RUGBY CONTROL

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 121, 23 April 1936, Page 11

RUGBY CONTROL

THE MANAWATU PROPOSAL. COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY. WELLINGTON, April 23. The New Zealand Rugby Union, at the annual meeting yesterday, spent considerable time in discussing a notice of motion by the Manawatu Union to alter the constitution by altering the management committee so that it should as far as practicable be representative of all parts of the Dominion. Speaking to the motion, Mr A. M. Ongley (Manawatu) said the motion was brought forward to give delegates an opportunity of saying whether the present constitution was the best that could be devised. In the past the real parliament of Rugby ,in New Zealand bad not been the delegates of the unions, but the management committee. The arranging of tours and all other important business for years past had been in the hands of some eight men in Wellington. At the last annual meeting of the union lie had been struck by the futility of the whole proceedings. He objected to wasting his time, and he found that-a good many other delegates had the same objection. He had got into touch with a large number of. representatives of other unions, including six past presidents of the union, and all had agreed that something was wrong. They agreed that there was not much value in the annual meeting under the present system. He had come to the conclusion that the dissatisfaction which widely existed was due to the fact that the whole of the unions outside Wellington were disfranchised. 'This dissatisfaction would continue until unions were given a say in the management of the game. It had been suggested that this motion was an attack upon Mr S. S. Dean, the chairman of the management committee, but he did not for a moment question either Mr Dean’s ability or interest in the game. The fault, was not that of the managemerit committee, but of the system, to give one instance, the management committee had decided that the revenue from broadcasting should be divided between the four major unions.

Mr Dean: Quite wrong. Mr Ongley: At one time; it was only last year that the Manawatu Union received a share from broadcasting. Broadcasting, he maintained, did a lot of harm to small unions, and if the management committee had included representatives from outside Wellington such a decision would never have been come to. It might be said that the members of the management committee represented different unions, but he held that Mr Dean could have no knowledge of Southland’s needs, or Mr Kitto of North Auckland’s. He had only heard t>vo objections to a national executive. One was that such a committee would be too cumbersome. He had suggested a committee of 12, which might meet three times a year. He had also suggested that a committee of three might carry out the routine work, but he had been informed that three would have too much work to do. It had been said that a national executive would be too expensive, but he held that if six meetings were held each year it would only cost £3OO. If they could afford to spend £6OO to send two delegates to London to discuss Rugby matters, surely they could afford to spend £3OO to have the game well managed in the Dominion. There would not be satisfaction in New Zealand until a national executive was set up- , , „ . Mr G. A. Maddison (Hawke’s Bay) seconded the motion. He started off by paying a high tribute to the work Mr Dean had done for Rugby o in New Zealand. He supported the motion in order to see if it was not possible to get better control of the game in the Dominion POINTS OF VIEW. Colonel J. G. Itoacli (Auckland) held that me rules or tile union at present ailuweu lor wnut xur ungiey s inotiun asiteu. mr E. McKenzie (Wairarapa) said tile delegates at tne annual meeting elected tile management committee, and tne manawatu union's motion seemed like a collection on the mentality ot tne delegates. ' i\ir J Premlevme (, \\ ellington) said that theoretically Mr ungiey’s motion might be right. If anything was wrong, it was with the manner in whish the delegates at the annual meeting exercised their votes. Last yeai five of the members elected to the management committee represented unions in the South island, but tins did not matter so the best men were obtained. It might be possible to reduce the Ihigby parliament, and get it to hold several meetings each year. Several times in the past delegates from outside unions had been proposed for the management committee, but the delegates had not seen fit to elect them. Gradually greater power had been given to the management committee, and the only way lor unions to have closer contact with the management was to reduce the number of the council. Mr H- Harris (Otago) said Ins union was opposed to any change in the constitution of the management committee. AH the New Zealand union should have t-o do was to arrange international tours, and to lend the unions money when they wanted it. The unions should control the game m their own provinces. Kir J. K. Moloney (Canterbury) said they must have progress. There was definitely dissatisfaction with the management committee, and this was due to the fact that they had not been able to have a good selection in A\ ellington. What was wanted was a good healthy blood transfusion. If they did not do it to-day they would he sitting there for 10 j'curst and would not have done it then. AMENDMENT MOVED.

Dr G. J. Adams (Wanganui) moved, as an amendment, that a committee

be set up to consider the best means of reconstituting the management committee. The committee could be under the chairmanship of the chairman of the management committee and consist of three delegates from each island, who could submit their report to tho unions.

Mr G. H. Pownnll (Wanganui) seconded the ..amendment. It was objected that members of the management committee could not represent certain unions properly, but when a man was elected to the executive lie should, not represent any union, blit all unions He moved about the Dominion a good deal and heard a good deal ol growling. One of the complaints he had heard was that the management committee know at the annual meeting last year the terms under which Mr A r . R„ Meredith had accepted the management of the New Zealand team for Great Britain, but had not divulged these terms to the delegates. Another complaints was that the New Zealand union had allowed its two delegates to tlie London conferences too much by way of expenses. Rugby would have to be better controlled in the future than it had in the past. Golf and other games were proving strong rivals. Hon. J. S. McLeod supported Mr Ongley’s motion, holding that the management committee did not keep ill touch with those who managed football. The committee took too much business in committee. The point Kir Ongley was trying to make was that Rugby was the national game, and consequently the executive should be widened. There was no- reflection on the members of past management committees. It had been said that the election of the management committee rested in the hands of delegates at the annual meeting, but this was not the case. It was imperative that more unions should have a say in the management of the game than bad. been the case in the past. Improvements were possible, and Rugby would have lo change with the times.

Major T. J. King (AVellington) said lie bad been attending the annual meetings of the union for the past ten years. He had eacli year heard complaints about the management committee, but each year the delegates re-elected ilie same committee. Mr Ongley was deserving of the thanks of delegates for the work he had put into his researches. If they had a small executive they would have one strong man dominating the committee.

Mr Ongley withdrew his motion, and Dr Adams’s amendment was carried.