Ole Gunnar Solskjaer has suggested Ruben Amorim could have done more to try to help Marcus Rashford before the forward was effectively banished and sent on successive loans. The former Manchester United manager framed the issue as one of duty and proximity, arguing a manager should probe a player’s wellbeing when form and mood change.

Rashford has this season been rediscovering his goalscoring output while on loan with Barcelona. Solskjaer, who led United when Rashford scored 20-plus goals in successive seasons in 2019–20 and 2020–21, said he sees renewed enjoyment behind the improved output in Spain.

“I’ve not spoken to Marcus since, since I left… texting a little bit. It’s circumstances,” Solskjaer said on the new episode of Stick to Football , on The Overlap network. “I don’t know what’s happened in Marcus’s life, but you can see he’s enjoying himself now in Barcelona. It looked like he didn’t enjoy himself [at Manchester United ] at the end.”

Solskjaer did not name Amorim directly while offering his view that managers must try to understand why a player is unhappy, particularly when it affects performance. He warned against handling such issues publicly and described a manager’s role in addressing off-field and on-field pressure.

“All the pressures, every single one is different… the pressure of life, the pressure of football. We don’t know what’s happened to players when you walk in, in the morning, and see them grumpy,” he said. “That’s the manager’s job, [to] speak, ‘What’s up? I can see something’s wrong.’ And you don’t talk about that in the media most of the time.

“We don’t really know what’s happened, you just want him to do well because he’s an incredible player when he’s in form and he’s happy, and when he’s got energy.”

Solskjaer also referenced a public falling out elsewhere at United, that between Jadon Sancho and Erik ten Hag. Sancho, signed under Solskjaer in 2021, is on a third consecutive loan this season at Aston Villa. “We wanted players who could break teams down, and Jadon, with his skill, link-up play, and little passes around the box, gave us that,” Solskjaer explained.

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.