They say a magician never reveals his tricks. The same is said for journalists, only they never reveal their sources.

You can understand why people want to peek behind the curtain for both. How does the magician pull a rabbit out of their hat or cut a woman in half? (Seriously, how?)

In the world of journalism, sport in particular, supporters want to know who is informing reporters that player X is joining their club.

This is never more apparent than during the summer, as transfer stories are littered across the tabloids and dominate social media.

Every day, players are linked with a move to another team, with the majority being nothing more than lies and water cooler talk.

It leaves fans disappointed and annoyed, their trust betrayed.

Before becoming a sports journalist, I was one of those fans. It would drive me mental when I would read online that the team I support were days away from signing a player, only for the deal to never materialise.

It got to a point where I refused to believe my team would sign anyone until I saw them holding up the shirt. Only then would I take notice of the supposed gossip.

To be honest, I am still like that. After having a look behind the proverbial curtain, I am even more wary of what sources have to say and take every story with a pinch of salt.

It’s not that I don’t trust the journalists that are writing these stories. I know for a fact that their sources are 100 per cent reliable.

The problem they have is that their sources are also 100 per cent unreliable.

It is no secret that sources, be it agents, players or close friends, have an agenda when “leaking” news to the press.

Say an agent calls a journalist he trusts, telling him that a big club wants to sign his player.

For the journalist fielding that call, he has a dilemma. Does he take that agent at his word and run with the story, knowing full well that this could be a ploy to get a better deal for his player or does he ignore it, potentially losing out on an exclusive story.

The majority of the time, the journalist will run with it. If you keep publishing rumours, eventually one will be true.

And there is nothing worse than having to explain to your editor that the reason the paper missed out on a scoop was because you didn’t believe the story was real.

Sometimes the editor will take the decision out of a journalist’s hands, saying that other sources contradict the story or that the story has no legs and that the source cannot be trusted.

No respected journalist wants to see their reputation left in pieces when they go out on a limb and say a player will be signing on a particular day, only for that day to never arrive.

You only have to look at the Christmas period and how many stories said that Louis van Gaal had been sacked by Manchester and that Jose Mourinho was going to get the job.

The source that leaked that story was correct, just six months ahead of the curve.

Even in the days building up to Mourinho joining United, papers said that would be a done deal in 24 hours. Then it was within 48 hours. Before you know it, it had become sometime next week.

Sources do get things wrong, sometimes because they were never going to be right and other times because plans change.

It is unfair to abuse a journalist because of a rumour that never came to fruition.

I will never forget, while working for a sports agency as an intern, hearing about a story that was going to be run in the next day’s newspapers.

A source from a Premier League club had called to say that a rival player was on his way to the club to have a medical. The manager had confirmed the story and everything was written.

Just as the reporter had put the finishing touches to the story, he got a call from his source to say that the story was made up to try and find out who was leaking information to the press.

This happens more often than you think. A club will make up a story to see who can be trusted and who cannot.

Just a bit of food for thought before the transfer window starts up.