NELSON AND RUGBY

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 112, 14 May 1927, Page 11

NELSON AND RUGBY

TREATMENT OF TEAMS

■ REPLY TO ALLEGATIONS

'{: Severe criticism of certain matters relating to visits by Eugby representative teams to Nelson was made during the recent annual meeting of the New Zealand Eugby Union. Some of ,the statements were regarded .by the Nelson Bugby Union as harmful, and "a special sub-committee was set ■ up to go carefully into the various allegations.

', The sub-committee finds that, whilst certain of the statements made are coriect, some are couched in such terms as to be most misleading, whilst others are quite contrary to fact. Dealing !with. the matches in question separately the position is as follows:— ' "v. Taranaki, 1925: It was certainly' unfortunate that no game could be played against the Taranaki team. The actual position, however, is not quite as stated by Mr. M'Leod. The Union learned that the Taranaki team was playing in Marlborough, tad to give its (Taranaki's) mombers 'an opportunity of making the trip overjand from Blenheim, offered to defray the expenses of the trip through, for a ihatch at Nelson on Monday, the 17th August. On endeavouring to get a Nelson team together, it was found quite impossible to get anything like a senior representative team owing to players' inability to get the necessary leave. .Taranaki were advised by urgent telegram on the 11th August that the game could not be arranged, and arrangements were then made for the match to be passed on to Golden Bay.

"Mr. M'Leod's statement that the team was not met when passing through Nelson is, unfortunately, correct. However, the Nelson Union was not advised of the Taranaki team's itinerary, but the then president ' and several members of the Management Committee made every effort to intercept the team at Nelson, including a telephone communication with Blenheim, who Were unable to give any definite information as to the time of arrival at Nelson of this team."

: "The Seddon Shield contest in no way affected the non-playing of this match. ' "Hitches of this nature will occur, but it would seem far better-to at once refer anything in the way of dissatis- . faction to the union concerned and .then let it drop for good and all. :': "Wellington, 1926.—This match was played on Wednesday, the Ist September. The Management Committee, at a meeting held on the previous Monday, decided that as many members of the A team as were available should bo played. It should here be pointed out. that the Wellington team was composed entirely of colts. Sovon of tho Nelafon Seddon Shiold trainees actually played in this match, and, with the remaining eight B players, put up a remarkably fine Bhowing in au even ana exciting gamo, which resulted in a narrow victory for the visitors by 18 points to 14 points. This match clearly demonstrated that Nolson did and (Joes not rely on fifteen representatives *lone. Fnrber, ■as tho match was played in. ntid-weok, most of the players originally selected wore imablo to get. the necessary leave, and others were suffering from injuries. /! Regarding tho gate takings, £18 Sot is quite a good gate for a Wednestlfh I Bh,, at *Nelsou- Mr- Deail infll^J. i! i"? Ot a B toam being' In \t S 1S reSUI Aed in tho taldn Ga being IS? 1, '«. Acc°rtog to tho Pi-ess report,.he then goes on to state: 'The .New Zealand Union then had to riav S^*? 8 t0 ™Wtho mbSg ?! me tour to be borne by tho. Wnl "igton and Now Zealand Unions It £80 ».a^ ng * at Nelso» £18 or population not one-filMh that of Nclsm : &ss $ isa^,,'"'^ intention tl.dt tlio -pl a Vi,»; of " B team against ■Wellington "showed -mv .discourtesy to the latter team " ■' It should again bo recorded that in :£" °Plni°n t of the. Nolson committee I»« t^have been showi by tho chair:S!\ ii ° • • Mauageme"t Committee had ho communicated direct with the Nelson Union immediately after the ■occurrence and not allowed tho matter • to he dormant for eight months. .;: _v. Canterbury, 1923.—Th0 majority .of the statements made by tho Canterbury delegate are entiroly contrary to fact. He' lays: 'A Canterbury team had not.been to Nelson for some years yet the game had not been advertised' a referee had not been appointed, and tne result was that Nelson had only taken; about £30, whereas the union nad had to guarantee £40 for the match, thus making,a loss of £10.' ■ The gate takings were actually on £50, and.the match was fully advertised in the local Press in the"

same manner and to the same extent as all other representative matches have been advertised. At a meeting of the Beferees' Association hold on the Tuesday prior to the match, it was found that only one senior representative referee was available, and he was accordingly appointed-to control the match. When .the Canterbury team arrived in Nelson the manager objected to a referee being appointed without names being submitted to him. Eventually (at noon on the day of the match) a further name was'submitted. and the appointment of tlio referee wag left by the manager to the. captain of his team, who mado a selection. *. "The Seddon. Shield contest in no way affected players taking part in 'this match, as Nelson had already lost the shield to West Coast on 28th July, whereas the match against Canterbury •was played on 18th August—throe weeks later. Most of the members of the team which played in the shield ;tnatch against West Coast'also took part in the game against Canterbury. ,'; "Mr. Wilson (Canterbury delegate), on a previous occasion, decric J the Sed4on Shield contests, but for him to reopen a matter now four years old is, to say the least, decidedly unfair. He would have shown far more fair-mind-e.dness had he not reopened the matter sit all. Both he and' Mr.*■ Dean hold positions :i Xow Zealand Bugby circle? which ■",-•;:.;,: their best endeavours on beha!i" !' ;■■-.■/;i unions li!co Nel:-on, rather than :i.c dc-c-ryirig of Ihem for past probable mistakes.

.-. "In conclusion, it might be stated .tjhat Nelson, to the best of its ability, t^kes second place to none in hospiiality shown to visitors in any line of sjnort, and so far as the Rugby Union is concerned, expense is not'spared in the matter of entertainment; in fact, .members of tho Nelson City Council (^vhich body controls the principal ■Rugby playing area in the city) has lijhis year commented on the large expenditure by the local union in entertaining visiting teams, this being one of the reasons advanced when opposing .the union's application for ,i reduction [<it tbe rent charges for Trafalgar Park.''