ROY UNION OATES

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11222, 30 May 1922, Page 6

ROY UNION OATES

PROTESTS AT PZTOKE COST OF MAINTAINING THE GROUND. At the meeting of the Petone Borough Council last evening, the following motions came up fur consideration, notice having been given. By Councillor Broeklebank : —“'.lhav all motions passed by the Borough Council with regard to the gate money- and fixture of games on the ! Recreation Ground by the Rugby Union football players ou the oval, i be rescinded.” ! Bv Councillor Jones:—ln the event jof Councillor Brocklt’bank’s motion j being carried: 1. “That No. 1 and 2 | grounds on the Recreation Ground be i allotted to tho Rugby Union for the I football seasons 1922 and 1923.” 2. | “And the gate takings to be allotted |as follons: Pet-one Council, 60 pci ; cent. ; Rugby Union, 30 per cent. : i Petone Rugby Football Club, KJ j per cent.” 3. “And when the Petone Ciub is not drawn to play on Athletic i Park, the fixture to bo played on the Oval.” SPORTS BODIES PROTEST. A letter was received from the socretary cf the Petcne League Football Club stating that ho had been asked, ou behalf of tho various sport* bodies at present using the Rccrea tion Ground (Rugby excepted), to enter a protest against any preferential treatment of the Wellington Rugby Union as suggested by tho notices of motion to be placed before tho council. A deputation from the Ladies’ Hockey, tho Association Football and Petone League Clubs proposed to wait on tho council to stat< their objections to the policy ol making supporters of other associafions contribute- to the finance of a rival body, such as the Wellington Rugby Union. RUGBY UNION OPPOSITION. The deputation attended, and Ah L. Price, secretary of the league, said that body wished to enter a strong protest against the proposals contained in the motion. It meant that supporters of other games would pay and half their entries would gn to tho Rugby Union, which was hardly fair, as the Rugby Union was in opposition to most of the other associations using the ground. If the council still decided to give something to the Rugby Union, let the Rugby Union have a special turnstile and take thirty per cent, of those takings, and let the council retain 100 per cent, of the gates taken by other associations. He understood the council spent £BOO a year on the ground and only received £3OO towards that amount. Or the council might give a percentage, and let the various clubs arrange the division of the amount. If tho council were mercenary about it, let them all bid for it. He hoped the oounoil would seriously consider their protest. Mr J Kc-use, another league supporter, said they represented 130 members, and they protested against paying towards a body which was trying to kill them absolutely. Mr M. Price voiced a similar protest on behalf of the Association Football Club. Mr Price suggested that as the Rugby Union were to have a 50-50 gate ” for the gymnasium fund, a similar privilege should be granted to the others. The Mayor replied that if such a request was made the council would give it consideration. He would like the question of the ground settled on as pernfanent a basis as possible. TAKING TOO MUCH. Mr Brocklebank then proceeded with his motion, urging that the council should not take 100 per cent, of any gate money, as they would not think of taking the whole of the gate money at the Labour carnival. Even the Wellington City Council was considering what percentage they were ontitled to, from which it was apparent they do not intend to take 100 per cent. In reply to the Mayor, Councillor Bedingfield said he did not intend the motion to deal with the allocation of grounds. Councillor Anderson was in favour of the council receiving more of the gate money on account of the expense of maintaining the ground. Councillor Fere seconded the motion, which was carried. After some discussion, Councillor Jones agreed to delete 1923 from hri first motion, leaving the position as it was. The figures of the second motion were amended to 70 per cent., 25 per cent., and 5 per cent., respectively, on the suggestion of Councillor Pere, and this motion, after reviewing the previous proceedings of the council, was then adopted.