Emad Meteab Set To Play Againat Zamalek Tomorrow

[Chessels Chick]

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

Hoorah that was me without even knowing it!!

[Olé]

However, Emad does understand English perfectly well. He understood all of Adam's questions

Ah - that's interesting, I didn't know that, it would certainly change my perception of whether he and Al Ahly knew what they were doing, but it still comes down to how well he understood GJ. I notice that Gary is very good at being the bubbly fun guy to work for (that was apparent in the photo and interviews between the two) perhaps Emad genuinely felt GJ was that excited to have him and couldn't possibly forsee a situation where GJ would adopt his alleged current position.

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.

Fair enough, can't argue with that. Suffice to say we know they didn't want to sell and we let them have their player back for a week without a contract being signed. What did we expect!!? If it was such a fundamental term of the deal not playing that game then we should have bloody secured everything on paper then and there, Portugal trip or no Portugal trip.

There's been a lot of talk about culture and how things are done, but if City didn't want to sell a player, even to the point of being quite happy for the deal to break down, and accepted an offer only at the players request, if the buying club sent the player back to us, before an important league game, I don't see why we would automatically not play the guy.

What is so odd about what has happened, why has it come as such a surprise to the club after the concessions they gave and the timeline they set for completing the deal, and why are we now prepared to chuck our hand in after all this effort, over something we had a chance to stop before going to Portugal... we created the conditions for the issue we're now furious with.

[Olé]

By the way, I'm glad to see the tabloids are their usual measured selves. Today's Daily Mirror:

Bristol signing Emad Meteb goes AWOL one week in

Bristol City's pre-season plans have descended into chaos after record signing Emad Meteb went AWOL just seven days after joining the club.

[bristolcitysweden]

Ah - that's interesting, I didn't know that, it would certainly change my perception of whether he and Al Ahly knew what they were doing, but it still comes down to how well he understood GJ. I notice that Gary is very good at being the bubbly fun guy to work for (that was apparent in the photo and interviews between the two) perhaps Emad genuinely felt GJ was that excited to have him and couldn't possibly forsee a situation where GJ would adopt his alleged current position.

Fair enough, can't argue with that. Suffice to say we know they didn't want to sell and we let them have their player back for a week without a contract being signed. What did we expect!!? If it was such a fundamental term of the deal not playing that game then we should have bloody secured everything on paper then and there, Portugal trip or no Portugal trip.

There's been a lot of talk about culture and how things are done, but if City didn't want to sell a player, even to the point of being quite happy for the deal to break down, and accepted an offer only at the players request, if the buying club sent the player back to us, before an important league game, I don't see why we would automatically not play the guy.

What is so odd about what has happened, why has it come as such a surprise to the club after the concessions they gave and the timeline they set for completing the deal, and why are we now prepared to chuck our hand in after all this effort, over something we had a chance to stop before going to Portugal... we created the conditions for the issue we're now furious with.

Spanish people got a saying; "Pater el Sueco", Do like the Swedes, meaning acting like a fool not understanding anything and hoping to get away with it.

[Red]

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?

Yes the did mention this at 7-30am the report i put down was what was said.

[chinapig]

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.

I always find your posts very well considered, not least this one. Lots of slagging off of the Egyptian end of the operation but the fact is we stated categorically he had signed a 3-year contract (not he would sign or had verbally agreed or whatever). Are we now going to be told this wasn't true? In his blog recently Adam Baker criticised Leeds for announcing they had signed Enoch in January prematurely as part of his explanation as to why we do not comment on transfers. Is that now the pot calling the kettle black? Whatever the outcome I doubt we'll ever be given the whole story but I'm not convinced we are necessarily without fault. The sudden Mifsud story only serves to encourage a little cynicism.

[bristolcitysweden]

I always find your posts very well considered, not least this one. Lots of slagging off of the Egyptian end of the operation but the fact is we stated categorically he had signed a 3-year contract (not he would sign or had verbally agreed or whatever). Are we now going to be told this wasn't true? In his blog recently Adam Baker criticised Leeds for announcing they had signed Enoch in January prematurely as part of his explanation as to why we do not comment on transfers. Is that now the pot calling the kettle black? Whatever the outcome I doubt we'll ever be given the whole story but I'm not convinced we are necessarily without fault. The sudden Mifsud story only serves to encourage a little cynicism.

Forgive me for going on about this but he has signed a contract with City. If not we would not have been able to start the process with the transfer of registration. That requires a copy of the contract between the player and the club to be enclosed.

; )

[chinapig]

Forgive me for going on about this but he has signed a contract with City. If not we would not have been able to start the process with the transfer of registration. That requires a copy of the contract between the player and the club to be enclosed.

; )

Quite, so I would assume (and I'm no expert) that unless he has explicitly breached that contract it is binding on us, which could lead to legal problems. Unless, as I say, the official announcement was misleading.

[Olé]

Forgive me for going on about this but he has signed a contract with City. If not we would not have been able to start the process with the transfer of registration. That requires a copy of the contract between the player and the club to be enclosed.

BCS, if that is the case, why are we walking away from this deal as opposed to pursueing a breach of contract? We wanted the player, that much is indisputable, if the contract was breached we take action and acquire the player we wanted in the meantime. The supposed latest events give far more suspicion that we had nothing in writing and are now simply abandoning the pursuit.

Also, wasn't Emad meant to be signing on the dotted line when he returned? That would further suggest he hadn't yet signed anything amounting to a contract or an agreement with us. I understand and appreciate the points you have researched and made about contracts but I still can't see any evidence there were any contracts in place with anyone and as such we had no control over what happened?

[bristolcitysweden]

Quite, so I would assume (and I'm no expert) that unless he has explicitly breached that contract it is binding on us, which could lead to legal problems. Unless, as I say, the official announcement was misleading.

No transfer of registration = nor work permit = no deal (subject to work permit).

It's says he "signed". Can you sign oraly or has it to be pen to paper??

[denning]

BCS, if that is the case, why are we walking away from this deal as opposed to pursueing a breach of contract? We wanted the player, that much is indisputable, if the contract was breached we take action and acquire the player we wanted in the meantime. The supposed latest events give far more suspicion that we had nothing in writing and are now simply abandoning the pursuit.

Also, wasn't Emad meant to be signing on the dotted line when he returned? That would further suggest he hadn't yet signed anything amounting to a contract or an agreement with us. I understand and appreciate the points you have researched and made about contracts but I still can't see any evidence there were any contracts in place with anyone and as such we had no control over what happened?

Because there is no point, we have not lost out on anything so the only award we would get for damages for breach of the contract is going to be nominal. Arguements could be made for claiming expenditure in sealing the deal but this was all a precurser to the transfer and thus would have been spent even if terms could not have been agreed and so would have been spent anyway. The long and short of it is that we don't sue for breach of contract because we wont get anything.

[chinapig]

No transfer of registration = nor work permit = no deal (subject to work permit).

It's says he "signed". Can you sign oraly or has it to be pen to paper??

I don't think we're disagreeing here. I assume that if the registration isn't transferred then any contract is void. As Sam Goldwyn said, a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on!

[RedM]

No transfer of registration = nor work permit = no deal (subject to work permit).

It's says he "signed". Can you sign oraly or has it to be pen to paper??

I took it that he had signed , ie agreed to become a Bristol City player from that moment on, when I read the stuff on the OS. It definitely wasn't 'he's in talks' or ' we have had a bid accepted'. He had passed a medical and so was 'off the market' as far as I was concerned. I was under the impression tat his registration was cancelled and now in our hands so we could make his work permit application as soon as possible.

On Sunday RedM Jnr was reading the forum, he said people are on here saying he is playing in Egypt. I said he can't be he isn't allowed, and was set to get on here and delete someone who was on a windup! I read in disbelief and got the match up myself to see him in all his slightly blurred glory. I thought straight away the deal must be cancelled as he wouldn't be playing otherwise, but at the end he clearly said his goodbyes so I was as confused as ever, and still am!

[bristolcitysweden]

I don't think we're disagreeing here. I assume that if the registration isn't transferred then any contract is void. As Sam Goldwyn said, a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on!

Someone else said: just a scrap of paper..

[gazareth]

No transfer of registration = nor work permit = no deal (subject to work permit).

It's says he "signed". Can you sign oraly or has it to be pen to paper??

It didn't say "signed". It said "agreed". Correct me if I'm wrong, by all means, but I think that's correct because I deliberately checked earlier this week.

[BCFCfan]

Its all very odd.

I really hope he is still coming but cant believe GJ would want both Mifsud and Meteb.

I know rules is rules but when GJ has been after this player for so long for it all to fall through now must be a right kick in the teeth. If Meteb had been injured then pull out of the deal, but its seems he came though unscathed so don't cut of your nose to spite your face???

If he did play ''illegally'' then if we were to go ahead with the signing could we/the player be in hot water with the authorities for playing when he shouldnt??

So many questions, so little actually known.

[downendcity]

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...

A very good point Ole.

In hindsight, I wonder whether Al_Ahly have been a bit to cute for us?

They knew they were going to lose the player either now or for a lower fee in the next year, because there is ess than 1 year on his contract. However, it seems that this local derby is a huge game, and perhaps they were determined to find wa way for Emad to play.

From the beginning it seemed that they were messing about and stalling, because GJ was a forced to make his take it or leave it ultimatum. But what if this was a deliberate tactic to drag the transfer out to a point in time of their chosing? They knew that the deal would have to be conditional on the player getting work permit, which would take a week or so, causing a delay from agreeing that sale until the sale was completed and theb player bacame ours.

Do you remember that the deal was agreed with the club and Emad suddenly appeared at AG to agree personal terms and be pohotographed, the day before the club left for Portugal? Was that a coincidence? From what our Egyptian friends have posted we agreed with Al-Ahly to sign to paperwork on 21 July, presumably because this allowed time for the work permit to be obtained, but it also , more than conveniently, the day after said big game.

Al-Ahly are in a no lose position here. If the sale proceeds they get more money selling Emad now . than if he stays with them into the last year of his contract and the player gets his wish to play form one of the big European clubs. If we cancel because of what they've done, they keep a player they didn't want to lose and got him playing in the big game which they won, and which they wanted all along . As for the impact this episode has on BCFC< do thety care?

[denning]

No transfer of registration = nor work permit = no deal (subject to work permit).

It's says he "signed". Can you sign oraly or has it to be pen to paper??

certainly usually the case is not worth much,,, however with something as high profile with this then it becomes a little different (it has been plastered everywhere from bbc to egypt). It has been stated on many a website meteb has agreed terms blahda blahda blahda complete subject to work permit. As long as city could prove terms were agreed with something like a quote from his agent that the wage, length performance bonuses etc had all been agreed then city would no doubt be in a far far stronger position to prove a verbal contract had been agreed. The stumbling block is showing that all terms had been agreed,,, however this is all just moot.

[East End Lad]

Anyone still have the SMS the club sent out still on there phone? I could have sworn is said he is now or player, or something along those lines but I have since deleted it.

Incedently if the deal doesnt go through, do we get refunded the cost of that text? Somehow I doubt it.

[bristolcitysweden]

BCS, if that is the case, why are we walking away from this deal as opposed to pursueing a breach of contract? We wanted the player, that much is indisputable, if the contract was breached we take action and acquire the player we wanted in the meantime. The supposed latest events give far more suspicion that we had nothing in writing and are now simply abandoning the pursuit.

Also, wasn't Emad meant to be signing on the dotted line when he returned? That would further suggest he hadn't yet signed anything amounting to a contract or an agreement with us. I understand and appreciate the points you have researched and made about contracts but I still can't see any evidence there were any contracts in place with anyone and as such we had no control over what happened?

I can se to reasons; either we wan't out of the deal and we don't have much of a case saying he violated the deal by playing or this is the perfect retrait way with some honour planted by the leaking Egyptians putting words in our mouth and having left us with no doubts that they will keep on obstructing though cogent.

Let me ask you; if there was yet no cogent deal why where we so upset about him playing?

After all: no deal is no deal.

Should we rely on them that much after all those twists and turns?

[chinapig]

I can't see anywhere on the OS where it says Meteb signed a contract with us.

It says that he agreed a 3 year deal - not that he signed a contract.

As I understand it, the contract was due to be signed on 21st July - the day after the Zamalek game.

I thought he had signed as well, but I can't see where it says that.

A different kettle of fish then. In which case it might have been better to keep quiet until papers were actually signed, given the complexity of this deal. Egg on face thereby avoided.

[Riaz]

Anyone still have the SMS the club sent out still on there phone? I could have sworn is said he is now or player, or something along those lines but I have since deleted it.

Incedently if the deal doesnt go through, do we get refunded the cost of that text? Somehow I doubt it.

City have confirmed the ₤1.5m record signing of Egyptian international striker Emad Meteb from Ah Ahly, subject to work permit. bcfc.co.uk

thats exactly what the text said.

[downendcity]

A different kettle of fish then. In which case it might have been better to keep quiet until papers were actually signed, given the complexity of this deal. Egg on face thereby avoided.

Looking back perhaps we look a bit niaive in the way we've addressed such a complicated transfer, dealing with a club thousands of miles away and via 2 agents ( neither of who I suspect we've had any dealings with previously). It is also fairly obvious that Al-Ahly kept moving the goalposts, but despite all these factors it seems that all the agreements with club and player have been made verbally. I suspect there is absutely nothing in writing on which we can base any case against the club for their (apparent) breach of contract ( but only a verbal one and one that might have been mixed in translation by the time it's been though the 2 agents, and this might explain why the club have been so quiet about what is happeing.

It's a bit like buying ahouse, and agreeing verbally with the vendor that he will leave all the designer curtains and carpets, the fitted SMEG fridge freezer and the top of the range Koi Carp pond stocked with 50 prize specimens worth £200 each. If you then turn up on completion day, sign the deed and move in to find the house completely empty of carpets and curtains and a hole in the garden where the pond used to be would it be a surrpise and how do you prove what was or wasn't agreed verbally.

If we are to be a top club I suspect we will have more transfers like this with foreign clubs, and perhaps we need to ge ta bit sharper and make sure we cover our backs better in future.

In my work there is an expression - " if it ain't written down it didn't happen", and I think BCFC need to adopt the same attitude in their dealings in future.

[stroudy]

Yep still have it on my phone RIAZ is right!

[CiderHider]

Yep still have it on my phone RIAZ is right!

Right then... so we have paid some of the £1.5m up front....bye bye £750k then if we pull the plug?

Be interesting to see how we recover that

[madmax]

What if Sundays game would have been an International game. Whats the difference? I expect he would have played that!

I still maintain the clubs silence is doing themselves no favours. They want to get closure to the fans then they should tell us if he is a Bristol City player or not. Or are they waiting for the work permit!!!!

MM

[bristolcitysweden]

I can't see anywhere on the OS where it says Meteb signed a contract with us.

It says that he agreed a 3 year deal - not that he signed a contract.

As I understand it, the contract was due to be signed on 21st July - the day after the Zamalek game.

I thought he had signed as well, but I can't see where it says that.

"City have confirmed the signing" etc.

http://www.bcfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,1...1343848,00.html

[Spud55]

By the way, I'm glad to see the tabloids are their usual measured selves. Today's Daily Mirror:

Thats the problem now for Meteb, he's going to cop all the blame for the fiasco even if it wasn't his fault, making him even less attractive to other clubs as they will think, we'll he buggered us about and with the whole boro mess he probably buggered them about. If it came out and all were just saying ahly were messing us around, then someone decent would come in in jan and offer him a contract when they don't have to deal with ahly in any way, but as it stands it will look as if he's another Egyptian trouble maker just like mido who isn't worth the effort, this could end any hopes he has of playing in a major European League.

[zippycar]

Interesting that the OS has chosen an extract from the Daily Star Egypt to include in its Press Talk section:

http://www.bcfc.co.uk/page/WTPSDetail/0,,1...1349853,00.html

Also describes Gary Johnson as "the intolerant City coach"

[Alex_BCFC]

Come on, someone post another conspiracy theory. It has been over 2 hours since the last post.