Form Of Rugby Union Committee Unchanged

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31628, 14 March 1968, Page 14

Form Of Rugby Union Committee Unchanged

An attempt by the Marist Club to increase the membership of the management committee from eight to 10 and to prevent a club having more than two members on the committee, was defeated at the annual meeting of the Canterbury Rugby Union last evening.

Mr O. Noonan (Marist) said that during the last 20 years many strong clubs had not been represented on the management committee.

“It is an embarrassment for these clubs if they do not know what is going on in the administration. “We feel there is a need for wider representation. There are many new clubs and many older clubs who are not represented.”

Mr C. Cassidy (Belfast) said his club wholeheartedly

supported the motion. “We, With Kaiapoi, have to stand up to the competition from League. It would be of great benefit to us to have a club member on the committee.”

Direct Representation Mr R. W. Thomas opposed mean clubs having direct any suggestion which would representation on the management committee.

“The committee is supposed to represent Rugby as a whole—not just club interests,” he said.

“In the past, this union has been well administered. Increasing membership of the committee would not, I am sure, improve the administration.”

Mr C. M. McPhail also supported the status quo. “There is no need for direct representation. If delegates feel that one club has two men capable of being on the committee, there is no reason, why they should not be Ion,” he said. “Take Best Men” A former president of the union (Mr J. o. Hattersley) said he was in favour of the committee being increased by two but he opposed the earlier part of the motion. “We should take the best men available,” he added. Mr L. Russell (Shirley) said it was all right for Messrs Thomas and McPhail to support the established order. “Their club always has had representation; their club has not had to scrounge around for information.” “I support Mr Thomas’s contention that there should be no direct representation from clubs," said Mr B. J. Drake (University). “I cannot subscribe to the view that the work of the management committee has increased. It seems just the same as it was 10 years ago. “In some ways, this motion is an indictment of the union for not giving sufficient information to the clubs. But does this meeting want members of the committee to be ’tale bearers’?” Discussion of Laws A recommendation from Mr J. G. Rankin that provincial unions and clubs should have the chance to discuss changes to the laws before the New Zealand union put forward its views to the International Rugby Board was approved. Mr Rankin said the New Zealand union did not seem to seek the views of the various unions. “In the past we have been guided too much by persons overseas, who have not always helped the game.”