had the guy in Ashton Gate and yet we accepted their request to complete a week later. We opened the door for what happened next.

We gave a concession to them that clearly related to the Zamalek game and are now somehow surprised and angered that anything happened. We let the player return to his club without the deal completed or ownership transferred and apparently think we could control the player!!?

As for GJ's thinking on this (this morning's paper is more concrete about the disrespect angle) much as I dearly support the guy, he'll come off as petty after all the 'number one target for months' comments, this is such a high line to take and leaves a very sour taste in the mouth.

The rap always was that he does well moulding a team out of lesser players but can't deal with the big players. Not suggesting for a minute that I don't trust GJ but it is sad that he can't add that string to his bow, as I wonder how far we can go if we can't sign players such as this.

We'll never compete in the Premier League on domestic talent only, we need to be able to take the lumps and the bumps that come with signing complex yet cost-effective foreign deals, if we are to really push on. This is the first test and we're walking away from it on a pride issue...

Very well said young man!

[Warbie]

But we accepted the request to complete the deal after the Zamalek game!!? Why has no one put more emphasis on that point. We had the guy in Ashton Gate and yet we accepted their request to complete a week later. We opened the door for what happened next.

We gave a concession to them that clearly related to the Zamalek game and are now somehow surprised and angered that anything happened. We let the player return to his club without the deal completed or ownership transferred and apparently think we could control the player!!?

As for GJ's thinking on this (this morning's paper is more concrete about the disrespect angle) much as I dearly support the guy, he'll come off as petty after all the 'number one target for months' comments, this is such a high line to take and leaves a very sour taste in the mouth.

The rap always was that he does well moulding a team out of lesser players but can't deal with the big players. Not suggesting for a minute that I don't trust GJ but it is sad that he can't add that string to his bow, as I wonder how far we can go if we can't sign players such as this.

We'll never compete in the Premier League on domestic talent only, we need to be able to take the lumps and the bumps that come with signing complex yet cost-effective foreign deals, if we are to really push on. This is the first test and we're walking away from it on a pride issue...

couldnt have put it better myself! very dissapointing from what we know!

[Show Me The Money!]

Nothing to add to this discussion, but I get the 1000th post on this topic

Wehay!

Edit. Gutted, post number 1001. Dam my slow computer. Dam you Cornish also

[bristolcitysweden]

But we accepted the request to complete the deal after the Zamalek game!!? Why has no one put more emphasis on that point. We had the guy in Ashton Gate and yet we accepted their request to complete a week later. We opened the door for what happened next.

We gave a concession to them that clearly related to the Zamalek game and are now somehow surprised and angered that anything happened. We let the player return to his club without the deal completed or ownership transferred and apparently think we could control the player!!?

As for GJ's thinking on this (this morning's paper is more concrete about the disrespect angle) much as I dearly support the guy, he'll come off as petty after all the 'number one target for months' comments, this is such a high line to take and leaves a very sour taste in the mouth.

The rap always was that he does well moulding a team out of lesser players but can't deal with the big players. Not suggesting for a minute that I don't trust GJ but it is sad that he can't add that string to his bow, as I wonder how far we can go if we can't sign players such as this.

We'll never compete in the Premier League on domestic talent only, we need to be able to take the lumps and the bumps that come with signing complex yet cost-effective foreign deals, if we are to really push on. This is the first test and we're walking away from it on a pride issue...

Transfer of registrations are not made over night. The new club shall first apply for it to their FA and enclose the contract with the player. That contract was signed Tuesday or Wednesday last week. The English FA must then administrate the request and send it over to the Egypt FA who shall answer them within one week. The Egypt FA shall contact Al-Ahly to get an confirmation that they got a deal with City. Could all this possibly have happened before the end of Friday? No way.

But we have an cogent oral agreement with AL-Ahly about the transfer and the player had his medical. It's self-evident to anyone who can walk upright that you don't play for your old club after a medical. This has not to be said even if it was in this case. If a contract says it shall be established in two copys it's not necessary to state that each party shall have one copy. It self-evident that one party shall not keep both copys and stick one up his ass - you don't need a paragraph about it.

If you got the message you can play despite having had your med you better check it not only once but twice.

Common sense. Saying anything else is pure stupidity.

A oral agreement is cogent also in Egypt - even if you can't use the player in an important match.