All 72 club chairmen will meet today to vote on whether the 15-point penalty, which was imposed by the League last Friday night, should stand.

Ken Bates will plead Leeds's case at the specially convened meeting in London when a straight majority will be required to win the vote. The 15-point penalty could be upheld, reduced or wiped out completely.

United were hit with such a hefty deduction because they failed to follow the League's insolvency policy, namely completing a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) like the other 41 member clubs who have been through the administration process.

In agreeing to transfer the club's share – suspended when United went into administration in May – to a new company set up by Bates, the Yorkshire Post can exclusively reveal that the League also considered a number of options including making Dennis Wise's side kick off the 2007-08 campaign in the basement division.

This was outlined by League chairman, Lord Mawhinney, in a follow-up letter to his original invitation to attend the meeting, sent to all 72 club chairmen yesterday morning along with a missive from Bates.

United are hoping their chairman's four-page explanation about this summer's events at Elland Road will help tip the balance in their favour at today's meeting, which starts at 10.30am.

Bates outlines the reasons why United were forced into administration in May and also launches a stinging attack on the Inland Revenue, who were owed £7.7m of a total debt of £35m when the club went under.

The taxman, who according to Bates's letter was paid almost £25m by the club between January 2005 and April this year, lodged their objection to a CVA – which had been narrowly passed by the required 75 per cent of creditors – on the final day of a 28-day statutory period for appeals.


Bates insists this was done for "political reasons" and that the Revenue's appeal was "a sham", claiming it "was yet another attack on the football creditor rules, something the Revenue had sought to attack since their preferred status had been withdrawn in September 2003".

The Elland Road chairman then goes on to suggest that "Leeds should not be punished because the Revenue are intransigent".

As reported in last Friday's Yorkshire Post, the League wanted administrators KPMG to reconstitute the CVA and take a fresh vote.

However, Bates writes in the letter to his fellow chairmen: "Because we had paid the players' wages and some players had moved on during the close season, the 'football debts' had reduced meaning the Revenue's votes as a proportion of the whole had increased.

"The administrators were of the view that the Revenue now represented 24.4 per cent of the debt and this would enable them to block the CVA."

Bates continues: "It was agreed to approach the Revenue to seek to persuade them to withdraw their objection. Their response was categoric.

"They stated on the record that if a revised CVA was presented 'as a matter of policy, HMRC would vote against the CVA that resulted in football creditors being paid in full'.

"If the CVA was passed, they would appeal again and would litigate all the way. Their position means that unsecured creditors generally, including themselves, will get a lower payment than they would have done under the CVA."

Bates, who describes criticism of the club incurring a 10-point penalty in the final week of last season as "unfair", also stresses in the letter that administration "was not pre-planned".

He said: "My staff at Leeds fought tooth and nail to get Leeds through to the start of the coming season when the last of the contracts that remained from the days of "living the dream" would have, at last, expired."

In his summing up, Bates then writes: "We have broken no rules. The 'exceptional circumstances' rules were introduced to cover exactly the situation that exists today.

"We can only speculate as to the reasoning behind the imposition of a sanction when no rules have been broken.

"We believe such a sanction is wholly unfair and a breach of natural justice. On Thursday, we will be asking you to overturn its imposition."