TENNIS AND DEALERS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19511, 15 December 1926, Page 16

TENNIS AND DEALERS.

VOICE IN MANAGEMENT. PARTIAL EXCLUSION URGED. DEFEAT OF THE PROPOSAL. There was considerable discussion at a meeting of the Auckland Lawn Tennis Association last evening when Mr. D. Macfarlane moved the following resolution:—"That an officer or delegate to the association who is financially interested, either directly or indirectly, in the sale or disposal of tennis material of any description should not at any meeting of the association have any voice in or vote on any matter concerned with such material under discussion, and should retire meanwhile." The motion, and also an amendment by Mr. C. C. Chalmers, were eventually defeated on a show of handm. Mr. Macfarlane said a similar rule was in force in Australia and in America. It was impossible for a person not to be biased in favour of anything in which he was financially interested. His suggestion was designed for the good, of tennis, and was not aimed against anyone in particular. The motion 'was seconded. As an amendment Mr. C. C. Chalmers moved that the words "or who has been given or promised to him, either free of charge or at a nominal charge, any such material from any dealer in tennis goods" should be added after the word " description." Presentations of Ballis. Mr. Chalmers said he had been informed there were certain players in Auckland to whom dealers made presentations of balls. This, at any rate, was a current rumour. He contended that players who received such gifts; were just as liable to have their judgment warped as were delegates who were interested commercially in the game. As these players might be delegates some day, he thought they should be covered by the rule. Mr. G. L. Taylor said he was sorry the matter had been brought before the meeting. If they went so :far as the amendment they were on too dangerous ground altogether. The motion in its bald form was quite sufficient. He, himself, had received one or two balls as a gift, had tried them and had voted against them. He thought the amendment was carrying the matter too far. In reply to a question whether an employee of 'a firm .of dealers- in tennis requisites who was also a delegate would be required to retire from a meeting while certain goods were under consideration, Mr. E. W. Griffiths, president of the association, said a delegate thus interested would probably retire for the sake of decency. Opposition by Mr. Johns. Stating that, tho proposal was directed at him, Mr. V. Pi,. Johns said the motion ruled him right out because he was in the business. He asked what was the position of players or delegates who worked for firms which traded in tennis material. Would a person who sold New Lynn soil, tennis bags or tennis shirts or was employed by manufacturers of tennis goods be barred 1 If they went so far, the persons who supplied the butter and eggs for consumption by tennis players were also ineligible. Furthermore, members who were connected with insurance firms would also come under the ban in some cases. Delegates did not represent themselves, but were required to voice the view's of their clubs and they would be failing in their duty if they allowed personal prejudice to intervene. The position of a club whicji gold balls to itij members would also have to be considered. The motion was defeated by a good majority.