Kia Joorabchian

and when I mentioned that you know you don't you didn't do your research and definitely in this case was because the Premier League made it very very clear after the West Ham incident that no ownership of Carlos whatsoever was allowed during the time that he was playing at Man United so the company that

had the rights to Carlos' playing contract, had to give up all their rights in favor of an option.

And Man United were the only people that owned that option.

So during the two years, he had no third-party ownership whatsoever.

Man United had him on a two-year contract with an option to pay a further fee to keep him for another four to five years.

He actually had a five-year option with them.

If you had called me, I would have explained that to you, and you would have known that there was no third-party company owning him whilst he was at Man United.

Yes, when the option expired, the rights would have gone to a third party.

But until then, there was no third party.

Second of all, Gary, if you're referring to me as the people that were talking in his ears, Manchester City's takeover didn't happen until the season when Berbatov

signed for United and that famous moment when City signed Robinho.

City had no interest in Carlos or had spoken about Carlos because nobody knew about Carlos' situation until almost May of the following year.

And Carlos was very determined at that point in time to stay at Man United.

So when you say people had spoken into his ears, nobody had spoken into his ears because

We couldn't even influence the situation if we wanted to influence the situation because Man United had an option on him.

The economic rights were given up when he signed for Man United.

The deal was finished.

There was no third party at that moment in time.

Let's go backwards onto Liverpool, OK?

Liverpool had the exact same contract based on Mascherano.