RUGBY UNION MERGER

Chronicle (Levin), 18 September 1946, Page 4

RUGBY UNION MERGER

Horowhenua Rejects Scheme By Manawatu A proposal by the Manawatu Rugby Union, inviting the Horowhenua Rugby Union to either amalgamate with them or become a sub-union, was rejected unanimously at a special meeting of tlje Horowhenua Union last night. Representatives from most of the clubs in the union's district spoke in opposition to the suggestion. The feeling generally was that the Horowhenua Union was quite capable of managing its own affairs and standing on its own feet, with no assistance from the Manawatu Union. In the past, when such an arrangement had been in force, several speakers declared, football had declined in this district. There was no intention of letting that happen again. The chairman of the Horowhenua Rugby Union, Mr. A Gillespie, explained the purpose of the meeting. He said that five delegates from the Manawatu Union had met the management committee earlier in the season and put forward the suggestion. If it was agreed to become a sub-union, local games would be controlled from Horowhenua, but the selection and playing of men for representative games would be controlled by the combined unions. If amalgamation was carried out, the control would be centralised, coming entirely from the combined union. The chief argument put up for the proposal was that it would give some Horowhenua players a chance in big football. One drawback was the centralisation, said Mr. Gillespie, while the question of benefit to players was also doubtful. It lay in the hands of the Horowhenua union whether they obtained recognition or not. • There was a duty to the public also, which should be considered, although some players might be brought into the limelight. Had benefit to players been proved in the selection of the All Blacks? How many players from small country unions had been selected? The Horowhenua union could benefit its players, if it did not accept the proposal, by overhauling the rules, playing on all available days, reclassifying and changing the numbers of teams and by making more grounds available. This would give more satisfaction and understanding where the union was concerned. Benefit to players could start v/ith clubs; lack of training facilities and coaching was the big drawback at present. If a gymn was available players could get fitter, and have more chance of getting into big football. The chief concern was the players, Mr. Gillespie concluded. Would they benefit more by the adoption of the proposals, or by an improvement within the union? Mr. W. C. Hannan said that the gate had slipped badly during the previous amalgamation. When a big union was joined there was always a loss of revenue from club games. It also meant that the majority of players would be playing to get a few into the limelight. Public interest in Horowhenua football was on the increase, and if it was kept going it would be able to run itself. He considered that the combination of Manawatu and Wanganui was done purposely to force Horowhenua into amalgamation. Mr. F. G. Carrington emphasised the point that amalgamation would help only a few. It was estimated that 80 per cent. of players never got into representative sides, and yet they were the men who played the club matches, he said. The gate receipts this year st) far of £460 showed the extent of public support for club games. "We should cater- fof the majority of footballers and not the few with. the ability to^reaqh th^ top,*i h^^dfied, Mr. Cochrane pointed out.'tfiat,. it was the;'c'lubs;\vhich could .raise. the standard of football;-; There was ia certain amount of overhauling 'tobe done in the union, such as the revision of the arrangement for letting clubs know of fixtures in cime. There was not the unity in the union that there should be, and the friendly, social spirit between clubs was definitely lacking. Mr. J. A. Zuppicich, replying to the point of fixtures, said that it was impossible to let teams know of the fixtures sooner than at present. There was considerable difficulty attached to the whole system of fixtures. He could not see what advantage it was to a team co know the referee beforehand. Mr. N. Winiata said that af,ter following the working of the former amalgamation to the day it dissolved, he could not See any good at all in the proposal. If a piayer had it in him to be good, he would be recognised, no. matter where he played. Once the selectors got to hear of a good piayer they made it their business to see him. He could not see any benefit in falling in line with, or submitting to, Manawatu. From the time the previous amalgamation began there was a fail in finance. He did not want to see a repetition of that. It would be found that whatever Manawatu wanted they would get; they would have a majority at committee meetings. In the eight years of the other amalgamation the Horowhenua team only had two representative games. It would be "Palmerston" all the way. Mr. W. J. Anderson said that he was against the amalgamation from the very beginning. He would even have the audacity to suggest that Manawatu be invited to become a sub-union of Horowhenua. He quoted figures showing that the population of Horowhenua had risen, The union

should look ahead, and forget the past, „he ' said, and put its oyfp. house in . order. ' ; ?It shpffid remembered£v±hat C|iarlie:' ;|Sax§gn nad said on the returh of th& Kiyfis that 90 per cent. of that team:hfid come from country unions. The union should stand on its own feet and encourage players by giving them more games. Manawatu, with nine teams, had played nine representative games this season, whereas Horowhenua with seven teams had played only a few unofficial games. It was up to the union to go abroad, to go on tour, he said. Messrs. R. L. Robinson, E. Cook, H. Wylie, R. Cole, W. O. Neas and J. D. Macfarlane also spoke in sympathy with the views expressed. Mr. Macfarlane more -or lesS summed up the situation when he said that the past experience of amalgamation had • been an unhappy one, so why should it be repeated? A motion rejecting the proposal was then passed unanimousiy. mmm—m