LANCASTER PARK DISPUTE

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24898, 11 June 1946, Page 4

LANCASTER PARK DISPUTE

“Solution Acceptable To League” ASSURANCE TO CITY COUNCIL An assurance by Cr. J. N. c J a rke, a member of the Canterbury Rugby Union, that a solution acceptable to the Canterbury Rugby League would be found, halted a debate by the Christchurch City Council last evening on the claims of the League to the use of Lancaster Park tor the match between the touring English League team and the South Isl and - The matter was raised by Cr. G. D. Griffiths, who moved that in the interests of citizens the Canterbury Rugby Union should be asked to reconsider its decision. . . Cr Griffiths contended that as visitors* to the city—and he understood all were former servicemen—the English players should be allowed to play on the best possible ground. Cr. A. R. Guthrey seconded the motion as an average citizen who has never seen a League match.” He thought most citizens had not seen League played, but many would want to on this occasion. - , W T On a point of order by Cr. W. L. King, the Mayor (Mr E. H. Andrews) ruled that it was a matter of interest to citizens, and that councillors .were entitled to discuss it if they wished to do so. . . , Emphasising that he had an open mind on the question, Cr. M. E. Lyons expressed the opinion that the council should be diffident about interfering in the matter. The council had no proprietary interest in Lancaster Park, but if it had a park with suitable stands it would gladly place it at the disposal of the visiting English League team. The council had not yet heard the case tor the Rugby Union or the Park Board. If. when all the evidence was before it, the council saw that a grave injustice was being done, then some action might be hi order. Speaking from memory of newspaper reports, Cr. Lyons said he thought the effort made to save the park after the last war aimed at saving it tor “all amateur sport.” He was not prepared to express an opinion as to whether one code or another was an amateur sport or not. He suggested that a small sub-com-mittee of the council should be set up to inquire into the question before the council made a decision. “Should we go into the contention now?” asked Cr. J. E. Tait when Cr. W. L. King asked permission to read a letter from the Commercial Travellers’ Association to the Lancaster Park Board of Control written at the time the association raised funds for the park after the Great War. “If we carry the motion it identifies the council with one side; if we reject it the council is identified with the other side,” added Cr. Tait. “As a member of the Rugby Union I know the whole story, but I am not going to inflict it on you to-night,” said Cr. Clarke. Cr. L. G. Amos: I know the whole story, too. Cr. Clarke said he believed the proposed sub-committee would be unnecessary as a solution acceptable to the Rugby League would be found. He moved as an amendment that no further action be taken. This course was agreed to.