Separation problems for Groom

Press, 7 May 1980, Page 24

Separation problems for Groom

By

DAVID LEGGAT

Rarely can a controversial soccer issue have left so sour a taste in the mouth as Hamilton’s refusal to release its young striker, Michael Groom, unless the club receives $2OOO. New Zealand has had its fair share of hotly-con-tested soccer wrangles in recent years, but on very few occasions can the actions of an administrative body, a club or a player be so strongly condemned as the behaviour of the Hamilton club. It is very unusual for a player to be allowed to leave 'a national league club in favour of another. He must have the permission of the club he wishes to leave, and seldom is it given. Nevertheless, when Trans Tours United played in Hamilton on Good Friday, some of its members approached Groom to find out if the player had any thoughts of joining United. Yes, he did, but he would discuss the matter

with his senior coach before making a decision. Evidently, Hamilton’s coach, Jeff Coulshed, had no objection to Groom’s leaving, despite the fact that Groom was his most dangerous attacking player and so clearly an important asset to be held on to if possible. However, Groom was given permission to leave, he gave notice to his employers and was set to make a move south in time for United’s vital match with Manurewa in Auckland on April 20. Then suddenly Hamilton

did an about-face. Perhaps Hamilton realised that, it had an asset, something which might fetch a price or maybe it decided that by getting some money for Groom it could clear the way for a former professional player from Scotland, who has been waiting for final clearance negotiations' to be completed, to take his place in the team. The club’s committee held a meeting and pronounced that it would not

part with Groom unless the club taking him would play Hamilton $2OOO. In other words it decided to keep Groom until the end of the season, as it must have assumed nd club in New Zealand would be interested, much less be able, to so readily part with such a sum of money. Understandably Groom is unhappy about the situation and has asked United, on his behalf, to protest to the New Zealand Football Association’s rules committee. A decision is expected

within the next few days. The sad aspect of the matter is that had Hamilton said right at the start when Groom was approached by United players that it would not allow Groom to leave the matter would have ended. There would have been no further discussion. This has been confirmed by United’s chairman, Derrick Mansbridge. GrOom is undoubtedly a fine prospect. He toured New Caledonia for the Oceania tournament with

Oceania tournament with the New Zealand team earlier in the year and has been included in -the national squad to play two internal games later this month. But Groom, is simply, worth nothing like §2OOO. Nd player in New Zealand is. And until the crowds are bigger, the sponsorship bigger, and the prize money bigger, that situation will apply. For a team to pay that amount for a player it must finish at least third this year to get its money back — and even that leaves nothing left over. The other reason United was not interested was the highly dangerous precedent it would set in paying a transfer fee, which has never been done before in New Zealand. United’s manager, Brian Hardman, believes it can not be described as a transfer fee. “It brings the game down. I think it makes a mockery of the game when they start calling it a transfer fee. There has never been a transfer fee in New Zealand and we are not going to set a precedent.”