Soccer: They can’t keep us out of the news

IT’S not the first time I’ve said this but thank goodness for Manchester United’s ability to produce off pitch interest when the on-pitch entertainment value drops to zero.

Sunday’s direly disappointing draw with Newcastle was thoroughly overshadowed by the revelations in the Sunday Times about possible irregularities in at least one transfer deal this year.

Now then, long time readers with exceedingly good memories might remember that a couple of years ago, I devoted half a column to a new biography of Alex Ferguson by the eminent dragon-slaying journalist (and United fan) Michael Crick.

I wrote at the time that the book contained extremely serious charges that could not be easily dismissed and that “the issues Crick raises will not simply go away, no matter how much United would wish them to.”

It’s been a long wait to be proved right but I was not in the least bit surprised to see that Sunday’s revelations concerned the role of Sir Alex’s son at United.

The figure of Jason Ferguson loomed large over the final third of Crick’s best-selling and ground-breaking book; to some readers his relationship with Alex was reminiscent of the equally infamous team of Mark and Margaret Thatcher.

Of the latter duo it was once said that Mark exhibited all the faults of Maggie, but with none of her redeeming attributes. Ahem! Libel laws being as they are, it would probably be unwise to delve into too much detail.

The club’s response to the Sunday Times were, at various stages, dishonest, disingenuous or simply beside the point.

It’s patently not good enough to claim, as United do, that their sole requirement is to (a) name the original agent they pay and (b) the precise amount. Technically and legally that might be true; morally and ethically it is rubbish.

A hypothetical case - let us say United paid an agent for a deal, who then immediately handed the cash onwards as a ‘bung’ to Jason or Sir Alex or whoever (not that they would ever accept one, of course).

If that ‘bung’ were to emerge in the Sunday Times, would United claim “We’ve followed procedures correctly - it’s now nothing to do with us?” Of course not.

It’s time for United to stop hiding behind legalese and to face up to their responsibilities. Namely this: it is not right that the son of the manager should be handing any United transfers or commercial deals. End of story. Caesar’s son, as well as his wife, must be above suspicion - or the Emperor might fall.

Secondly, it would be a mistake to think that this story stops here, that the FA and United will safely bury the issue and we’ll all forget about it.

Au contraire: there is a list of close to a dozen transfer deals that have had some input from one of the parties mentioned in the Sunday Times’ investigation.

Furthermore, some of those deals had already attracted suspicion from both journalists and ordinary supporters because of the unusual methods apparently used to effect them, the strange way the asking prices moved in the days up to completion and, frankly, because a couple of the deals seemed questionable on footballing grounds.

You might recall the surprise I reflected here when we reached a deal for David Bellion. Even Sunderland, the selling club, could barely conceal their shock and delight when United suddenly offer them £3m for a player who is both unproven and, frankly, not that promising.

Now we read that agent Mike Morris was paid £358,000 for his work on the deal, an extraordinarily high percentage of a fee that is also remarkably elevated.

We read at the time that Morris was partly conducting the deal from the very offices of Jason Ferguson and we also know that Jason and Morris are friends, and that Jason’s firm pays Morris’ phone bill.

You do not have to be particularly conspiratorially minded to look at all these facts, join the possible dots, and gaze upon an especially unpleasant picture.

You may have joined the dots incorrectly, or course - and I am not suggesting here what that final picture consists of - but the avoidance of doubt and suspicion should be United’s aim here.

However, certain aspects can, and should be, safely highlighted firstly, United “insiders” have been quick to play what we now know as “The Irish Card”. This tactic is frequently used whenever some ‘bad news’ story emerges at Old Trafford.

Journalists are briefed that the “Coolmore Mafia” are responsible for the story’s emergence and that therefore it can be dismissed as ‘mischief making’. With any luck, both journalist and reader can be convinced to ignore the underlying issue.

NOW I have no idea whether any Irish fellas helped send any incriminating documents onto the Times but I do know this: the paper started investigating the Alex-Jason relationship over two years ago i.e. long before Alex fell out with John Magnier.

To blame the Irish for the fact that the Ferguson family has chosen to entwine itself around United’s transfer dealings is thus entirely spurious.

It’s frankly immaterial to be discussing where these stories come from - and this point applies to the recent brouhaha over Ferguson’s £90,000 fee for attending a leukaemia dinner in Dublin too. The only point that matters is this: is the story true? And if it is, what does it signify?

I am advised by a UK tabloid’s news desk that there are “a dozen” stories in the pipeline which might reflect badly on Ferguson and which will emerge over the next few months.

Each story may well be attacked by MUFC’s spin-doctors as having “Irish fingerprints” on them. So what? And anyway, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time that some British mouthpiece has tried to fit up an Irish suspect on forensics!