NATIONAL LEAGUE: C.F.A. CRITICISES ARTICLE

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31167, 17 September 1966, Page 17

NATIONAL LEAGUE: C.F.A. CRITICISES ARTICLE

The secretary of the Canterbury Football Association (Mr S. G. Brown) has criticised an article that appeared in “The Press” this week.

“The management committee of the C.F.A. views with concern the article in “The Press” of September 13, headed “Soccer Conflict Unresolved,” by your soccer correspondent. This article completely misrepresents the picture of the current situation. “There is no mystery in the attitude of the C.F.A. on national league. Since the first mention Canterbury has been in favour of national provincial league, and the view of the management committee has been supported by a vote of clubs at general meetings. A remit considered at the general meeting of 1963 that Christchurch clubs should form between them two new league clubs to participate in national league, was heavily defeated —obviously in favour of provincial league.

“If the five clubs are sincere in their efforts to get a national league system ‘off the ground,’ be it on a club or provincial basis, surely they should approach the association with offers of assistance. The only mystery is, why this has not been done? Are the five clubs really as unanimous as your correspondent reports? “The only support recorded to the ‘nation-wide’ move has been a response by the Eastern Union Club, of Gisborne. Possibly your correspondent could add to his list Auckland, which has favoured club-based league. But what Auckland club has responded, and what other club approached by the fiveclub union has responded? “To say that the president of the C.F.A. (Mr J. Smith) stated that the action taken by the five clubs was not backed by the C.F.A., is an interpretation of a statement that the five-club union had nothing to do with the C.F.A. As stated, there has been no approach to the C.F.A. for recognition, and for recognition in any realm of soccer this approach must be made. The organisers are well aware of this and have verbally agreed. “The alleged ‘mystery’ and ’muddle’ appears to be in the minds of the organisers of

the five-club league committee. The policy of the C.F.A. has been solidly behind provincial league for six years and nothing could remain a public mystery for so long.” Major Errors Our soccer reporter replies: Mr Browne’s statement contains major errors that must be corrected. 1. The article in “The Press” simply asked the C.F.A. to call “a meeting of all club delegates to discuss which of the two national leagues it should support.”

2. It would be remarkable, to say the very least, if, as Mr Browne states, “the C.F.A. has been solidly behind provincial league for six years.” In fact, the formation of a provincial league was urged by the national coach, Mr L. Brocic, in April, 1065, and approved by the New Zealand Football Association council the following month. Yet Mr Browne manages to conclude that the 1963 general meeting was “obviously in favour of provincial league” two years before provincial league was proposed.

3. Moreover, Mr Browne is totally incorrect in his statement that the 1963 general meeting of Christchurch clubs heavily defeated a remit to form two new clubs to participate in a national league. It was completely the reverse. The meeting, held on Tuesday, October 29, 1963, reported in “The Press” the following day, “agreed in principle to the formation of a national league, and by 23 votes to 15 moved that two independent league clubs in Canterbury be formed by affiliation of existing clubs.”

4. The C.F.A. has not backed the five clubs seeking a national league of club teams because it supports a provincial league. That is not an interpretation of a statement made by Mr Smith: it is a fact, as borne out in Mr Browne’s letter. 5. Auckland is not alone of the major soccer association to back a club-based league. Otago, also, has done so. 6. At no time have Canterbury clubs been asked to vote on a national provincial league.