bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
If i was a betting man I would put the money on someone on the UEFA investigating team talking to someone in the Liverpool ownership camp (You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to guess who this might be) and then the message being passed on to the New York Times. That would explain the phrase "sources close to Uefa." The story has been held a few days to provide maxiumum impact after our title triumph. It's a huge own goal and our lawyers will be rubbing their hands.I posted earlier today that I thought UEFA would be far better letting sleeping dogs lie but it appears that they no longer have that option. The NYT story has certainly taken all attention off City's achievements this season in a week in which they have won the title and go for the FA cup. The issue now is whether this story is totally without foundation and concocted by a reporter from motives which are distinctly malicious. If this is the case his career could be nearing its end or his paper could face serious problems. Or the issue could be that of the competence of UEFA to act as the governing body of European football and in particular of the CFCBIC to carry out its responsibilities in enforcing the very controversial FFP regulations. The suspicion that a member of the IC is informing a reporter of its decisions/recommendations while investigations are in process and confidential is a potentially terminal blow to the integrity of a body already vulnerable at the very least on questions of conflict of interest. UEFA may have no alternative but to say they have investigated, found no evidence of any wrongdoing and pray that the NYT cannot provide the name of a mole.