Yesterday's Times carried an interview with Frank Lampard in which he opened up to "put an end to the lies" over his move to Manchester City and - sort of - New York City in the MLS.

The problem is that the questions being asked weren't necessarily the most pertinent ones. For example, did he deceive Chelsea when he signed for Manchester City after saying he wouldn't play for another Premier League club?

Nope. He never planned on going to the Etihad and happened to bump into Manuel Pellegrini in New York. Lampard realised he needed a place to train and maintain his fitness. It was actually a tough decision because he had to cancel his holiday plans. Whether you buy this or not - personally, I do - it's all rather irrelevant since, lest we forget, it was Chelsea who pushed him out the door by not renewing his contract.

Or, is this some gigantic Financial Fair Play workaround? Showing a better understanding of FFP than most, Lampard said: "In terms of Man City being 'sneaky', they could have signed me on a free anyway if that's what they wanted to do. People mention Financial Fair Play but what difference would that have made? No difference. It would have been a slippery move, a dodgy move, for nothing. The fact is I signed for New York, then I signed for Man City in the interim and now it has been extended."

He's is right. FFP-wise, City would have gained virtually nothing by doing things this way.

There is, though, a bunch of other questions that didn't quite get answered. Like, why did New York City announce Lampard had signed for them? Lampard says he did sign, except it was a "head of terms" commitment. Which is fine, except that's not a binding contract.

City have since admitted it was an "error" for NYCFC to announce Lampard had signed. The thing about errors is that you fix them once you realise you've made them. And it doesn't generally take more than five months to figure out that you said something which was patently misleading. The same applies to the business about Lampard being an NYCFC player on loan at Manchester City. This was never the case, another "error" that went uncorrected for months.

There's probably a third error, too; the length of his contract. City said it was a "short-term" deal until December 31 which was then extended until the end of the season. The Premier League say otherwise. They maintain it was a season-long contract until June 30 and with good reason: their rules state that, apart from exceptional circumstances (and these aren't) you're not allowed to sign for less than a season.

What rankles here isn't so much Lampard or his future. He'll play for City until the end of the season and then, presumably, he'll go to New York. If he does well, all will be forgotten, maybe even forgiven, though the fact remains he'll be a free agent on June 30 and could easily retire or sign for any team in the world should he so choose.

The annoying part is that it's hard to understand why City went through all this. Why, having made a "genuine error" (as they called it) didn't they set the record straight? And why didn't Lampard simply do what everybody thought he'd done: sign for NYCFC and move on loan to City.

That's what nobody can figure out. And that's what makes one most uncomfortable. Well, after the fact that 11,000 NYCFC season tickets were sold in good faith to fans who thought they'd be getting Lampard for the start of the MLS campaign in March and the fact that City Football Group could commit the "genuine error" of spreading false information and then taking half a year to rectify it.

Barring some kind of cataclysm, Cristiano Ronaldo should win the Ballon d'Or tomorrow. You have to say "should" because given the vagaries of the jury pool - which includes journalists, national team coaches and national team captains from all 209 Fifa member nations - and the history of lost ballots and folk not bothering to vote, there might be room for Manuel Neuer or Lionel Messi.

But Ronaldo, nevertheless, should win and deserves to win. He scored more goals than anyone else in 2014, played the best football of his career and won the Champions League. He also softened his image somewhat and was generally being on his best behaviour (with the exception of that celebration after notching the fourth goal in the final in Lisbon).

The other two? Messi wasn't near his usual standards and had uncharacteristic fallow spells. Even injured and under-performing, he scored or created many of the key goals that took Argentina to the World Cup final, but the truth is he was not Messi-like too often in 2014. Blame him for setting the bar too high in previous seasons.

Neuer had an outstanding year but is a goalkeeper surrounded by an unbelievable supporting cast for club and country, both of which might well have won just as much with someone else between the sticks.

Speaking of Messi, the turmoil at Barcelona is doing him no favours image-wise. Last week the rumour mill was especially fervent after he was left out of the starting line-up for Barca's clash with Real Sociedad.

There were suggestions he skipped training on Monday with made-up gastroenteritis; that Xavi, Andres Iniesta and Sergio Busquets had to mediate between him and embattled manager Luis Enrique; and that he had met president Josep Bartomeu and demanded a change in manager.

The last claim was swiftly denied by the club. Still, unless business picks up, you can't see Luis Enrique sticking around much longer. If it comes down to a "him or me" situation with Messi, it's no contest. Despite reports in the English press on Friday that had him potentially Premier League-bound - between wages and a buy-out clause you'd be looking north of £400 million - he's going nowhere.

Barca know which side their bread is buttered on and in an age of Financial Fair Play nobody could make the numbers work.