It's about ranking on the table. Where do you rank teams if they have equal points? The claim was that goals conceded prevailed over goals scored for ranking teams (compared to current system of order: points, GD, GS). This claim does not seem to be the case. That is clearly evident looking at teams with 0 point.
It can't be alphabetical obviously.
It can't be goal difference, because Derby or Preston would be top (depending on 2nd criteria)
It can't be goals for, because Derby would be top.
It can't be goals against because Everton would be 2nd
I'm fairly sure it's done on the ratio of goals for and against. In 1st place, we divide 2 by 0 and get infinity, so WBA go top. for 2nd, divide 5 by 2 and get 2.5 goals scored for each conceded. Both 3rd and 4th have a ratio of 2:1, Derby go over Everton I'm guessing on goals scored.
It's likely that this logic has been applied to the 4 losing teams as well, as they are in the reverse order of the teams they must have lost to - but they do also fit alphabetically too, so it could coincidentally be either system!
There's also a clear divide between those who have lost and those who haven't played - despite them all being on 0 points, they display in two distinct groups.
Where teams haven't played or have identical records (ie one draw), even today we would still list those alphabetically, with the expectation that over the course of 38 games there will end up being some kind of difference once you dig down far enough. If somehow the season ended with two teams on exactly identical records, that is when you'd get to either drawing lots or having a play-off game, but there's no point doing that just for the sake of a league table 1 match in.