LANCASTER PARK OVAL

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24905, 19 June 1946, Page 8

LANCASTER PARK OVAL

USE BY FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION < AMENDED REQUEST REFUSED , A request from the Canterbury 'Football Association for the use of Lancaster Park oval for an inter-is-land Association game on July 20 was refused at a meeting last evening of the management committee of the Canterbury Rugby Union, it being stated that arrangements had previously been made to play the Town v. Country Rugby match on that date. The Football Association had previously applied for the use of the ground on July 27.

The matter was introduced in a letter from the secretary of the Victory (Park Board, dated June 18. which read as follows: “Further to our letter of June 4, I wish to advise that the Canterbury Football Association has intimated to the board that the date for the North Island-South Island Association match has been altered to July 20. land it has in consequence applied for the use of the oval on this date in lieu of July 27. The board has expressed its willingness to grant the request, ■provided the association is agreeable to carrying into effect with the Rugby '“Union on July 20 the suggested arrangements as mentioned in our letter of June 4. Will your union please note any such arrangements made will now apply to June 20 in lieu of June 27?”

Mr R. W. Blazey said it had been agreed to play the Town v. Country ‘match on that date.

An application had been made by the association for the date to be July 27, said the chairman (Mr W. E. Maxswell). A sub-committee had been set up to meet the association to discuss ■ways and means and perhaps terms, and the association had not the courtesy to reply to the request. “We had to force them to a reply by telegram,” Mr Maxwell said. “This answer came back on June 17. I do not know if you can make sense of it: ‘League does not affect deputation.’ ” Mr J. N. Clarke: No one said it did. “When we made tentative arrangements to discuss the matter of July 27 with them we had fixed July 20 as the date of the Town v. Country game.'* ;Mr Maxwell said. “We are committed to it. There are financial arrangements -with us and the sub-unions that they 'participate in the gate, the only means of revenue for carrying on football in the sub-unions.” Mr R. W. Blazey: W<_ cannot go back on it. We are in honour bound to abide by the arrangement. Mr H. C. Blazey: We still do not know what happened to the deputation.

“We thought that the matter was urgent when we asked to meet them, but they stalled on it,” said Mr Maxwell “For their benefit, as much as ours, we Wanted to discuss the matter.”

On the motion of Mr Clarke, it was decided to advise th«e Victory Park Board that because of the Town v. Country match the committee i was ■sorry it could not agree to the request of the Football Association. “We were willing to treat with them in the first place.” Mr Clarke said. “When they did not send the deputation, however, we made other arrangements in the meantime.” The motion was carried. The telegram referred to by Mr Maxwell was sent to the president of the Football Association on June 14, after the secretary of the Rugby Union had spoken on the telephone to the teecretary of the Football Association on the preliminary arrangements made. The telegram read: “The following is the gist of the telephone reply from your secretary: ‘That acceptance of the union’s offer to meet deputation of association conditional on nature of our statement re League application. Please confirm this before B p.m. Monday. June 17. in writing.”