Did Liverpool let Chelsea win?

March 31, 1913
Mr. Henry George Norris, who is a prominent man in more than the football world, has thrown into the big ball camp a bombshell, the full effect of which none can measure at the present time. He practically accuses Liverpool of allowing Chelsea to win a game on Easter Monday.
Meanwhile, let it be understood that the “Express,” in giving such prominence to Mr. Norris serious charges, does not take sides in any way, but feels that if is its duty, for the honour of all concerned, that the matter should be investigated and cleared up without delay.
The Chelsea club, especially, cannot afford to sit still under such suggestions, and they owe an answer to their thousands of supporters.
It may be as well to explain here that when Chelsea went to Liverpool last Monday they were by no means safe from relegation. As a matter of fact they were in a dangerous position, and because they came back from Liverpool with two points the “Express” headed its report, aptly enough, “Priceless Points for Chelsea – Eluding Relegation.”
The pricelessness of those points is emphasised by the result of Chelsea’s game with Blackburn on Saturday last, which the West Londoners lost by 6-1, while Notts County drew. Now if, as Mr. Norris suggests, Chelsea should have been defeated last Monday had Liverpool played the game, the bottom of the League table would read this morning: –

	Played.	Won.	Lost.	Drawn.	Pts.
Chelsea	34	7	21	6	20
Notts County	33	6	20	7	19
Woolwich	34	3	22	9	15

But the same three clubs in the League table actually stand now: –

	Played.	Won.	Lost.	Drawn.	Pts.
Chelsea	34	8	20	6	22
Notts County	33	6	20	7	19
Woolwich	34	3	22	9	15

These tables show at a glance the tremendous value of the two points at this crucial time of the season both to Chelsea and Notts County. Fighting so well and pluckily as the poverty stricken “Lacemen” are, it is obvious that if Chelsea had not got the points it would be slight odds on Notts County saving themselves at the expense of their wealthy brother Leaguers, for they have a game in hand, and are fighting with desperation, as several opponents lately have discovered.

Now, in weighing up Mr. Norris’ statement it has to be taken into consideration that he is as far removed from the hysterical as it is possible to imagine any one. Besides being the Mayor of Fulham, he is one of the heads of a most successful London business house and knows the value of words and what words mean as well as most people. He is not one either whose opinions can be dismissed as “noise off,” and all this must be borne in mind when reading his remarks. This is what Mr. Norris says in the Fulham “Times”: –

“Would that I had stayed away (from the Liverpool and Chelsea game at Liverpool), for I should then have been spared the infliction of witnessing the worst game of football it has ever been my misfortune to see.

“It was early apparent to me what was happening, and the final result of a win for Chelsea by the odd goal in three occasioned no surprise either to me or the many thousands who left the field in disgust.

“I have no hesitation in saying that many matches played as this one was would effectually kill professional football in this country as surely as professional running and cycling were killed in the olden days.

“I was told by certain of the Chelsea officials that I was talking nonsense and was prejudiced. Was I prejudiced and was I talking nonsense?

“If I am prejudiced, is the same charge to be levelled at the critic of the Lancashire “Sporting Chronicle”? This is what he wrote on Tuesday morning: –

“Liverpool terminated their Easter holiday engagements by one of the worst exhibitions of football during their career in the premier league. They allowed Chelsea to defeat them by the odds goal of three, after a display which must assuredly cause their faithful followers much food for genuine complaint. It was not merely the fact that they were beaten that aroused dissatisfaction, but the manner in which their defeat was brought about that led to universal condemnation of their methods.

“Never before have the Liverpool first team been guilty of such palpable inefficiency as was the case in this game, and Chelsea’s success was due not to their superiority, but to the pandering of their opponents, who practically added to their own discomfiture by their crude unintelligence and utterly feeble efforts.

“In the early stages, Campbell, Longworth, and Tosswill were sterling strivers, but even during this period there were palpable passengers in the Liverpool ranks, who seemed determined to give the Chelsea men every chance of making headway. Liverpool never appeared desirous of obtaining goal, whereas they allowed their opponents every opportunity of so doing.

“Never in their career have they given a worse exhibition, and few of the team will emerge from the contest with added reputation. Genuine performers on the Liverpool side could be numbered on the fingers of one hand. Their opponents were feeble in the extreme, yet they won.”

Angry, Mr. Henry Norris (story continues under the picture)

“The Lancashire ‘Daily Dispatch’ and the London ‘Express’ (continues Mr. Norris) commented in much the same way, but no good purpose would be served by repeating what the above extract clearly indicates; and it must be remembered, too, that Liverpool had only played once prior to the Monday, viz. on the Saturday – they had not played on the Good Friday.
“My own view is that, had the Liverpool team, as a whole, desired to win the match, they could have done so quite readily. It is not for me to suggest reasons for this display on the part of a section of the Liverpool team. One is, however, tempted to ask why they acted in the way they did, and echo answers, “Why?”
“Such of the Liverpool directors as were present did not hesitate to express their heartfelt disgust at the whole wretched business; their faces during the second half of the match were a study. Knowing them intimately as I do, I felt sorry for them in having to see what they did; sorry for Notts County, who should have been one point nearer their opponents, instead of one point further away; sorry for the genuine triers in the Liverpool team; and sorry for the 30,000 holiday-makers who had to pay their sixpences and more to witness a football match instead of which they saw _”

The questions that ought to be answered without delay are: –
What have Chelsea to say about the charges?
What have Liverpool to say to them?
What do the League management Committee intend to do?
What part will the Football Association take?

It will be useless to attempt to ignore the article as the offspring merely of a prejudiced mind. One cannot forget that Woolwich would, for gate reasons, wish to have as companions in distress in the Second Division such a great drawing club as Chelsea in preference to Notts County, but I do not entertain for a moment that such a preference would have induced Mr. Norris to make his remarkable charges. I, for one, am convinced of his sincerity. In fact, he told me yesterday afternoon that he adhered to all he had written.
Professional football has more than enough malicious and venomous enemick as it is, and if the parties concerned in this alleged scandal do not tresh it out to the very bottom the game will deserve all, and more, that has been said and written against it. Accusations of “selling” matches have been often made without so much evidence to back them up as would remain in a topless hat, but here we have as I have said before, plain statement published by a director of two League clubs against the players of another League club, and an immediate investigation is imperative.
It is to be hoped that no attempts will be made to burke a full and impartial inquiry.
(Daily Express: March 31, 1913)