ONSLOW OR ROVERS?

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 86, 11 April 1935, Page 5

ONSLOW OR ROVERS?

RELEGATION PROBLEM

DECISION AGAIN DEFERRED

A decision as to whether Hovers or Onslow should be relegated from the first B to the second A division was further postponed by the management committee of the Wellington Football Association last night.

Neither team is willing to go down a grade, and although Onslow, being the lowest in the competition last season, should go down according to rule, it is thought that their claim for nonrelegation is worthy of consideration because of the greater numerical strength of the club compared with Rovers. The Rovers Club wrote to last night j meeting stating that the players in their team would not accept relegation to the second division. The claims of the Onslow Club wen; placed before the committee by a depu tation of four —Messrs. W. Ede, J Dougal, H. Stevens, and E. Bethell. Relegation would have a detrimental effect on the Onslow Club, which had succeeded in introducing the Associa_ tion game to a Rugby dsitrict and hoped to carry an increasing number of teams year by year, said Mr. Ede. The club's efforts to foster the game in the schools had also to be considMr Stevens also pointed out that the boys in the schools might be subject to a certain amount of "slinging off" by Rugby supporters if their senior team were put down a division. That would be detrimental to the club and to the association as the club was bringing Rugby players into the game. Mr Dougal said that the Hutt Valley had two senior teams besides Rovers. The playing strength of the Onslow senior team would be greater than last "The Rugby people of the district have been very good to us and have offered us the use of their gymnasium on certain nights," said Mr. Bethell. "We are getting the support of the whole district and if you put the club into the second A division it will do Soccer a lot of harm there."

NO LACK OF SYMPATHY.

••We appreciate your difficulty and we hope you appreciate ours," said Mr. W B Hicks, chairman of the management committee, to the deputation. The committee recognised that Onslow was a strong club and felt surei tiial: rt would be stronger, he said but they had to abide by the rules of the association, which provided that the bottom ?eam must be relegated. In any case the effect of relegation on a team w|> probably not as serious as the club thought. If the committee did not decide as the club wished it would not be fo? lack of sympathy with Onslow. When the deputation had left.Mr. J. Meltzer moved and Mr. J. Allan seconded a motion that the committee while regretting its decision, had no option but to relegate Onslow. "Rovers are a mushroom club and before they are allowed to compete £c? should comply with the rule and have two teams," said Mr. J. Keap. The spirit of the rule was for the 1 clubs to maintain two teams, but the irule actually said "enter" two teams, said Mr. Hicks. (Rovers originally eni^S^Sd'he had been assured that Rovers had another team ready for motion of Mr. J^M- Coleman seconded by Mr. E. J.. Gates 11 was decided to postpone decision untl nex week when the committee could disTuss the position of first B;d Vision teams which had been credited with championship points for wins when they might, have been unfinancial.