91Èȱ¬

Numerous sources I spoke to on Wednesday expressed disbelief at the stance being adopted by . , the shadow Olympics minister - and the minister in charge at the time of London's successful bid - described it as "pugnacious" and called on the BOA to resolve the dispute quickly to avoid destabilising the happy London 2012 consensus.

The IOC is expected to come out in favour of Lord Coe

Even the measured PR machine at Locog issued a testy statement expressing sadness at the BOA's tactics. In fact, it was hard to find a voice outside the BOA's plush new offices on Charlotte Street who had a good word to say about the BOA and Moynihan.

But he and the BOA clearly feel the previous chairman and IOC member Sir Craig Reedie did a bad deal with Locog back in 2004.

At that time, as all host Olympic committees must do when they win a bid, they signed over all their marketing rights to the five rings to the organising committee in return for a share of the monies generated by the Games.

That deal was worth around £28m from 2005 to 2012, with £19m being provided in cash and the rest as value-in-kind deals, such as air fares and kit for athletes going to Beijing and Vancouver.

A further £6m was handed over by Locog in 2007, when the BOA made it clear they needed more money.

Now Moynihan and his chief executive Andy Hunt are asking for an even greater share in any surplus from London, pointing to the £100m Rio de Janeiro negotiated with the Brazilian Olympic Committee for the 2014 Games. Sources have indicated to me, however, that he would settle for just under £10m.

The BOA are at pains to insist that this has nothing to do with the concerns over their finances - . They say this is about the future of the BOA and the legacy that will be left after the Games.

Few people I spoke to about this story believe that to be credible. Many feel that, under Moynihan, the BOA have overstretched themselves by taking on a highly paid coaching, marketing and executive team at a time when they actually had very little to do.

I tried to put these points to Moynihan on Wednesday but he declined to comment. At some stage, he will put his side of the story and it may well be that those lining up to attack him have got it wrong.

But one senior figure in the Olympic movement said he was "simply bewildered" by what has been going on at the BOA.

So now it is up to the IOC to rule on this dispute. My understanding is that they will come out in support of Lord Coe.

Lord Moynihan's argument is that the BOA should be getting a share of London's revenues before the costs of staging the Paralympics are taken into account.

Locog dismiss this, saying the deal is clear and that the share is worked out based on the surplus from the Olympics and Paralympic Games.

The joint marketing agreement signed by the BOA and Locog includes a clause which states that any disputes will be judged by the IOC, whose ruling will be final and binding.

And IOC sources made it clear to me that their understanding was that the costs of the Paralympics had to be taken into account.

But even that might not be the end of it. As Moynihan has made it clear, he is prepared to go to the if he does not get the answer he wants.

With Britain's 500-strong team being funded largely by UK Sport, all this will have little or no impact on the preparedness of athletes in London next summer.

Yet many in British sport find it an embarrassing spectacle that two key bodies are falling out over a relatively small sum of money just as the home straight is coming into view.