“BIG TENNIS” FINANCE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVI, Issue 23, 26 December 1925, Page 6

“BIG TENNIS” FINANCE.

SHILLING LEVY PROPOSED, COLD RECEPTION IN SOUTH. CHRISTCHURCH, Dec. 23. That each tennis player in New Zealand should be levied Is a year for the development of “big tennis in the Dominion was a proposal hardly welcomed with open arms by the Canterbury Lawn Tennis Association. There was no approving voice raised, and it was decided to ask if the question could bo deferred for at least a year. The New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association notified that a referendum of clubs affiliated to the district associations had ben decided upon in regard to the question. The objects of the proposed levy were: (1) To secure to tho New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association a revenue sufficient to provide for the visits of New Zealand teams overseas; (2) to finance the visits of overseas teams to New Zealand; (3) to finance Davis Cup challengers; (4) generally to advance the interests of lawn tennis in New Zealand. The Canterbury Association was asked if it would be agreeable that the New Zealand Association should communicate direct with affiliated clubs on the levy question, and whether in the event of a levy being approved the association would be agreeable that- it should be collected by the'New Zealand Association directly from the clubs. Mr W. N. Seay, president of the Canterbury Association, said the letter opened up a very important subject. The last time a team was proposed for Australia the visit had to be cut out because of the high cost. No one liked levies very much, but there were 20,000 affiliated lawn tennis players in New Zealand and tho levy would bring in £IOOO a year. The question was whether the levy should bo paid. The New Zealand Association was in difficulties. One shilling was not much to ask of each player. Mr M. E. Lyons moved that any suggested levy should be through the Canterbury Association. It would he creating an intolerable position if the New Zealand Association were given rating powers. Mr W. Goss agreed with the motion. Ho said that if the Canterbury Association did the work all the levies could be included in the one demand.

The opinion was expressed that some clubs, especially country clubs, could not pay such a high levy, and might withdraw from the association altogether.

The motion was carried, with an addition that the whole question be deferred for at least 12 months.