The Elland Road club last week failed in their bid to overturn a 15-point sanction imposed last August for what the League perceived to be a failure to follow insolvency policy – namely not exiting administration via a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA).

It was a legal challenge from the taxman – owed around £7m of United's total debt of £35m – that prompted KPMG, the administrators running the club last summer, to abandon the CVA despite it having been passed with the requisite 75 per cent support of creditors the previous month. And with the Revenue now routinely voting against all football CVAs due to being unhappy over having to wait in line behind football creditors, there is a very real possibility of insolvent clubs having to follow the Leeds route out of administration.

That would – if the case involving the Elland Road club becoming precedent, as seems likely – see the likes of Bournemouth, Luton and Rotherham being hit with a 15-point penalty next term to go with the 10 already deducted for going into administration last season.

This has left several clubs worried with the Millers, whose prospective new owner Tony Stewart has already revealed his intention to buy the club without completing a CVA, last week trying to unsuccessfully join Leeds's legal bid to overturn their points deduction

The League board has promised to continue discussions with the Revenue but, in a letter sent to all 72 club chairmen yesterday, Lord Mawhinney has reiterated that clubs must act in a prudent manner or risk the consequences.

He said: "Clearly the position of HM Revenue & Customs is regrettable, and we will enter into further discussions with them. But the fact remains that in most, if not all, cases the majority of the debts due to HMRC relate to PAYE and National Insurance, and a substantial proportion of that will relate to player wages.

"Clubs which do not pay PAYE and NIC relating to their players are, in effect, spending more than they can afford on players.

"As a result, those clubs that live within their means are at a competitive disadvantage.

"Whilst discussions with HMRC will continue, our focus should be on ensuring that all clubs meet their obligations to HMRC as and when they fall due."

The letter to all 72 clubs from Lord Mawhinney, who faced a call last week from Ken Bates to resign, also outlines the League's response to the arbitration panel's findings.

In it, he confirms the Yorkshire Post's exclusive story from last August that the League had considered relegating Leeds to League Two rather than deducting 15 points. The ultimate sanction of being expelled from the League was also discussed.

Mawhinney said: "It was Leeds United who chose the option of a points deduction in League One rather than commencing the following season in League Two. As the (arbitration) panel said (in their judgment) 'to ensure Leeds stayed in League One, (Leeds) was prepared to pay a price to achieve this'."

The League chairman added: "Leeds United had the opportunity to make submissions on the level of points deduction proposed, but chose not to do so, preferring instead to appeal against the decision to their fellow member clubs. The Football League board agreed to Leeds's suggestion of an appeal provided that Leeds agreed this would be its only recourse, with the 3rd August Agreement including a formal waiver of any other right to challenge the decision."

This appeal was subsequently heard at a specially convened meeting of the other 71 clubs in London on August 9 where the original sanction was backed by a majority of 54-16 (Bury did not attend).

Leeds, who claimed to have signed the waiver under duress, subsequently asked the FA to intervene, a call that was rejected in November. High Court proceedings were subsequently launched in February, a move that eventually led to arbitration.

Mawhinney, who is critical of what he describes in the letter as "this lengthy delay" by Leeds, also dismisses the call for his resignation from Bates.