‘Radical’ rugby changes proposed

Press, 17 November 1977, Page 30

‘Radical’ rugby changes proposed

The inclusion of metropolitan union B teams in the second division of the national rugby championships, is to be suggested to unions for the 1978 season. The suggestions of the New Zealand Rugby Union sub-committee appointed to oversee the championships were presented to the council in Auckland the weekend the All Blacks departed for France, These will in turn, be sent on to member unions for their views. In an interview with “The Press” before leaving Motueka to take up a new appointment with his firm, W. D. and H. O. Wills, in Auckland, Mr Peter Wild, a subcommittee and council member, elaborated on the subcommittee’s proposals. The suggestion was that without ever having the right through promotion and relegation to enter Divisionl 1, metropolitan union B teams could be entered in Division 2. Similarly, it would also be possible for a team representing combined sub-unions — such as Canterbury sub-unions — to enter a team in Division 2. This was probably the most radical change envisaged by the sub-committee at the completion of the t w o-y ear championship trials, he said. TThe sub-committee felt that 11 teams was the right number for Division 1. This would require each team to play 10 games, thus allowing Division 1 teams to honour long-standing and traditional commitments with Division 2 teams.

| the sub-committee also felt it was desirable to retain the same numbers in i the first division — seven teams in the North Island; and four in the South, said Mr Wild. There were moves by some North Island unions to have membership of the First Division made entirely on merit, regardless of is- 1 land. If this did actually] occur and, on merit all 111 teams were from the North, Island for example, the com- ’ petition could hardly be called a New Zealand championship and this could present some difficulties over sponsorship, said Mr Wild. u . 1 Similarly, some North Is-: land unions had suggested that the automatic promo- ] tion-relegation system in- : volving the bottom and top teams should be widened to the two bottom and two top teams. In the South Island a promotion-relegation match) is plaved. This year South I Canterbury played and beat: Marlborough for a position | in Division 1. Mr Wild said there would always be two strong North Island provincial unions in Division 2. However, both Taranaki and North Auck-i land had proved that having been relegated they could fight their way back into the first division. “It happened to each and has strengthened each,” he said. Speaking on the financial aspects of the competitions, Mr Wild said the subcommittee was well aware of financial problems that exis-

ted for some unions. Last year’s sponsorship of $lOO,OOO from Radio New Zealand was under review From this amount this year a reserve amount of $B5OO was set aside for referees (expenses and the balance has | all been given to unions. , A sliding scale based on i geographic location was used Ito assess the allocation to each union in Division 1. All | Division 2 teams (15) reiceived a flat rate of $lBOO a union. This was a 20 per cent increase. As examples of the pay-out on the basis of geographic loI cation, Mr Wild quoted six 'Division 1 unions as having I received $6OOO each (Auckland. Counties, Bay of (Plenty. Hawkes Bay, Tara Inaki and Otago). Four (Manawatu. Wellington. Marlborough and Canterbury) received $5500 each and Southland $6500. I Travelling costs were increasing each year as were hotel and motel accommoda |tion, said Mr Wild. Some 'unions were now using bill lets instead of hotels and the i sub-committee recommended i that in the matter of traveli ling costs, each union should ■ “cut its coat according to the : cloth.” 1 The New Zealand union ' also operated a levy system ! on Division 1 teams, said Mr Wild. This operated on a percentage basis above an agreed base on gates and related to average gates. All such levies went into a central pool and was distributed to unions on a pro-rata basis