Paper Round: City line up £35m Barkley swoop

City to move for Barkley: Manchester City are plotting a summer swoop for Everton midfielder Ross Barkley, according to most papers. The Daily Star puts a figure of £35 million on a possible deal, with other papers suggest City are hoping to land the England international for £30m. Barkley, 20, is top of Manuel Pellegrini's wishlist despite Everton having told the Premier League champions last month to stump up £50m for the player. The Star's report claims that City would be willing to offer Barkley £100,000 a week to move to the Etihad and hope a deal will go through next summer.

Paper Round's view: The fact that most papers - and not just the Daily Star - carry this story suggests there may be something behind it. Barkley would certainly be a fantastic addition to Pellegrini's squad, especially given his nationality and the requirements for home-grown players. But whether Everton would give him up for £30m is open to debate. Barkley is the jewel in Everton's crown and while ultimately they may not be able to stop him from leaving to join a club that can offer him Champions League football, they can test City's resolve by maintaining their demands.

- - -

Liverpool could fall foul of FFP rules: Liverpool could have almost £7m of Champions League prize money withheld pending a UEFA inquiry into a possible breach of Financial Fair Play regulations, an exclusive in The Times claims. The Reds would usually expect the payment to be made next month, but that is now in jeopardy after the club posted losses of £49.8m for the 2012-13 financial year, after a loss of £41m for a 10-month period through to May 2012. Clubs that did not qualify for the Champions League or the Europa League last season (Liverpool finished seventh in 2012-13) were not required to submit financial details for 2011-12 and 2012-13 to UEFA's monitoring body, but having qualified for the Champions League last season they are now subject to FFP regulations.

Paper Round's view: This may not be as bad as it seems. Liverpool may well have their payment held back while an investigation is pending, but their case at any inquiry could be strong. UEFA makes special allowances for "virtuous" expenditure, including investments in the club such as infrastructure and youth development, meaning Liverpool could claim that their total loss over the two seasons in question is a lot less than the above figures and potentially below UEFA's threshold of £35.4m. Another point worth mentioning: last season, 76 clubs were “at risk” of breaching the regulations, yet only nine were sanctioned in the end. Liverpool should take heart from that.

- - -

Shaw "not rated" by LVG: Manchester United manager Louis van Gaal is not a fan of £34m left-back Luke Shaw, according to Rene Meulensteen. The Daily Mirror reports quotes from United's former assistant manager, who expressed surprise that this was the case. He added that the signing of Marcos Rojo from Sporting was "bad news" for Shaw, who is yet to make his competitive debut for his new club following that big-money move from Southampton over the summer.

Paper Round's view: Quite often a new manager will come in and not be entirely happy with the squad he has taken over. That's normal - not everyone has the same tastes. But while Van Gaal was not installed as United manager when Shaw was snapped up, he was definitely in the frame for the job and it is likely he was informed of the club's intention to splash out on the player - and gave the green light for the deal to go ahead. Which means that it is Shaw's form/attitude/fitness that could be the problem, not the fact that he was not a 'Van Gaal signing'. And that should be worrying for a club that has just spent £34m on a player who if failing to live up to expectations.

- - -

Mystery United player unhappy with LVG substitution: "Why the f*** did we substitute Di Maria?" is what an unnamed United player was heard to have said during a fiery dressing-room inquest following the 5-3 defeat at Leicester. The Daily Mail reports that one source at the King Power Stadium described the post-match encounter as "very heated" with the withdrawal of Angel Di Maria when the score was 3-3 a point of contention.

Paper Round's view: The substitution of Di Maria did deprive United of their most effective player going forward, but Leicester already had the wind between their sails - and United's defending was already woeful. Had Di Maria stayed on the pitch, there would have been little he could have contributed to rectifying that. He could, however, have scored again at the other end, something his replacement Juan Mata never looked like doing. Anyway, who said it? Who had the balls to confront Van Gaal face on in the dressing room? It may be the man with some new-found responsibility, the man who had already that afternoon sought to shift the blame onto others with a foul-mouthed tirade on the pitch - despite his own fault in the build-up to the goal he was so upset about... or it may be somebody else.

- - -

Magath hits out at 'lying players': Sacked Fulham manager Felix Magath has claimed his former players have been telling lies about him, reports the Daily Mirror. The German, given leave of his duties last week, has been accused of conducting staring contests with his players and of treating injuries with cheese. Writing on Facebook, Magath said: “This cheese story of the player [Brede] Hangeland is nonsense. I would never prescribe like a physician.” Former Fulham player Danny Murphy had made the initial claim that Hangeland was told to treat a thigh injury by placing cheese on the affected area. Magath added: “I have never experienced such behaviour by world-class people such as Michael Ballack [at Bayern Munich] and Raul [at Schalke]."

Paper Round's view: Murphy claims his revelation has been verified by Hangeland himself in a text message and all this seems to be descending into a round of 'he said, she said'. Yet Fulham are still bottom of the Championship and the focus for the club and those associated with it should not be recriminations (or "abusive polemic and slander" as Magath put it), but recovery.

- - -