John Terry has offered a clear assessment of why Mohamed Salah and Kevin De Bruyne did not make an impact during their early spells at Chelsea. Terry, who was captain at the time both players arrived, argued that neither was ready to adapt to the club’s demands.

“Kevin De Bruyne came in, Mo Salah came in, have gone on to be absolute world beaters in the game, like incredible players. They came in at a time where they wasn’t ready for the group,” Terry told his former teammate John Obi Mikel on the podcast, The Obi One.

Terry described Chelsea training as exceptionally intense and said newcomers who were technically gifted sometimes struggled to match the group’s standards. “Now, they showed little bits of quality, but I have to say the level that Chelsea had at training was as hard as I’ve ever known training in our time.

“You know, people coming in that are really good, experienced players, just not understanding the level and falling by the wayside very quickly. It was very demanding.”

The contrasting trajectories of the two players are noted in the record of their time at Chelsea and how they performed against the club after leaving. Appearances for Chelsea: Mohamed Salah 19, Kevin De Bruyne 9. Goals for Chelsea: Mohamed Salah 2, Kevin De Bruyne 0. Appearances vs. Chelsea: Mohamed Salah 25, Kevin De Bruyne 22. Goals vs. Chelsea: Mohamed Salah 8, Kevin De Bruyne 5. Stats via Transfermarkt.

Both players subsequently returned to the Premier League with Manchester City and Liverpool respectively, and went on to become central figures for those clubs during a period in which those teams dominated domestic and continental competition, often outperforming Chelsea.

Terry’s reflections place the emphasis on adaptation to a particular environment and the demanding standards at Chelsea at that time, offering context for why two players who later became stars struggled in their initial spells at the club.

U.S. President Donald Trump has moved to grant a presidential pardon to former Tottenham Hotspur owner Joe Lewis, who was convicted of insider trading in New York last year. The decision is one of several pardons issued by Trump since his return to the White House in January.

Reporting in The Athletic said Lewis’s age and the assessment that he did not personally profit from the offences to which he pled guilty were factors in the decision. The pardon will allow Lewis to re-enter the United States, where much of his family is based in Florida.

Lewis stepped back from involvement in Tottenham in 2022 when ownership was handed to the Lewis Family Trust. He is described as effectively retired and has no plans to return to football. For that reason, those close to the club say the pardon will make no difference to Spurs’ day-to-day affairs.

“I am pleased all of this is now behind me, and I can enjoy retirement and watch as my family and extended family continue to build our businesses based on the quality and pursuit of excellence that has become our trademark,” Lewis said.

An anonymous individual described as a “source close to the Lewis family” offered wider context: “Joe and the Lewis family are extremely grateful for this pardon and would like to thank President Trump for taking this action.

“Over his long business career, Joe has been a visionary, creating businesses across the world which multiple generations of his family are now taking forward. There is so much more to the Joe Lewis story than this one event.”

Background: ENIC Group acquired a controlling stake in Tottenham from Alan Sugar in 2001, and bought further shares in conjunction with Daniel Levy in 2003 and again in 2007. ENIC currently holds an 86.58% stake in the club, with Levy owning just under 30% of ENIC. Levy recently stepped down as Tottenham’s long-serving chairman after almost 25 years in the role.

The pardon alters Lewis’s legal standing in the United States but, given his retirement and the ownership structure, it is not expected to change the club’s ownership or operations.

The Professional Footballers’ Association has warned that legal action is likely if the Premier League introduces a salary cap and related spending controls. The PFA’s intervention comes as clubs prepare to vote on proposed changes that include “squad cost ratios” and a “top-to-bottom anchoring” mechanism.

Under the squad cost ratio proposal clubs would be barred from spending more than 85% of their yearly revenue. The top-to-bottom anchoring proposal would cap total expenditure, including player wages, agents’ fees and transfer fees, and limit clubs to spending no more than five times the income earned by the bottom club in the division from broadcasting and prize money.

According to The Times, the PFA will hold talks with the captains of all 20 Premier League clubs next week ahead of a decisive vote on Nov. 21. Manchester City and Manchester United are among the teams known to oppose the introduction of TBA, while Arsenal were one of 16 clubs who voted in favour of exploring the new system during a vote in 2024.

Using the 2023–24 season as the benchmark, when Sheffield United finished bottom, the anchoring model would limit spending to £550 million for every Premier League team. The draft rules suggest some clubs would be immediately in breach of those limits and would be required to lower their expenditure if the proposals are adopted.

Maheta Molango, head of the PFA, told The Times: “Next week Premier League clubs will decide whether to replace present financial regulations with new spending controls. For the first time, this includes a salary cap,“ and added: “If those measures are introduced, some clubs would immediately be in breach of the new rules. This would require them to reduce spending and, as the player’ union, that affects our members. There are established consultation processes and requirements in the English game around such proposals.

“We do not believe the Premier League has met these and we have been clear that we will take measures to challenge the new rules if they are brought in.

“We are not the only ones. Clubs who view the changes as a clear restriction of trade will also take action. Competition specialists have raised eyebrows at the anchoring proposals, which have no precedent, and legal challenges are inevitable.”

The Premier League responded: “We disagree with the PFA’s views regarding the proposed financial rules and the extensive consultation process we have been conducting.

“The PFA has had numerous opportunities since March 2024 to provide feedback on, and shape, the proposals. Where the League has received feedback, including the PFA, we have considered it carefully and, where appropriate, incorporated it into formulating the draft rules.”