The club agreed reluctantly to allow the hearing to proceed in private, but it does not take a talent for reading between the lines to gauge their mood.

Leeds are optimistic; optimistic to the point of expectant, and convinced that their dissection of an alleged injustice has produced a compelling argument against their 15-point penalty.

Ken Bates was not exaggerating when he said United were burrowing into every area of the Football League's rules and policy, and the 27-page claim form submitted to the High Court in February is evidence of how deeply Leeds have delved to undermine the legitimacy of their deduction.

United's appeal did not reach the judiciary but the claim submitted on February 12, and signed by their director Mark Taylor, is likely to be employed in its entirety when a panel of three convene to rule on the 15-point punishment next week.

The legal establishment's understanding of a complex case is better than ours, but it is clear that Leeds will enter the arbitrational proceedings pre-armed.

Their case against the Football League is thoughtful and detailed, the result of six months of investigating the whys and wherefores of their penalty. While not a guarantee of outright victory, it gives Leeds a credible chance.

Details of the League's defence are not on public record, but the organisation will be asked to answer some pertinent questions.

Why, for example, did the League vote against the Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) proposed by Leeds when agreeing a CVA was a fundamental part of their insolvency policy?

The body stood to be paid in full for the £188,000 they were owed, and the absence of a CVA was largely responsible for United's points deduction. The League's rejection of the arrangement put to them was "arbitrary and unfair", Leeds claim, and evidence of prejudice.

United's legal team will ask the tribunal to consider whether it is appropriate for an organisation to reject a CVA and then sanction the club in question for failing to implement it.

The motivation for the legal challenge made by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) against United's CVA is another area of fierce contention.

HMRC sought a judicial review after the voluntary arrangement was initially passed by a majority of 75.2 per cent, and their contest was the catalyst for the CVA's collapse in July. KPMG, who had drawn up the proposal, withdrew it with the insistence that Leeds lacked the funds to continue operating while the case was settled in court.

In what appears to be an attempt to distance themselves from the process of administration, Leeds will claim that the decision to complete an administrators' sale – a direct sale made without a CVA – was the responsibility of KPMG, and not the club.

Moreover, they will tell the tribunal that their bid for the club was the highest available, and the most rewarding for their unsecured creditors.