RUGBY MERGER DISCUSSED

Chronicle (Levin), 10 May 1946, Page 4

RUGBY MERGER DISCUSSED

, yi, — r? — . 1VIANAWATU DELEGATION MEETS HOROWHENUA 0 ADVANTAGES OtTHNED / . — The amalgamation of the Horowhenua and Manawatu Rugby. Unions was discussed at a meeting in Levin last evening, when a delegation from Manawatu consisting: oi Messrs. A.M. Ongley (president) , i P. Skoglundj B. Palmer, 'D.. Tatana i anff L. Muliins: met Horowhenua's i management- committee, : The members of the committee present were j Messrs A. Gillespia .(president);, T. l Winiata, J. D: McRariarie, F. Car--j rington, E. Cook; J. A. Zupoicich, H. | Robson, Rv L. Robinson and W. O. ; Neas. • • « , j- I Mi".'- Gillespie welcomed ' the i Manawatu delegation and invited Mv, Ongley to gi-ve his views "on the i amalgamation question-. .>•].] i Mr. Ongley-.. said, that although i the members (oi Mis union had lidt , formulated any' definite .prdposals; ! the delegation was present to ex- , ; plore the possibility of a merger in : a friendly spirit. The previous : amalgamation had not proved successful and he did not think either ; Manawatu or Horowhenua would be .prepared to merge on that basis. j However, under that amalgamation the combined- representative team ! had proved successful m its matches, despite the fact that the merging of the two unions had not been so.

Mr. Ongley said Manawatu asked for the right to play in its representative team players from the Horowhenua "uhioh" without interfering with the Horowhenua 9lub or representative. football-, by which course Horowhenua would virtually become a sub-union of Manawatu. Such a policy, he ,said, would give greater opportunities for Horowhenua's best players to. participate in bigger football, thus giving more incentive, to young plavers. The greatest disadvantage he could ,see j to Horowhenua would be its loss of ! representation on the New Zealand union, a position which would be by an agreement that one of ithe two Manawatu representative_s ;on the New Zealand union should be a Horowhenua appointee.

Mr. Skoglund said he was not interested in a sub-union, but in, one big union. He had recently been reading the minutes of theformer combined union, which ' started in 1926, and it had been a great day when that union won the Ranfurly Shield. The previous merger. had terminated in 1933, at the time of the depression, £ind the chief reasons for the 'breakdown were, he thought, the lack of finance and the question of boundary lines. Mr. Skoglund advocated a merger on the lines of. the Taranaki union. The representative mateh takings and the gate money would; , be the pyoperty of the combined | union and the burden of the big ' union would fall on Manawatu. "As ;a big union- we could demand more fixtures,. and, have more >. success . than we are having at present," hedeclared. i Mr. Tatana said he spoke having !in mind the welfare of the players. : The previous amalgamation had j proved one of the best things which had ever happened for the players |of Manawatu and Horowhenua. No i players had an" oppoftuhity-'" of Ireaching the highest point in Rugby, I while playing *in a -Smalbm'nibifi "1 am wholly in favour.of the amalgamation or co-operation, which will j be at the expense of Horowhenua, ' but I ask that the Horowhenua j committee try to see it as I see it, land that is for the advantage of ;the young players." | Mr. Gillespie said the members of his committee had heard the jproposals with interest, but his i union had not yet discussed the ;matter and he could not commit it. Mr. Robinson said that Horowhemua players had not been able to 1 get into big football, and they would 'have an opportunity when playing ,as one large union. ... ' Mr. Cook said that Otaki s.eemed | to- think- amalgamation was prefer- ! able, and the delegation's views had j impressed him. i Mr. Gillespie said the proposals ) would be submitted to an early general meeting' of his union, and ; Manawatu would be advised of the decision -immediately. -He thanked the delegation for its visit.