CA makes a statement that prima facie has some ring of truth to it - the open minded want to further test the validity of CA as a reliable source, citing that CA has been right in the past when we all doubted it
None of the statements in the above part-sentence have any support whatsoever, please provide.
Again, isn’t that what you’re doing? You read a piece by annonymous agent and immediately believed it.
It’s not like you’re offering up any reasoning why people should believe a rumour by an annonymous agent over a journalist who very closely covers the club and says it’s untrue.