The point of the article is that Terry seemed to think that producing proof that he was paying more fees to third parties, regardless of the value, was in any way reassuring to the players, senior or otherwise.
you have gone off on a complete tangent here fella
The columnist for SMH (no name given) was just taking a cheap shot at Terry, alluding to the likely similarity to the WGA "no show" loan , and the wisecrack reference to the $35 transfer fee as "a deal breaker". Classy.Not.