这是条转会传闻要点，但我无法在本地知识中确认其真实性（我的资料截至 2024-10）。你希望我帮你现在联网核实 BBC

Considering verification options

I'm thinking it’s best to ask the user what they’d like to know — whether they want authenticity verified, more background, or potential implications. My default style is concise. I could propose options: for instance, I could check if the BBC reported it and how to verify that while mentioning my last knowledge cutoff in October 2024. Since I can't confirm any 2025 rumors, I'd offer to check live sources if they approve. It’s a bit ambiguous, though.Clarifying details and context

I think I should ask, [[NEWS.CONTENT_HTML]]quot;Do you need me to verify the source or provide more details?[[NEWS.CONTENT_HTML]]quot; I can provide a quick context about Lewandowski: as of 2024, he was with Barcelona, having joined in 2022 on a four-year contract through 2026, possibly with an optional year. There have been rumors about his link to the MLS, especially concerning Chicago Fire, which might involve their Designated Player and salary cap rules. There’s some uncertainty about Shaqiri’s departure from Chicago; it’s risky to assert specifics, so I’ll avoid that and ask clarifying questions instead.Crafting a credibility checklist

\n

I want to provide a checklist for assessing credibility along with possible implications like salary, Designated Player slots, marketing potential, fit, and timeline windows. I should keep it concise and, since the user prefers a command-line interface style, a short response with options is ideal. I can also propose running a quick web check if they allow it. I’ll ask permission with something like, [[NEWS.CONTENT_HTML]]quot;需要我现查权威来源确认并汇总吗？可给出原文链接与核心细节。[[NEWS.CONTENT_HTML]]quot; Keeping the formatting light, maybe using bullets, seems like a good plan!