AMATEURS AND EXPENSES.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 230, 26 September 1903, Page 4 (Supplement)

AMATEURS AND EXPENSES.

TheTe has been a keen controversy ! in England lately on the subject of "paid amateurism," a discussion which ; was an outcome of the selection of the M.C.C team for Australia. i The question of "paid amateurism" (says the "Daily Mail") is eiciting the keenest controversy all over the country almost to the exclusion of interest in cricket itself. The anomaly has long been known to exist, but the part it is playing in the formation of the M.C.G. combination for Australia, has forced it I into the full glare of publicity. It would j be affectation to ignore its existence^, i unpleasant though public discussion of ! so delicate a matter must be to the ' chief parties concerned. Neither is it possible for the M.C.C. to waive the question aside. The difficulty is a real ! one, and should be grappled with at ■ once by the authorities at Lord's. Fry and Ford and many other "amateur" contributors to the cricketing columns of the Press have told them very plain-. ly that "full expenses," even to the inj elusion of genlerouß washing bills, is net a sufficient inducement to those cricketers who are not declared professionals _to justify their departure ; from England on a six months' trip to j the Antipodes. The difficulty gf ever ; getting together a representative English eleven on these terms w>ll increase and not diminish when the "paid \ amateur" finds that he is indispensable j because of the insistence of the cricketing crowds, who after all are the final l arbiters, that unless they are given the I best talent they will refuse to pay their I shillings and half-crowns at the turnj stiles. C. B. Fry writes in the "Daily Express":—"The M.C.C. are paying their amateurs out-of-pocket expenses only. Well and good, and quite proper. But ' that means that every amateur who goes will be about £100 out of pocket by reason of unavoidable expenses , which are not reckoned as out-of- ! pocket. Any amateur who depends on ! his work for his living is not likely to ' gain much. He loses six months' in--1 come, let us say, end if he has a house and other institutions in England, he has to pay rent and taxes and up-keep even while he is himself away across the sea. It does not in the least follow that an amateur who can afford to play all the summer in England can afford to play all the winter in Australia as well. Consequently, when the names of amateurs are planked down as certainties to go to Australia, it docs not follow that they are able to go. Even an amateur who is of independent means, but not exactly rich, may find the expense of the trip greater than he cares to incur. I merely mention

these points to show that it is not bo very easy for every amateur who plays county cricket to accept an invitation to Australia." • . Here is another side of the question, from the "Daily Mail":—"The manager of a well-known cricketing venture in which professionals received a lump sum down and the 'amateurs , their ' expenses/- tells the story that the weekly bills which one of the latter used to present to him never failed to take away his breath. Their compre* hensiveness amounted in the aggregate to much more than the lump sum paid to the unassuming professionals; but in vain did the manager endeavour to obtain the slightest revision, not even when the gentleman concerned, who had a very nice taste in clothes, periodically instrted the item, 'To new suit —£6.' l"He must have got enough new suits that trip,' declared the manager* 'to last ten years. , " 0. B. Fry writes on the other side in an interesting manner: —"So far as 1 am able to discover the truth, it is this: The county clubs one and all pay their amateurs out-of-pocket expenses. I* l some cases the secretary or captain or some official goes about with a cheque-book and a purse; he pays the hotel bills in a lump, and also buys the railway tickets. In other cases each amateur sends in an „ account of his expenses match by match to the treasurer, and is reimbursed accordingly. In both cases accurate accounts are •kept, and these are available for inspection—at least I suppose so. If you approach the gentleman who acts as treasurer of the Sussex County Cricket Club, and show him good reason why you should be permitted to do so, he will, I am sure, with his accustomed courtesy, produce the expenses account of any amateur. You can then judge 'for yourself. If not, come to me, and I, with my accustomed courtesy, will explain to you how it is that no amateur, however clever he may be at accounts, has yet succeeded in going through a cricket season without being considerably out of pocket at the finish. It cannot be done. At any rate, t have never yet succeeded in doing so, and I know of no reason why I should have been less successful than others. In sum, gentle reader, take my advice, and do not give a moment's attention to the vague insinuations about sham amateurs and cooked expenses. If you consider that a cricketer who is both a regular player and also a paid official is a professional cricketer, by all means call him such; he will not mind; your opinion will not affect him materially, or in his social relations. But do not deceive yourself or others into supposing that the financial arrangements between all county clubs and all amateurs are on a mysterious and unpublishable basis. That is all hearsay bosh."