NOT DESIRABLE

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 90, 13 October 1922, Page 10

NOT DESIRABLE

CHANGE OF CONSTITUTION

LOCAL RUGBY MANAGEMENT

A PROPOSAL NEGATIVED

The control of Rugby football in Wellington was discussed at length by a special general meeting of delegates to the Wellington Rugby * Union, held in the Chamber of Commerce last evening. Dr. A. K. Newman, M.P., presided over an attendance of over thirty delegates. A proposal was placed before the meeting that the present constitution of the management be altered by giving each senior club representation, and by having representatives of the juniors on the committee. There was a long discussion, in which the majority of the speakers favoured the present constitution.

Mr. J. Moffitt (Berhampore) moved : "That the Wellington Rugby Union ■ Management Committee consist of fifteen persons, all senior clubs to have one representative, and junior clubs to be represented by five delegates from the various junior clubs." He said that there was no personal motive behind the motion. A club, unless it had a representative on the executive, was at a loss in having its case stated when the necessity arose. It was not fair for any club, when it had, anything to bring before' the union, to have to go "cap in hand" to a member of the executive. That was going on in football to-day, and there ' was no doubt, said Mr. Moffitt, that some clubs with, representation on the executive got preferential treatment. His club took strong exception to the presence on the executive of two men, representatives of the schools and the referees, as not in accordance with the rules. "We have nobody watching the interests of our club," he said, "yet two bodies, not as much interested as our club, are allowed to have representatives. It is unconstitutional." Seven senior clubs provided the union executive to-day, and those clubs which did not have a representative did not get the consideration that was due to them. The proposed alteration, it was submitted, would do away with a certain amount of club- bias that existed. The speaker concluded by referring to cases in which some clubs when desiring to play outside Wellington were credited with defaults, while • others (notably in the cases of the colleges when on vacation) had their matches postponed. The .motion was seconded by Mr. R. T. Bailey' (Berhampore), who asked the delegates' to view.the matter from the standpoint of bettering the control- of Rugby in Wellington. He would not go so far as to say that preferential treatment had been meted out. The members of the Management Committee had_ endeavoured to do their best in the interests of football. Mr. Bailey referred to the fact that the Otago Rugby Union's delegates had this week passed a somewhat similar motion to that before the meeting. The proposed rule, would- eliminate all dissatisfaction from .the club standpoint and it would mean the placing of the responsibilities on the club delegates. Mr. T. Collerton _(Porirua) spoke in support-of the motion. , , In connection, with the reference to the. committee being' unconstitutional, Mr. J. N. Millard (Wellington College) explained that a motion relating to the appointment of a schools' delegate to the committee had been moved by him and passed at a general meeting some years ago. Regarding preferential treatment he stated that the college never asked for any matches to be put off on account of holidays.

Mr. J. Thompson (Wellington) expressed the view that the proposed committee would be too. large. It might happen, too, that a delegate from on© club would not be regarded as suitable by other clubs. He considered that football ■• was well managed at the • present, time, and that the clubs should be satisfied.

The election of the delegates, Mr. H. C. Buck (Selwyn) pointed out, was in, the hands of the delegates at the annual meeting. His club had two representatives on the.-union, and on one occasion when a threat was made to disqualify the club they did not try to stop it. He was totally opposed to the motion.

Mr. F. A. Laws,(Selwyn) said that the members of the committee did their work conscientiously. "I think there is a tinge of persona] element in this motion," he added.' "I think there are some delegates who wish to aspire to a position on the Management Committee. J will leave it at that." In his opinion the election of the committes ehould bo left to the delegates at the annual meeting. ' At this stage Mr. J. Prendeville (chairman of the union) was asked for an expression' of opinion. "I feel that this motion," he said, "13 a vote of noconfidence in the Management Committee, and, therefore, I will reserve my defence until I have heard all that there is to be said."

Mr. Morgan said he thought the committee did not pay enough attention to/ junior football. It would be wise for the incoming committee, he thought, to have three members to take charge' of junior football.

• With a portion of the motion Mr. A.' J. Griffiths was in sympathy. When clubs had no representative on the committee, ■ the union, in ignorance, did things that perhaps they would not have done if the club concerned had been represented. He would not say that those things were done intentionally. Matters in connection with, the juniors should be dealt with by the -junior committee that had- been elected id recent years. The discussion was carried on by Messrs. E. Little, W. J. Hardham, S. S. Dean, J. N. Millard, G. F. Jackson, W. Hornig-, Dennehy, Father Kane, and other delegates, all speaking against the motion. Mr. Dennehy, on behalf of the Marist Club, said that they had no representative on the committee, and they had asked for no favours, had received none, and did not expect any. They were perfectly satisfied with the present arrangement. Father Kane said that the object of clubs in the football world was to create rivalry and keen competition. The object of the Rugby Union was to control that rivalry and competition. Hence, if the clubs were brought in through their delegates, the object of the Rugby Union would be- defeated. He did not think that a more capable body than' the present .. Management Committee could be found anywhere in New Zealand.

Mr. Prendeville, in the course of his remarks, pointed out that the adminis-, trative side of the committee's work had become very considerable in recent years. Ii the committee were increased in number there would be less work done. He was always willing- to hear complaints from clubs which were not represented, and if they did not get satisfaction it was not his fault. There had been absolutely no club feeling whatever on the committee. In connection with the College teams, he stated that if they were taken out of the grade competitions, a considerable amount of keenness would be lost. The presence of the chairman of the Referees' Association had been a distinct benefit. That official, he point2d out, had no vote. ',

'That the club deserved, credit for bringing forward the, motion was the opinion of Dr. M'Evedy. It gave yent 1 to a. grievance that apparently lay be-

hind it, and probably the discussion would clear the atmosphere a good deal.

In reply, Mr. Moffitt stated that the matter had been brought forward as an honest endeavour towards the betterment Of football. The decision would be accepted by the club in the true sporting spirit. The motion was lost-on the voices.

On the motion of Mr. Morgan, ft was decided that the executive make a recommendation to the delegates at the annual meeting that an advisory committee of five be elected annually for the control of junior football, and that a member of the Management Committee be appointed to act as chairman.