BASKETBALL CONTROVERSY Auckland Warned By N.Z. Body

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31349, 20 April 1967, Page 11

BASKETBALL CONTROVERSY Auckland Warned By N.Z. Body

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON.

Auckland officials were warned yesterday that if they were to disaffiliate their association from the New Zealand Men’s Basketball Association they would be isolating their players from all types of representative matches.

The move would “gain Auckland nothing,” said the president of the New Zealand association, Mr C. L. S. Cross.

The vice president of the Auckland association, Mr A. Slack, has threatened disaffiliation in protest against the “complete failure of the recent annual meeting as far as Auckland and basketball in New Zealand was cocerned.”

Mr Slack said that although the meeting lasted nearly two days nothing constructive about basketball emerged and the business was still unfinished.

The convenor of the national association’s finance subcommittee, Mr E. Doherty, also president of the Auckland association, had put forward several recommendations to reduce administrative costs which included the reduction of regions, but these were all lost when put tc the annual meeting.

Auckland has lost several district associations because of the cost to affiliate to the national body, said Mr Slack. Commenting on the move made at the annual meeting to reduce the number of basketball regions from 12 to eight, Mr Cross said: “If this happened, Southland, West Coast, Taranaki and Waikato would lose representation. The meeting exercised its democratic right in opposing the scheme.”

However, it was agreed that council meetings, which cost £220-230 each time they were held, were to be limited to three instead of the usual four.

Policy Meeting Replying to remarks that “nothing constructive about basketball had emerged from the meeting,” Mr Cross said that the annual meeting normally handled administrative matters, and this often was the only opportunity that many associations had in having a say on the policy of the association. “If Auckland has any grievances with the New Zealand association, they should come through the proper channels,” said Mr Cross.

“It is as though Auckland is trying to hold a pistol at the head of the national administration, and I hope that this is not the official view of the Auckland association.” Mr Cross said that he was 100 per cent in support of the Auckland scheme for national tournaments to be competed for by club sides, and he himself had been advocating it for many years. He also felt that top clubs should represent their provinces at the New Zealand championships. Majority Decisions

“A lot of work was put into the recommendations but it was up to the majority at the meeting to decide whether these were suitable to New Zealand basketball,” said Mr Cross. Any grievance should go through the national council.

“By isolating themselves from the rest of New Zealand

they cannot play any representative fixtures against other associations or these would be automatically disaffiliated as well.” This meant that Auckland basketball in general would not gain because Auckland could only play associations that had gone with them in this move, if it eventuated. It was reported that Auckland was prepared to send its representative teams overseas but Mr Cross said that this would not be allowed by the international body. Auckland indicated last season after the New Zealand team was announced —it did not have any Auckland players in the side—that it was not satisfied with the present selector-coach and yet it did not nominate one for the coming season, said Mr Cross. By disaffiliating now, it could never have players representing New Zealand unless it rejoined the national body.