BREAKERS AHEAD!

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 45, 30 March 1914, Page 2

BREAKERS AHEAD!

NEW ZEALAND RUGBY LEAGUE.

AND ITS EFFETE COUNCIL.

v -Trouble has been brewing for the y Council of i Management of the New

Zealand Rugby League during the last

V tfouple of years, and now it seems to be c- Hearing the boiling point. There is s - widespread dissatisfaction with the V methods of the council, and nowhere is that feeling more acute than in the yery home of the council—Auckland. |i-' , '.A predominating factor in the |rf - * trouble is that the membership and the it" Jtoeation of the council are xmt of date, p** *Pfte council has not kept pace with the growth of the Northern Union game - t i' r in New Zealand. To some extent it

tries ,to control Northern Union foot- % , fcalL in the Dominion by methods .. jeljich did well enough .when Northern "Unionism in New Zealand was repre-

seated practically by a small band: of . v ja>en in Auckland, but- which are are - hopelessly antiquated now. There is 1;"; this, difference between? the council's early methods aiHSf' thdse of to-day f of -the" members of the council have been so long in. jiower that they i have become autocratic. They are now; being taught that autocracy and de~ fC woeracy will not mix. But they are k-'. ' trying to avoid the lesson," and it may %'■ be that their realisation that;''michirig'' iA this ease will be harm-|:-'r ful iid>them will come too late. '.'.V- J. " Auckland is the centre of the dis- ' |pb£nce. Northern Unionism there is split virtually into two divisions-—pro-|v"V igre&sives and • unprogressives. Progres- !*£,;£ -hold easily the balance of power in Jthe Auckland Provincial Rugby VXiCgtgue, and the unprogressives control thfivNew Zealand Council." That has SX- -i eaused the present trouble* In- the sum total of Northern Unionism in Auckp|' 1 the unprogressives form but a Sfff' " ▼eiy, very small minority. But they seemed power in the New- Zealand If. * Council at a time when the League §?> JSaua?© in New Zealand was virtually confined to Auckland, when there were L many men of t methods .similar to their ewn in local control of Auckland gv,, JUeague matters, and, in consequence, . When their efficiency, or inefficiency, mas not tested. And they have manpC *-aged" to stick to that power, chiefly byvimeans of that particular form of, 3mkt)ug. which is known as precedent. . But times have changed. In the last three seasons some younger men, jfe- 1 ' "with keener vision, with an honest de- „ sire to spread and uplift Northern football in the Dominion, and "with a belief that deeds, not words, Ife-v ensure success, have forged to the ||p, .front in Auckland Provincial PI'C ~ JJugby League, and the great majority iisl'v-! of .the players and supporters of the fe. tfgsuhe there have appreciated-the abil|k 7"£ty;"of these younger men—younger, I p; J»ett% than the members of the New Zealand Council, as ja body. v These are the leaders of . the progressives. They v' .tave- found- the muddling of the New &■!: ■ 'Zealand Council irksome and harmful to ' the game, and they have particularly f: * resented the fact that - one club—the orth Shore Albions Club-—practically the council. * v V A SHIFT DEiisißED. -- A year or so ago some of the -progressive leaders discussed the question v'. 1 ..oT shifting the headquarters of the New f- ' Zealand League from Auckland. "With - * 4he game advancing in the South ; ; Was too far from the centre of the V geographically, to allow of' /thoroughly efficient central control. It was agreed by them that Palmerston North would be-r-for a tim«, at any - s*ateh--a more suitable place. Now it 'is ph.- V s -.. , obvious that the original founders of - the New Zealand League- Contemplated ' a time when Auckland would no. longer be central enough as the headquarters 1"i -of the governing, body, for the conStitu- % tion of the League is so framed that - -,no "alteration is required in it before v shifting the League's headquarters, r . But -there is this provision: "The jf" - meetings of the League and of the 'j ■ Council of Management shall be held r-. 'at such place as the Council of Manj" agement shall from time to time de- ' upon, and until alteration by such i decision shall be held at the City of L Auckland." The old council, sticking -fact to its groove, would not agree to V shifting the and .so i y throwing itself out of office, and thus ' - the progressives were foiled. I;, . A CLIMAX COMES.

ly A little more time went by, the dissatisfaction grew, and then came the . Savory case—really. a rather \msavoury one—which has become so "well known that it is needless to explain it now. That case was merely a eliraax. The Auckland League's eouiv noittee, after much consideration, ad- ■£. ' ( judged C. Savory guilty of foul play, , awl disqualified him. The New Zealand Councirrefused to endorse the disqualification. The Auckland League stuck to its guns, and then the auto- . cratie council declared the officers of • "the Auckland League j . outsiders who were watehing- the affair • '■elosely it-seemed that the Savory; case v - bad become but a pretext for a battle .bet-W«eft-; the progressives and thfc unAnd there was. noted a solid feeling among the players

of Auckland in favour of their own officers and against the council. The existence of that feeling was proved amply later, when the clubs, with one or two exceptions —and remember that most of the members of the council come from one club —decided, to stand by the suspended committee of their league. So practically the whole of the largest and strongest league in New Zealand is in sharp conflict with the council. CANTERBURY AFFECTED.

Now Canterbury comes into the matter. Members of the Auckland League recently held a meeting, at which a proposal to hold a Dominion conference regarding control of the game was discussed. In consequence of a, statement made at that meeting, the Canterbury Centre has received from the secretary of the New Zealand Council a letter in which this passage appears:—"l am instructed to ascertain officially whether it is true that your centre has appointed a delegate to confer with members of the disqualified 'body in Auckland revive to the game, etc. Members of the council are loth to believe that such is the. case, especially as the Canterbury Centre has never approached them - with any request or suggestions for a Dominion conference, nor have they lodged any complaint at any time regarding the general administration -Of the' council. That is specially confusing: in view of the repeated expressions of support and confidence. received from the: Canterbury Centre. I should be glad, therefore, if you would • kindly enlighten our members in regard to this matter." I was informed on Saturday evening that the council's; letter would not be discussed by the Canterbury Centre until the next meeting of delegates is held. But it was pretty clear from some statements made at the' Canterbury League >s annual meeting on Saturday evening that Canterbury's sympathies are not with the New , Zealand Council.

In the course of his speech on the Canterbury League's annual report the president, Dr H. T. Thacker, pointed out .the. need for. efficient control of the sport, free from provincial or parochial feelings, "we must work through New Zealand,'' he said, ',' as one homogeneous body, with no parochial or provincial jealousies. . The centres are all right, but we want a better central body than we have. We want one nearer the centre of the Dominion. It must approach Canterbury more closely than it does, even if-it comes only as far ias Palmerston North. The needs of Nelson, Marlborough, Timaru, and Dunediii must also/ be considered. And it is no good trying to rule a big organisation by proxy delegates. Proxy delegation is 110 good to us at all. We i want real SOME BAD ARRANGEMENTS.

There was more criticism of the council when the proposed programme of the British team's tour was read to the meeting. The council's draft programme provides for the British team arriving in Auckland on July 12, playing in Christehurch three days later (on a Wednesday), going to Hawke's Bay and playing there three- days after the Canterbury match, tfcen acroSs to Taranaki for a match there four'days afterwards, up to Auckland again for a m&tch on July back ;to Wanganui on July 30, and' then again to Auckland for a test match on August 1. As- 1 one of the delegates to the Canterbury League remarked, It is the worst-ar-ranged programme ever drawn up for a team visiting New Zealand, and as .an example of continuous travelling it would be hard to beat. Referring to a suggestion that the Canterbury League should cut out a visit from the British team if it could not secure a Saturday match, he said: "Let the team come here on Wednesday and lose by it. The loss YfiH go against the council. The British team will not blame this league for the bad itinerary." That is an excellent idea. ,fjet the council stew in its own juice.

• But it is'a pity for the game that there should be such a rift. Disunion means loss of strength. And already one of the supporters of Northern Union football in the South Island.'- has suggested that if a better central body than the present New Zealand Council cannot be obtained there should be two governing centres in the Dominion —one for each island. So the New Zealand Council is steering right into a whirlpool of very hot water. A.L.C.