Robins reap the United rewards 
Phil HayPhil Hay
Inside Elland Road
Cheltenham Town have sold out Whaddon Road for Sunday's game with Leeds United, much to the delight of the beancounters in Gloucestershire.
It will not be the first capacity crowd to watch Cheltenham – four attendances have exceeded 7,000 since their promotion to the Football League in 1999 – but it is the first time that a sell-out for a league fixture at Whaddon Road has been confirmed in advance. The few remaining tickets were handed over before lunchtime on Tuesday.
There is money to be made out of Leeds this season. Bournemouth pulled in a record crowd for their meeting at Dean Court on November 6, and Carlisle United's attendance at Brunton Park three days earlier was their biggest since 1976, producing gate receipts in the region of £200,000. The 6,739 supporters who turn up normally would have to pay £30 a ticket to equal that return.
Cheltenham themselves average crowds of less than 4,000, and could not tempt more than 3,000 supporters to watch their last home game against Brighton. It does not help that spectators are paying to see a team who are pinned to the bottom of League One and potentially out of their depth. But the statistics do place Sunday's expected crowd at Whaddon Road in perspective. Cheltenham would argue that Leeds should count themselves fortunate to benefit from the regular turn-out at Elland Road this season, and they would be right to a point.
United's crowds at their best have been the biggest in the Football League and on a par with the majority of Premier League clubs, securing the revenue which has made it possible to bring experienced Championship players on loan to League One.
It is not likely professionals with the reputation of Radostin Kishishev would have been so easy recruited – and for so long – were it not for the reliable source of turnstile income. But the attendances are Leeds United's achievement, as a club and as a set of supporters.
Since exiting the Premiership, Leeds have scarcely relied on visiting fans to supplement their crowds, and certainly not this season.
Huddersfield Town might have travelled east with around 5,000 supporters next month had the Football League not agreed with Leeds to limit the Terriers' allocation of tickets to around 1,700 for reasons of safety, but that scale of invasion is rarely seen at this level of England's pyramid. Other clubs cash in on United; Leeds this season are cashing in on themselves.
But pots of gold do not guarantee warm handshakes. Leeds have a Sunday appointment this week after being shunted from their Saturday slot by the switching-on of Christmas lights in Cheltenham, an event which Gloucestershire Police are unable to blend with professional football.
***
THE Football Association love the term transparency, and the connotations of integrity that come with it. But not every individual within the game is convinced that Soho Square's understanding of the word is as it should be.
Simon Jordan, Crystal Palace's chairman, once described the FA's disciplinary system as its "personal Narnia" – minus the wardrobe presumably – and Dennis Wise might find himself in agreement. There is something mystical about the way in which Leeds United's boss returned from the FA's realm with his charge against referee Danny McDermid unproven.
Wise, as has been widely reported, took the hit for swearing at McDermid during Leeds' 1-1 draw at Gillingham in September. He had admitted the offence within minutes of the final whistle, and was primed for a touchline ban and a £5,000 fine. He is long enough in the tooth to know how the cogs of Soho Square turn.
But how did McDermid come to swerve censure on Monday when as many as seven people were said to have heard him insult Wise after full time at Priestfield?
Wise was obviously present in the tunnel, as were his colleagues Joe Allon and Andrew Beasley. Non-independent witnesses, but witnesses nonetheless. Carrying more credence were at least three of Gillingham's security staff who, according to one of the United stewards who travelled to Kent to help with crowd control, claimed to be "staggered" by what they had heard.
The depth of cavalry seemed serious. So did the FA summon Beasley and Allon to give evidence? No comment. Were Gillingham's staff called upon to provide their accounts? No comment. The FA does not discuss the finer details of disciplinary cases, apparently.
IER understands that a number of Gillingham's stewards were indeed involved with McDermid's hearing, as was Wise. Yet the accusation that McDermid swore at Wise was not proven. Was that a fair judgement or was it a whitewash, a closing of the ranks? At least in a court of law the public can judge for themselves.
Had McDermid been found guilty, the most he would have deserved was a slap on the wrist. He has no apparent previous and was involved in a difficult situation at Priestfield which did not suit his level of experience. The case was never about scapegoating – it was about seeing even-handed justice across the board.
It is surprising to say the least that the FA can conclude such high-profile cases with brief and bland statements. Wise believed the case was open and shut. The FA should explain why he was wrong. Not proven doesn't cut it.
It would be churlish to moan about an isolated switch, but, as this column has mentioned before, disruption has become routine for Leeds this season.
Bournemouth got their Tuesday night fixture moved, and by all accounts the reception given to United’s support on the south coast was frosty.
There was no major trouble in or around Dean Court, or in the town that night, but from eyewitness reports it appears that individual members of Dorset Police were intent on informing those who travelled how vividly and unhappily they remembered the trouble of 1990.
As if to prove a point, United’s fans were locked inside Dean Court afterwards, and a long line of police dogs was stretched in front of the stands housing them amid chants of “what a waste of moneyâ€. Welcome to Bournemouth.
On account of violence 17 years ago, Bournemouth’s request for a midweek game at home to Leeds was sanctioned as quickly as their application was dispatched from Dean Court in May. They did not deserve to see so many away fans paying for entry on a chilly Tuesday night, but United’s supporters can be irrepressible.
Talk of the policing in Dorset brought back memories of Southend last season, when Leeds were met by massed and bloated ranks of florescent jackets. The Essex constabulary are said to have cancelled police leave that day, which is what the Met did last time George Bush came to London. To enhance the pleasure this season, Leeds will travel to Southend for a Monday night match in January, allowing the Shrimpers to supplement tidy gate receipts with a fee from Sky Sports.
There can be, and have been, serious problems with pockets of United’s support – as the visit to Carlisle showed – and a balance is necessary. Is reputation a good enough reason to plan for the worst? It is not as if Leeds as a club are complacent. Anyone who reads Ken Bates’ programme notes can see where he stands on the subject of disorder, and the need for strong policing.
But beneath the stories of violence in Carlisle, there have been less-publicised tales of well-mannered United supporters being ordered out of pubs in Penrith and sent on their way to Brunton Park fully three hours before kick-off. That is a questionable liberty, and needlessly provocative. Tolerance cannot be a term applied exclusively for the benefit of the establishment.
It can never be easy to cater for a club like Leeds beneath the Championship; Manchester City season in Division Two was probably similar. But it would help matters if United were made to feel welcome by the clubs, towns and cities who seem happy to milk the cash-cow but begrudge the responsibility of handling the beast.
YEP
