SOCCER

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12549, 11 September 1926, Page 17

SOCCER

THE trouble concerning Diamonds Club and its culpability or otherwise in playing Guest without having secured a transfer from Auckland, was settled—so far as Diamonds Club is concerned —by the council of the N.Z.F.A. last week. The decision leaves no loophole for the W.F.A. to attempt again to bring the club to book, and the rider respecting Guest should be sufficient to indicate to the W.F.A. to let matters rest where they are. It is not a case in which the local management committee has emerged with* a vast amount of credit, and the attempt made ten days ago to bring the club to book for playing Guest as an uninsured player is not regarded as a sporting action on the part of the committee either. • • • * During the hearing before the New Zealand Council it transpired that Bell, who played for Thistle, was in a similar position to Guest, and that though the W.F.A. was aware of it no action was taken. Why make fish of one ane flesh of another? • * # * The case of Barton was quoted—because it suited the purpose of those quoting it to do so. The assertion by

Mr Duncan that the W.F.A. had shown no feeling against Diamonds is hardly consistent with the alternative charge brought in requiring Diamonds to answer the allegation of playing an uninsured player. • * * * The bearing was just concluded when Mr Duncan paused for a moment to make another disclaimer. It had, he said, been suggested in the Press, that there had been a lot of pin-pricking on the part of the W.F.A. He had a message from the W.F.A. to the council that there was nothing of the kind. They. desired to work together for the good of football. It had been suggested that there was bad feeling which was not true, although their ideas might not always be the same as those of the New Zealand council. Great men did not always think alike. (Laughter.) In regard to the enclosure question, they did not think alike, but the council would not blame the W.F.A. for not thinking as they did. They were looking after themselves. They assured the council of their help any time it was wanted, and the council asked for it, for they recognised the N.Z.F.A. as the higher body. ....

Such was Mr Duncan’s retort to the comment made in the, preceding Saturday’s “Times,” but it failed to carry conviction, and was certainly not consistent with the many and varied remarks passed by members of the W.F.A. when they refused to comply with the New Zealand Council’s instructions regarding the charges to he made for the enclosure for the Wel-lington-Canterbury match. In the following week, in announcing the Saturday’s games, it was specially stated “no enclosure.” Neither did the members of the council appear to take the disclaimer very seriously. They, too, have had previous experience, and are Time was when the W.F.A. and the N.Z.F.A. were continually at loggerheads, and there was blame on hoth sides. Then followed the reconstitution of the council of the N.Z.F.A., Sts members were reduced, but it became a much more efficient body. a * * * The present members are keen, levelheaded business men —hard-headed, if you^like—and each and every one has the real interests of the game at heart. They have all worn football boots at one time or another, and in years gone by have been associated with one or now disposed to judge by deeds rather than words. ••- • • more local clubs. There is no avenue of recompense for all the time that they give to the game; they look for none. Whether as much can be said for those associated with the game in Wellington is another matter, s■e • • We do not always see eye to eye with members of tha New Zealand Council, and there have been occasions of late when sharp comments in this column have evoked sharp replies from certain members. But ovan in differing