Ridsdale hits out at 'this persecution of football'

Leeds chairman defends his handling of the Bowyer-Woodgate affair and admits to feeling stunned by the vitriol

Internal links

Drunken Leeds players 'appalling' says Tessa Jowell

Match report: Leeds United 3 Newcastle United 4

Ridsdale hits out at 'this persecution of football'

Woman in the eye of the culture storm

Eye witness: Cheers for Bowyer and a crisis for football

The Matt Holland Column: Stop excusing players, start making examples of them

It is difficult to recall one club in particular, and the national sport in general, undergoing as comprehensive a denunciation as it has in the last week. Demands for a moral regeneration of the game have arrived in the same Leeds Christmas post as instructions to "Sack him now", a reference to their midfielder Lee Bowyer. In the midst of the maelstrom, the Leeds chairman, Peter Ridsdale, has attempted to remain the blunt but sagacious Yorkshireman which his image conveys.

But last night, his growing sense of frustration was evident as he spoke of the "feeding frenzy" which had followed the decision by a jury at Hull Crown Court to acquit Bowyer on two counts and find another, the defender Jonathan Woodgate, guilty of the lesser offence of affray. He declared: "It's a fantastic game, watched by millions of people. And because of the actions of one individual on one night, who has been found guilty but not jailed, the football industry has been punished. No footballer was found guilty of grievous bodily harm. Unfortunately, the world wanted them to be found guilty so that it can continue this persecution of football."

Even on the Glorious Twelfth there can have been no more obliging target than the flapping, well-nourished professional game has offered the snipers this week. A number of incidents at other leading clubs have also contributed to the perception that the game is rife, as one peer, Lord Dholkia, put it "with the thugs who masquerade as football players" and adding that they were "the bin Ladens of British football".

Throughout it all, Ridsdale has retained a dignified presence, while attempting to rebuff criticism of his handling of the matter. Responding to a series of questions put to him in the aftermath of the court case which followed the savage beating of a young student, Sarfraz Najeib, in Leeds City Centre in January last year, he was adamant that his club had made every effort to deter players from becoming part of a "drinking culture". "Don't imagine for one minute that this is a message we've been slow to reinforce to our players," Ridsdale said. "David O'Leary had all the players in and laid it absolutely on the line. He warned them that if they hadn't listened before they'd better listen now – that it is wholly unacceptable to have a drinking culture and that if they step out of line they would be severely disciplined."

But surely, as employers, it was suggested, you can do more to control the activities of your players? "We've just fined a lad four weeks wages for excessive drinking," he retorted. "You can say it as often as you want to them, but at the end of the day they are young men who will do whatever they want to do. If they breach the rules, all we can do is slap a fine on them. We've given both players a final warning." He added: "I would suggest anyone who says that this culture is a disgrace should walk around the pubs and clubs of London tonight and see how many are drinking and staggering about and how many are professional footballers. It is society which, at the moment, has young men and women of all ages, who, in part, see drinking as part of the culture. But because it's football we're somehow treated as though we're not part of society."

But shouldn't Premiership players be treated differently because they are role models? "They are, but they're also human beings. How do you tell 21-year-olds who've never done anything else in their lives and are paid an enormous amount of money that they're not allowed to do what you and I are allowed to do, which is have a drink. All you can do is hope and pray that they do whatever they do in their private lives moderately and in a way that doesn't affect their employer."

In Bowyer's case, many would suggest, would he not continue to be an embarrassment to the club? Many would contend that he should have been dismissed. "How do you sack somebody for being innocent? We took disciplinary action because he was drunk. He has now paid that fine. Is there a court in the land that would have accepted that I sacked him for being drunk in his own time?" Well, that may be true, but he was still a man who has previous form for affray. "Does that mean for the rest of your life you get persecuted?" he asked.

Bowyer started yesterday's game, a deployment that had looked unlikely earlier in the week when he refused to pay a club fine of four weeks' wages, an estimated £80,000. The club's decision to place him on the transfer list was not greeted with complete unanimity at Elland Road on Wednesday night during the game against Everton. "In fact, I think the reaction has caused him [Bowyer] and his agent to reflect more than the club," Ridsdale said. "The club stuck to its principles." As chairman of a Plc, he has shareholders to consider. He has spoken to Leeds' two largest shareholding institutions and "they have complimented us on the disciplinary action we took and wholeheartedly supported keeping them".

Ridsdale, however, has always said that he would not continue unless he had the support of the fans. The chairman added: "I felt the supporters were far less vociferous in their criticism of me than they might have been [on Wednesday night]. I thought I would have taken far more personal stick than I did." O'Leary's book, Leeds United On Trial, had added to the controversy, although it is understood that the Leeds manager attempted to have serialisation of the volume postponed. "It would be fair to say the timing of it has been anything other than helpful," he said. "David knows how I feel."

For Ridsdale, one week in Leeds history appears like an eternity. Had he considered his future? "What has shaken me is the vitriol towards me personally and the club. I am somewhat stunned and it does make you wonder how we would have been labelled if our employees had been found guilty.Of course, this has hurt me personally. I love the club desperately and the club is being tarnished. I'm upset because the events of the last 22 months are none of our making. I've been personally criticised because of my handling of a unique situation – and I hope it is unique – in a way that even with hindsight I believe I handled as best I could. Some people may turn round and say if you can't handle it better you should be replaced. Well that's up to the shareholders and supporters to decide if they think there's someone who could do better."