Dear WSC
I am glad that Leeds’ 15-point deduction has been upheld, but not because I am “too busy taking pleasure from their fall from grace to give it a moment’s thought” as claimed by Neil Rose in WSC 256. I actually like Leeds, having watched them frequently in the Revie days when they were the object of much opprobrium from the London press despite producing great football, and so I understand why Leeds fans think everybody is against them. Yes, the number of points deducted is arbitrary, but I think everyone agrees that it is wrong for a club to climb the table by spending other people’s money and then being allowed to write off their debts yet not suffer in terms of league position. But that is precisely what Ken Bates tried to do. He was ready to put Leeds into administration at any time, but waited until the club were effectively relegated anyway and then did it instantly, knowing that the automatic ten-point deduction would make no difference to their season. It’s not often I hear myself saying this, but I think the League were perfectly right in their reaction. What they in effect said was: “Yes, you get the automatic points deduction but, as it hasn’t made any difference to you, we will take it off you next season as well and we will take another five off you for trying to manipulate the rules.” If Ken had put the club into administration a week earlier than he did, I suspect this wouldn’t have happened. And you are not “better off going into administration in the Premier League (nine points docked) than in the Football League (ten)”. Nine points in a 38-game season means you have to make up the difference at a rate of 0.237 points per game, while ten points in a 46-game season is a comparatively trivial handicap of only 0.217. It would have been nothing to Leeds if Ken Bates hadn’t made it worse by trying to play the rules.
Mick Blakeman, Wolverhampton
Read more…
Twitter has changed reporting and news analysis. Mark Segal looks at its footballing role
The Autobiography