Stoke City manager Tony Pulis avoided a driving ban on Thursday after convincing magistrates that he couldn’t have a chauffeur as it would risk leaking club secrets.

Despite being caught by police doing 96mph on a motorway following Stoke’s 5-0 defeat at Bolton in November 2011, Pulis successfully argued that a driving ban would cause hardship to him and the people of Stoke-on-Trent.

The 54-year-old, who reached 15 penalty points with the offence, pleaded guilty but he was adamant he couldn’t use a chauffeur as that could lead to leaks of confidential phone calls about the Premier League club’s business.

Pulis is regularly in contact with Stoke chairman Peter Coates while on the road and he felt leaks of crucial information could lead to the club being relegated, which would put local businesses at risk.

“We signed Peter Crouch in the summer without anyone knowing,” Pulis told Leamington Magistrates’ court.

“That took almost four days of non-stop conversations between us and Tottenham and Peter and the like.

“If other clubs had found out, they would have been attracted and might have signed him before us. I have my staff who I trust implicitly, but there are things I wouldn’t even discuss with them.

“I’m in control of over 100 employees. I deal directly with the chairman and his son; it’s very unique in that respect. They’re concerned about the circus of media which follows football clubs.

“A lot of the success of the club is because a lot of deals have been kept within the football club until we have to disclose them. We try to keep it that way.”

Pulis’s lawyer, Mike Stephenson, added: “There are numerous phone calls every day between Mr Pulis and the chairman which are totally confidential between them.

“That has contributed to the success of the football club. As a result of being in the Premiership it has put Stoke-on-Trent on the map.

“It has led to numerous businesses being set up. A number of them are totally reliant on Stoke City, and those businesses would suffer if they were relegated.”

Pulis was fined 2,500 ($A3,825) and handed six penalty points for the offence, taking him above the 12-point limit.

However, the presiding magistrate accepted a ban would cause unnecessary hardship because of “the unusual nature of the business and the necessity of confidentiality”.