AND YET MORE BAD NEWS

However much of a c*nt he is it’s hardly the best idea to be winding him up. The Mirror on the United-FIFA Rio spat:

Sepp Blatter had already threatened to strip United of the Premiership and Champions League points they have earned with Ferdinand in the side since his missed drugs test on September 23.

Gill told Blatter it was none of his business and his comments were "incomprehensible". But Blatter promised last night to put United in their place today, with the full backing of FIFA's ruling executive committee.

The FIFA President told Mirror Sport yesterday:

"The case of Rio Ferdinand is something that will be discussed by the executive committee tomorrow. I will have something interesting to say about it after the meeting.

"I have noted the comments from Manchester United, describing my words as 'incomprehensible'. All I can say is that their comments do not seem to me to be in the spirit of fair play."

“That was a clear threat by Blatter to demand a hardline punishment if Ferdinand is found guilty of missing the test. And although it is unlikely that FIFA would strip United of their points, Blatter can and will intervene.

“Any suspension imposed by the FA after the two-day hearing at Bolton later this month - a three-month ban remains the likeliest punishment - would have to be ratified by FIFA. And Blatter could step in and double the ban, ruling Ferdinand out of Euro 2004.”

In the Guardian Fergie continues the fight with the FA:

The Rio Ferdinand affair has caused irreparable damage to the relationship between England's biggest club and the game's ruling body and Ferguson's latest outburst makes it clear he regards the new regime at Soho Square as the enemy.

Having already accused the FA's disciplinary department of "doing a deal" with Arsenal following the scenes at Old Trafford in September, Ferguson argued it was a "possibility" the authorities had found Ryan Giggs and Cristiano Ronaldo guilty of improper conduct simply, as it was put to him, to "even things out".

The manager went on to describe himself as "surprised and disappointed", believing the two players should have been exonerated at Monday's hearing, the outcome of which merely enforced his suspicions that convicting a United employee is, to some FA officials, the same as landing a prize fish.

Ferguson let it be known earlier this season he suspected there were "ambitious people" at the FA who were intent on using United's name to "make a name for themselves". He also cites his own disciplinary hearing in October when the FA banned him from the touchline for two matches for swearing at the fourth official Jeff Winter at Newcastle early in the season.

Ferguson was adamant that the FA should have given greater consideration to his previous good record. Since then he has also been required to send a letter of explanation to the FA for his comments about the authorities colluding with Arsenal.

These might seem like minor arguments, particularly when it will hardly ruin Giggs or Ronaldo to pay fines of £7,500 and £4,000 respectively, but the growing sense of unease at Old Trafford that the FA is allegedly intent on making an example of United has serious implications, with the case of Ferdinand's missed drugs test due to get underway a fortnight tomorrow.

The feeling at Old Trafford now is that the FA's chief executive Mark Palios will not allow himself to be undermined by a decision that could be seen as overly lenient.

United's case is that Ferdinand should not be treated more harshly than, say, a player with a lower profile at a different club but Ferguson's concerns have not been eased by the guilty verdicts for Giggs and Ronaldo.

"I don't know how they [the FA] came to their verdict," he said. "You can't explain some of the things that happen [with the FA] nowadays. We've got to decide whether we appeal and it's certainly a possibility."

Ferguson has some relevant points but the nature of the man means that these are lost sometimes in statements that border on the paranoid. One case in point is his refusal to accept Roy Keane fouled Joe Cole on Sunday.

"If anyone disagrees with me I'll give them odds of 100-1 and we'll watch it together. There is no doubt whatsoever Roy got his studs on the ball. And Cole was running away from goal anyway. The referee didn't see it; he guessed it. This is the same referee, remember, who refused us a certain penalty when David Beckham was fouled in the game against Manchester City last season."