DO YOU remember that game from 1972 when Leeds United, imperious and unassailable, trounced Southampton 7-0 at Elland Road? At one point the Leeds side engaged in a magnificently contemptuous game of keep-ball, the Southampton players scurrying hither and thither wishing that the ground might swallow them up. I reckon if Manchester United did a similar thing today we would be transfixed with awe and respect. Back then, we were instead transfixed with utter hatred. Go on, Bobby Stokes, we will have muttered to ourselves, kick that cultured thug Giles six feet up in the air. Break a leg or two. Especially Billy Bremner.

Leeds were loathed then for their wily pragmatism, their apparent invincibility (an invincibility that, paradoxically, brought them only a couple of league championships and nothing in the way of success in Europe). The loathing continues; their current misery is a source of jubilation throughout the land. Last weekend, on one of the Leeds supporters’ websites, fans of virtually every club across the four divisions posted messages dripping with bile and spite, revelling in the extreme likelihood of Leeds being relegated, for the first time in their history, to what all normal people call Division Three.

I cannot think of another team that could provoke such unanimous dislike – and especially not one from the lower reaches of the second division, a side beset in recent years by the most terrible misfortunes that could afflict a football club, ie Peter Ridsdale and David O’Leary.

As ever, the final satisfaction of seeing Leeds finally consigned to the third division was stolen from us at the last moment, in a very Leedsish manner. To have escaped relegation this weekend Leeds would have needed not only to win at the excellent Derby County but make good a nine-goal deficit on their closest rivals, Hull City. Let’s be clear: they were effectively relegated by last week’s home draw with Ipswich Town.

So to see them suddenly claim sanctuary in administration and have a meaningless 10 points deducted this season rather tarnishes the pleasure we might take in their humiliation. We wanted to see them start next season with minus 10 points: go on, Wisey, sort that one out. But it also seems to me against the spirit of the law and quite possibly against the letter of it. The 10-point deduction is intended as a punishment imposed as a result of a football club living way beyond its means. In Leeds United's case, way, way, way beyond its means. And yet in this instance it is not a punishment at all as Leeds were already down.

And so the laws that apply to the little clubs – such as nearby Rotherham United, forced to claw their way back from a 10-point deduction in a lower division (they almost did it, bless them) and, for that matter, Crawley Town – do not apply to the gilded likes of Leeds. So there we are, another reason to hate them and to further despise the football authorities, who must recognise this as a blatant piece of chicanery but are, as ever, disinclined to do anything about it.

The suspicion persists that there is one law for the big clubs – the Premiership sides, the supposedly sleeping giants from the lower divisions – and one law for the rest. Take, as an example, that footballing academy (by which I mean the likes of Marlon Harewood and Christian Dailly), West Ham; a £5.5m fine that will be wiped out at least sixfold by the money they will get for not being relegated. Now, I have little time for Dave Whelan and his clodhopping Wigan side – an artificially created Premiership club if ever there was one – and still less for al-Fayed’s Fulham. But it is inconceivable that a smaller club would have been treated with the leniency afforded to West Ham: indeed, they weren’t. AFC Wimbledon got told they were being clobbered with an 18-point deduction for fielding an ineligible player, before having this ludicrously severe penalty reduced to three points when the West Ham business hove into view. But still, three points – three points that, if applied equitably, could send West Ham down to the Championship.

The FA, in reaching its conclusion over the Carlos Tevez affair, took note of the fact that the corrupt dealings with the player were not the fault of the loyal West Ham supporters, who shouted really loudly during matches and were decent and blameless human beings. Well, sure, but what of the AFC Wimbledon supporters or, for that matter, the fans of Rotherham? Were they to blame for, respectively, their club’s incompetence in fielding an ineligible player or for sinking into administration? Of course not; they were as loyal and blameless as the West Ham fans. If you wanted prima facie evidence of one rule for the rich, one rule for the poor, you have it in the cases of Leeds United and West Ham.