THE RUGBY ISSUE

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 28, 1 August 1924, Page 8

THE RUGBY ISSUE

DR. M'EVEDY'S REPLY. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I cannot allow the opinions expressed by Mr.. Fletcher to go unanswered, however'much they deserve such 'in ignominious fate. It is regrettable Inat Mr. Fletcher cannot accept the Hon. Mr. Coates's and my own assurance that the Hon. Mr. Massey was never approached or spoken to on the matter, more especially as he accuses me of unclean methods. He finds it hard to understand me. Do the public unstand Mr. Fletcher? ' Let us see. He accuses me of endeavouring to make Wright and the New Zealand Union professionals. May I ask on what grounds? The English Rugby Union is paying the travelling expenses of the twenty-nine players. Our suggestion to the Management Committee was that Wright be included in the team as an extra man, the New Zealand Union paying the expenses in the same manner, =nd guaranteeing the money as forthcoming. If Wright, under these conditions, is a professional, so are the rest of the All Black team

Furthermore, he states that I contriruted to sending Nicholls as a half-back-using my influence at the same time to send Wright, Mr. Fletcher knows the statement is not the truth. I contributed to the fund for Nicholls ou the distinct understanding that he was acini* as a private individual—a non-playing member, and not one of the official party -Moreover, my contribution was conditional on the approval of the Ru<*by Union and for proof I refer Mr. Fletcher to lMr. Leslie, the organiser Now for Sir. Fletcher's views on amateurism. If he holds that WrHit toing as a playing member under the same conditions as the rest of the team would be a professional; does it not foliow that Nicholls going under tho conditions „nder which ho is travelling is still more a professional? Can he th°erefore enlighten the public why holdin" fuch views, he, as a member of the Man" agement Committe, sanctions Nicholls (a professional) going as a member.of the official party? Who is inconsistent? Mr L'letcher or myself? Were improper methods used ? Had " approached the selectors behind the >acbs of the Management Committee the procedure would have been improper r-nd irregular. But did we? Were not he Management Committee the proper lody to deal with the matter? /think Mi. I'leteher will agree it was Therefore, in placing our views before the committee, no matter by whom, we were adopting constitutional methods. It was for them to deal with the proposal or i. thought necessary, refer it to the se lectors.. Where, then, I ask, are our methods irregular or improper? Where unclean?—l am, etc., , , , . T. F. M'EVEDY. Ist August.