OPEN TENNIS ALLOCATION Canterbury May Seek Rescission

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31988, 15 May 1969, Page 15

OPEN TENNIS ALLOCATION Canterbury May Seek Rescission

(By Our Tennis Reporter) Rescission of the recent decision by the council of the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association that an open tournament be held in Auckland for the next three years may be sought by the Canterbury Lawn Tennis Association.

Some Canterbury administrators make no secret that they are disappointed, even annoyed, about the voting that allowed this decision to be made.

When the national management committee moved at the council meeting that Auckland be granted the New Zealand Open in 1969-70, both Wellington and Canterbury delegates said they were not opposed to this and the motion was carried.

The management committee then moved that the allocation of the tournament to an association permanently or for a certain number of years be discussed and Auckland moved that it be given the tournament for five years. This was opposed by a number of associations, most strongly by Canterbury, and Mr I. D. Wells, a Canterbury delegate but also a member of the national management committee in Wellington, suggested allocation to Auckland for three years. This was moved as an amendment by Auckland and carried as follows: For: Auckland 9207 votes, Waikato 2781, North Shore 2659, Otago 2058, Northland 1953, Hawke’s Bay 1154, Manawatu 1129, Nelson 715, Marlborough 537, total 22,173. Against: Canterbury 6500, Wellington 3717, Hutt Valley 3014, Taranaki 0480, Southland. 1111, South Canterbury 1026, Poverty Bay 495, West Coast 367; total 17,710. Canterbury administrators say that supporters of tennis in the south should have a chance to see an open tournament and regard it as an incentive for administrators, players and supporters. They are upset that Otago, Marlborough and Nelson voted for Auckland to have

the tournament for three years. Otago’s vote against would have made the voting 20,115 for to 19,768 against, and either Marlborough or Nelson could have changed the decision.

Canterbury’s delegates to the council meeting came away convinced that some South Island associations had not discussed the implications of the matter and had not instructed their delegates. This was one of the reasons why Canterbury called a [ meeting of representatives of South Island associations in Christchurch last week-end. But as no representative attended from either Marlborough or Nelson, their views could not be obtained or discussed. The feeling of those who did attend, including the Otago representative, was that the South Island wanted an open tournament. Before it seeks a recision of the council’s decision, Canterbury will ask South Island associations to decide firmly their attitudes to whether the south should be able to hold an open tournament and it even hopes to be able to send someone to speak to the Otago associationespecially.