LANCASTER PARK DISPUTE

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24906, 20 June 1946, Page 6

LANCASTER PARK DISPUTE

UNION DEFINES ITS POSITION “CANNOT ACCEDE UNDER RULES” “The primary reason for our refusal to permit the Rugby League to use Lancaster Park is that under the rules of the English Rugby Union, to which we are affiliated, we cannot accede to such a request from a professional football organisation, whatever the personal opinions of individual members of the committee from time to time may happen to be,”, reads a statement issued yesterday by the Canterbury Rugby Union. “It cannot be denied that the English team is comprised of professional footballers. ... It has been suggested that the local League players do not receive any payment for playing football and therefore are not professionals Under our rules we are not permitted to make any such distinction. for it is definitely stated that a player becomes a professional by ‘knowingly playing with or against any Northern Union. Rugby League, or Other professional Rugby football player or club.’ "Our position therefore is clear. We have accepted a code of rules, and surely even our critics do not suggest that now we should show so little principle as to deliberately flcut any rule which happens to conflict with the expediency of the moment, or with the desires of our critics. As a committee We must be conceded the right to make our own decisions without interference or pressure from outside sources, so long as those decisions are honestly arrived at in accordance with the facts. In this case, the facts are clear, and no useful purpose can possibly be served by pursuing it forthe- We have come to a unanimous decision on the matter because we honestly believe that no other decision is ooen to us" Rights Claimed by Union The statement claims that the union has earned by its record “definite rights which cannot be ignored.’’ that without the support of the Rugby Union over the years Lancaster Park, as it is to-day, would not exist. Referring to the art union in 1919. the union suggests that the public was more interested in the chance- of winning a bungalow for 2s 6d than in the purpose behind the art union. “To say that because of its purchase of art union tickets the public paid for the park is to give it the ownership of other sports grounds in the city. too. a statement that would quickly be disputed by the owners. It would be as logical to say that every investor on the totalisator is a part owner of a racing club.” Apart from contributions in rent amounting to about £50,000. the union helped when times were bad. the statement continues, mentioning a contribution of £lOOO in 1911 and the building of the McCully stand in 1927 at a cost of £2650 Over a recent period of 15 years the union’s annual contributions to the park funds were £21,780, or an average of £1452 a year. Income from all other sources for the same period was £8063. The embankment was built largely with the union’s funds The union says that with 153 teams in its competitions it is short of grounds, and usually two matches are played on each of the three grounds at Lancaster Park each Saturday “Our prior right, therefore, over a professional football fixture which occurs once in 10 years is surely unquestionable.” The union says that though it did not make the rules forbidding professional footballers only, it is nevertheless bound by them. Its job is to administer its own affairs according to its own regulations, and it is not concerned with, nor does it interfere with the affairs of other bodies, the statement continues. “As far as we are concerned professional cricket has nothing to do with professional football. The latter is our concern: the former is not our business. The Board of Control cannot lease the park to League football without sanction, and by our constitution we are prevented from giving it ’’ "Feud’ Denied The statement denies that the reason for the refusal is “the continuation of an ancient feud,’’ and says that if there is a feud its continuation cannot be lajd at the door of the union. “All we ask is that we be permitted to administer our own affairs with out interference from other bodies When the League wants Lancastei Park, we contend that it is interfering with our concerns, and in view of its persistent attempts over the years to harm our game, we think that its claim for favourable consideration for its application is sheer presumption May we suggest that there are better occasions on which to ‘offer the olive branch’ than when one wants to take tomething from the other fellow.” The claim that a Canterbury Rugby team has played on Carlaw Park is denied in the statement and described as “misleading and definitely unfair." Dealing with criticism aimed at the union for not receiving a deputation from the Council of Sport, the statement says: “We are indeed surprised to learn that ‘public opinion to-day in the matter of sport . is represented mainly by the Council of Sport. This is far from the case as is evident when one examines the bodies affiliated to it and, more important, those who are not. It is pertinent too. to remind the Council of Sport that under its own constitution it is expressly enjoined not to interfere in the domestic affairs of sporting organisations. That is certainly not its function. “It appears to us that too many people and organisations with too small a knowledge of the facts have entered into discussions that do not concern them.”