LEAGUE SENSATION

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 9 May 1927, Page 7

LEAGUE SENSATION

JOINT MANAGER’S “BACK TO THE Wt”

REktiff TO ktfcEG&TiiMte

PLAYERS ON STRIKE IN

END LAND

(By Telegraph.—Special to “The Mail )

AUCKLAND, 7th May

A sensational element has been introduced into the controversy over the New Zealand League team's tour arising- out of the statements made by Mr E. L. McKeon, the Canterbury delegate, in Christchurch.

Mr 0. 11. Ponder, one of the joint manager's of the tour, stated last, night that lie felt impelled in self-defence to reply to tin* allegations that had been made. Statements in support ol the manager's control of the tour are also made hv members of the team who wore interviewed last night. “I am disappointed and surprised with Mr MeKoon breaking faith with the New Zealand Council,” said Mr Ponder, ‘’as all inquiries were held in committee. It is therefore not surprising that; his remarks are inaccurate and in fact could almost be termed slanderous.”

“I have attempted at all times to keep faith with the wish of the majority of the New- Zealand Council. J feel that I have now my hack to Ihe wall and must therefore in my own personal interest make a. statement, for Mr MeKenh's fihdilsdtions, that .1 thought that a. Sunday school class on a picnic was on the same plane as a team of footballers is ludicrous in tint extreme. For one thing the question was never asked. Anyhow, be they Sunday school children or virile footballers the least that could be expected of them was to play the game in the best interests of New Zealand and the good name of Rugby League footballers. “As to the matter of carrying the hags this is absolutely incorrect, for taxis were hired and there was only one occasion when there was not a taxi and that was when the car had broken down. For Mr McKeon to say there were no specific charges in the manager's report is nonsense. He must have been asleep for they were spoken of in a general manner throughout.”

PLAYERS SUPPORT MANAGER

In support of what he had said. Mr Ponder referred to three members of the touring team who were present at the interview, viz., C. E. Gregory, J. Parkes, and L. Brown. The interview was as follows: Mr Ponder: Did the seven disquali-

lied men strike at any time while on the tour in England? Mr Gregory: Yes, certainly; they went on strike three times. First, shortly after arriving in England when three or four players got into a "holt ujt h Mr Mair and refused to play. Ihe kngliriln League then arbitrated unj. after.a while the thing wan washed 0u..;, and tjie n)on tool: the field again. A week or two later amt Ike same trouble cropped up again. Again they refused to play. Once more the English League stepped in and this time Mr Mail volunt.ill'llv stood down for one mouth, he himself stating that at the end of that time lie would come in again, lie was accepted hut. as soon as he did actually conic in and take control the troublesome players refused point blank to play.

NOTICES TORN DOWN

Matters now looked bad and the next strip ()I , the part of the managers was to put. up a notice to the etleit that any player in the team in Inline refusing to play would have his out-of-pocket expenses stopped. I pon tins the mentioned players in a body refused to play. The notice was ripped and torn around as soon as it was put up. Mr Ponder: To (lie best ol yom knowledge did I ever lock out these players? Mr Gregory: No; not, ns far ns I know.

Air Ponder: hi your opinion did .1 al. any time do anything to hinder the success of the tour in the interests cl the game itself and New Zealand? Mr Gregory: Certainly not:. Air Ponder: Were you ever ordered to carry hags to the station?

Mr Gregory: No. Air Ponder: .Did ,you consider it reason,dble that the players should go to lied at, night at II o'clock? Air Gregory: Yes; il was absolutely essential, especially when there was a ga,mi> to he played on the following day. After all we were in training.

ASKED FOR INQUIRY

Air Ponder continued

“With regard to the tour as a whole, I wish to state that, in the first instance on my return to New Zealand I stated that L wished to have an open inquiry. Having learned that, the New Zealand Council desired to hold the official inquiry into the conduct of the tour in camera and further that the seven players concerned were to have counsel, 1 obtained the advice of my solicitor (Air Newberry) and acting on my behalf he requested before the start of the preliminary inquiry into the behaviour of these men that such inquiry bo held in open meeting.” “The result of Hint meeting was the disqualification for life of 1 lie seven players in question.” “During the meeting, however, the .strikers’ counsel (Air 1 rider) threatened myself with court proceedings in connection with the manager’s report. The next evening at an ordinary meeting of the New Zealand Council, certain members demanded the meeting to be held in the “open” on principle and demanding consistency besides protection from the New Zealand Council. In view of Air Tudor’s remarks T refused to read the manager’s report in the open and when further pressed said T would tear my report up. First proof that, there were members antagonistic lb the managers was borne out by one member leaving the room.” “The New Zealand Council then went into camera again. After reading the manager’s report the meeting was adjourned for four days. At the subsequent meeting the managers were cross-examined for nearly four hours on their conducting of the tour. At the conclusion of the examination the Council passed a resolution of appreciation and confidence in the managers. They also set up a committee to edit the managers’ report for publication in the local papers.” * flie sub-committee eventually reported to f lic New Zealand Council that (lie report was ready for publication and the Council decided to publish same provided always that the press published all. and not only part of the report. A sub-committee was set up to briim this into effect.”

PUBLICATION NOT DESIRABLE

“At the next meeting of the Council fit which, unfortunately, I was not. present, being away in Wellington, this sub-committee reported that they had .submitted the report to the New Zealand Council's solicitors who had recommended to them to advise the Council that it was not desirable for the League to publish the report. This recommendation was given effect to.” “At the annual meeting of the New Zealand Council at which direct delegates were present from all the leagues, the meeting wont .into camera, to discuss the report again. Jn my opinion no good eould be obtained by ibis further discussion in camera as the New Zealand Council bad already finalised the matter by the resolution staler! above and it only meant satisfying the curiosity of direct: delegates as they in their turn had their hands tied and consequently should, not he able to discuss matters at their various centres. It is interesting to note that I was not a votiim member of the Council at the annual meeting, the direct delegate taking my place. I therefore could not protest against the action of the New Zealand Council in refraining from publishing the report as promised. Neither did 1 have a voice in connection with (he resolution sending the Council into camera."

Tn conclusion as I am in honour hound to respect the rulings of the majority of tlie New Zealand Council while, a member of Hint; hodv, my only mol hod of stating the above position to the public and this is necessary in justice to myself, was to resign iny position ns the South Auckland delegate and to take steps to publicly reply to the allegations that were' made against me.”