In seriousness, Alan, some context for you: the Telegraph used to be a fairly good newspaper. Has always leant to the right (the stereotype is that its core readership is "retired colonels in the suburbs", so a generally older, upper-middle class, traditionalist audience), but like most good broadsheets with a political bias, if you know it's there, you can accept and correct for it in assessing its reports.
That said, over the last half decade or so, as the Mail has become more and more explicitly a tabloid of the right and far-right, the Telegraph has similarly drifted further to the (populist) right with some of its stances to fill the gap in the market left behind. Its owners are a pair of billionaire brothers who live as tax exiles in the Channel Islands - specifically on the island of Sark, where feudalism was only abolished in 2008 (!) - and under their ownership the paper has been criticised for a number of ethically dubious editorial decisions, which have included allowing advertisers to suppress unfavourable stories and to publish stories planted by the Russian government. They'll publish, or not publish, anything as long as you pay them enough under the table, essentially. (And, speaking as someone in the industry, it now has the worst reputation by far on Fleet Street as a place to work of the major papers - upper management have driven employee morale into the ground by forcing their good print writers to also chase views online with clickbait crap, and there's a really intense culture of workplace bullying and sexism, which is why they have such a high staff turnover rate. But I digress.)
This is all their front-of-the-paper stuff, though. For the sports pages, they're basically the same as the other British broadsheets. They'll run stuff with more seriousness and sourcing to it than tabloids like the Sun or Mail or Mirror will, but it's still British football journalism - it's a shady industry being covered by people who are both enthusiasts for the sport and often compromised by direct friendships with some of the people they're meant to be covering, so they get tips on stuff happening, but the deeper meta-story - cui bono, essentially - is often an issue. That's very clearly the case here, for example, so while the specifics in the piece *might* be true, what we can only really say is that someone's used their connections to plant a story to make Fosun look bad in the British press, and the most likely candidate is Lambert, or someone close to Lambert.
