CANTERBURY RUGBY LEAGUE CENTRE DEFIES THE COUNCIL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17833, 29 April 1926, Page 3

CANTERBURY RUGBY LEAGUE CENTRE DEFIES THE COUNCIL.

MR MOYLE IS SUPPORTED BY DELEGATES—- “ GENTLEMEN, I COULD TELL YOU VOLUMES.”

“That the Centre notify the Council that at any time the Centre thinks fit and proper to ask for the disqualification or removal of any member it will send such request through the Canterbury delegate to the Council.” The above motion was carried at a meeting of the executive of the Canterbury Rugby League Centre last night, in reference to the request of the New Zealand Rugby League Council that Mr W. S. E. Moyle, ex-secretary of the Centre, should be asked to resign all executive office on the Centre. The motion, which was carried by a large majority, virtually vetoed the decision of the Council, and it led to the chairman of the Centre (Mr T. B. Carpenter) announcing his intention to resign from the position. Delegates, who voted against the motion, were of opinion that the parent body would call upon the Canterbury players to elect a new Centre, and that the progress of the game in the province would be put back about twenty years.

There were present at the meeting: Messrs T. B. Carpenter (chairman), W. •"ole, T. Kirton. E. Jones. Boyne, W. English, W. Main. C. Allan. \V. Ilealey. J. Underwood. W. Moyle. F. Smythe, 11. Garrard. J. M’Quillan, O'Shaughnessv, E. llealey. J. J. Kettle, J. Power. J. Voung, A. Russell, L. Cox, P. Kirton. A. Davis, E- L. M’Keon and 11. \V. Lawrence.

COMMITTEE OR OPEN MEETING? Discussion upon whether the matter should be taken in committee was .started by the chairman stating that he had two letters from the New Zealand League. He asked the meeting whether they should be taken in committee.

In supporting the proposal that the matter be taken in open meeting. Mr O. Allan said it was time the centre cut out the habit of going into committee. If there were something the players should know, members were quite qualified to deal with it. If the matter were taken in committee, the speaker was not going to bind himself, but would report to bis club.

Mr T. Kirton: Has this matter any bearing on what we have been reading about in the newspapers?

The chairman: Yes. Mr Kirton: Then as a certain per- j •On has been talked about the open j meeting will give him a chance to clear i himself. We have nothing to hide. j Mr Moyle rose to his feet waving I a paper. “Are you referring, Mr Chair- > man.” he said, “to this letter I have?” The chairman: I don’t know what you have. Mr Moyle: If this matter has anything to do with me personally, I strongly object to it being taken in committee. As far as I am concerned it can go to the Press. Mr H. Garrard, however, had a different view. He said he would hold his tongue in open meeting. He did | net object to the matters appearing 1 in the newspapers, but the Press put \ them in such a way that a man was ' made to look a fool in front of the public. The matter should not have been made public at the start, said Mr C. Allan, but as it was now public property jt would be better to thrash the whole thing out in open meeting. A motion to this effect was carried i by fourteen votes to six. Mr Allen: Is every person present a delegate ? The chairman: That doesn’t matter. The public can come in if they wish. Mr A. Russell: I question your rul- i ing. sir. The chairman: You can’t. We are' working to-night under the constitution of the New Zealand Council. j LETTERS FROM COUNCIL. The following letter was read from the secretary of the council (Mr \V. O. C'arlaw) : “ I am in receipt of yours under date April 20, enclosing correspondence from the Canterbury Rugby League Board of Control and one from Mr E. G. M’CulJough. The subject matter of the letter was discussed at length bv the dele- r gates at the annual meeting, whereat i both Messrs Moyle and M'Keon were present. The discussion that ensued ' with regard to the correspondence and the proposed agreement between the Canterbury League and the Board of Control brought up again the question of the suitability of a person of Mr Movie’s temperament taking an active j part in League affairs in Canterbury. Finallv the following resolution was moved by Mr E. L. M’Keon. Titnaru delegate, seconded bv Mr George Ponder. South Auckland, and carried by a majority of ten votes to two: “ ‘ That this Council of the New Zealand League, while recognising the services of Mr \Y. S. E Moyle, of the Canterbury League? Centre, arc of the opinion that the time has a rived when, in the l»est interests of the rode, ho should sever his connection with League football, and that Mr Moyle be asked to hand in his resignation forthwith to the New Zealand Rugby League Council.’

* With respect to the proposed agreement as between the Monica Park i Board of Control and the Canterbury League forwarded by you to the body j for approval. 1 have to advise you thAt i same was approved, with the addition to the last clause, dealing with future troubles being submitted to a committee of three members of the board, the president to preside, of the following - The president’s power of voting to be in accordance with rule 7 of the con-

stitution of the New Zealand Rugby League.” In a letter to Mr Moyle, the secretary of the council made application for the former’s resignation from the Canterbury Centre. Mr Kirton: Was this matter sent through the Canterbury League to the council ? The chairman: Yes. It went through the centre from the Board of Control. Mr Kirton said it was a strange thing that the Board of Control had taken such action. The board had asked Messrs Healey. Richardson and himself to forget the old troubles for the good of the game. A member of the board had been asked that it the slate were cleaned, would it be cleaned aiso regarding Mr Moyle. There had been no response, and the speaker believed the board had had the present business up its sleeve. He thought it was absolute filth that after pleading for a cleaning of the slate such dirt should be raked up.

“ If.” continued Mr Kirton, “ the centre submits to such treatment as the result of requests from private individuals, any member of the centre will be at the mercy of such people in the future, if lie is considered not to have the right temperament.” The chairman said he had wired to the council that morning asking if Mr Moyle had been definitely suspended, or only so by the ratification of the centre; and if he suspended would he get a vote at that night’s meeting Auckland had replied that the suspension was definite, and that Mr Moyle could have no say at the meeting. Mr Allan: The council's action is a insult to every league player in the country! Jt lias taken away the right of clubs to elect whom they choose. They are like a hair-brained lot of old women to t*tkc notice of private individuals! "What are we here for?” asked Mr Power. Had they no say in the matter? Mr Moyle was the father of league in Canterbury, and was being made the scapegoat. What had he done? There was no evidence of misconduct. WAS £ S D THE TROUBLE? Another members reminded the meeting that Mr M’Keon, who had voted against Mr Moyle, was present.. Mr M’Keon had misrepresented his position as delegate for Timaru. Mr M’Keon did not seek to reply, and left the meeting in the later stages. When the motion was brought forward Mr Jones opposed it on the ground that it would mean that, if taken to its logical conclusion, clubsaffiliated with the. centre would have to forward requests for suspension of players, and the centre would have no power to bring them forward itself. The best thing was for the council to take over the centre's books and control the game throughout the country. “That the centre accept the decision of the council.” was moved by Mr O Shaughnessy, who said opposition would ruin the game in the province. “If you vote for this amendment,” said Mr Allan, “none of you are worthy of being delegates of clubs. If it is carried, League is no good to me.” Mr ( ole: Is £ s d at the bottom of it all? Voices: Yes. MR MOYLE SPEAKS. Mr Moyle said that some of the things said at the conference were scurrilous and scandalous. When he was asked to resign it was owing to the fact that the money value of certain persons was of greater value to League than the speaker's services. lie had said that when lie considered it tit and proper, he would tender his resignation to the centre, if that body so desired. If he though 1 that League would benefit by his withdrawal, he would leave the game at once. The Auckland League had strongly urged him not to resign. He had been asked to withdraw because of certain charges. “DISGUSTED WITH WHOLE THING.”

’ I am disgusted with the whole thing.” continued Mr Moyle. “I want to l>e perfectly fair, and I can substantiate all I say. T am sure that Mr M’CviHough would not have written as he did on his own initiative. He was prompted to do it. for he would

not lower himself to such an act. Gentlemen, J could tell you volumes, but it sickens me.” Mr O. Derrett said that if Canterbury stuck together it would not be a question of the centre going out., for it could put the New Zealand Council out. A member: Revolution! Mr Cole believed the constitutional method would be to register a strong objection against the action of the council. The chairman: I want, to impress upon ail that we are here for the good of the players, and we have to agree to flic resolution of the council. If the amendment is turned down it will be a serious matter, for I am satisfied that we are going to put League back from ten to twenty years. The amendment was lost by twelve votes to seven. When the motion was carried, the chairman gave his parting speech. He called upon the vice-president, Mr Cole, to take the chair, and then left the meeting. He was accorded a vote of thanks for his services before going out.