THAT £5 BONUS!

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 3656, 7 June 1906, Page 3

THAT £5 BONUS!

As it is of especial interest te OFoxtonians, we reprint the following letter appearing in the • ‘ Manawatu Standard ” of Tuesday last, relative to that £5 bonus grant to local secretary ■ (To the Editor.) Sir,— -Since your report of the last meeting of the Manawatu Rugby Union has gained currency, the members of the Foxton Football sub-Union have been ridiculed to some extent as being entirely in the wrong regarding their action in contesting the vote recommended by themselves to their secretary, but refused by the Manawatu head body; so. in order to place matters in a clearer light and to defend my sub-Union and myself from further criticism, I beg leave to make a full explanation. In face of the correspondence which actuated my officials in withholding the £$ bonus grant, I must say I was rather surprised—-not as an interested person, but as an independent individual—to note that the Manawatu Rugby Union dropped the * ‘ professional ” argument like a gutter-snipe would a hot spud, and at once restored to tactics which asserted their undeniable authority. I fully realise, as from the start of the dispute, that the Manawatu Rugby Union are legally entitled to this £ 5, and before any money could be passed over such had to be sanctioned by them, and them only. As we (Foxton) were only managing their affairs in our district last year they were the almighty power! My management put forth a recommendation that £5 should be granted myself as secretary out of the profits. The Manawatu head body could not see it's way clear to accede to this faucet, and it is the correspondence in reply fo this request that has led up to the “bubble in the teapot.” More’s the pity that it should ever have happened. All fair-minied readers must allow my sub-Union authorities were perfectly within their right when they contested the “ professionalism ” point. The correspondence we received in answer to our request or recommendation re this vote was“ Re ,£5 voted to yourself as secretary, the Union regrets-more especially as it recognises your whole hearted efforts in the interests of the game—that under the laws of professionalism it cannot sanction this grant. The fact that you acted as a referee during the season absolutely debarred you from receiving any emolument in whatever shape of form.”

The above was the correspondence written on the same sheet as replies to other official correspondence. and I certainly think that when it is remembered this kitars the signature of the Manawatu Rugby Union secretary, with no distinction mark, ray Union were quite within their bounds in contesting the grounds of refusal —‘ ‘ professionalism ’’ —

despite the fact that the chairman of the Manawatu Rugby Union informed last week’s meeting of his officials that nothing appeared on their minute book to show that the “professionalism” argument was ever raised. I firmly believe that the Manawatu Rugby Union S! .™ r Atn.rv must have been ins’r tel to some extent to frame t'»“ correspondence which caused this “ hub-flhb,” and I must apologise to him—than whom no move energetic and experienced secretary there is in the district—f"- bringing the present matte-b-fo-e the public, but I deemed it i\t it:v to defend the action <>i r-h-nnton and myself. It is trim that Mr Manson, the Manawatu Rngbv Union treasurer, informed me "that if the vote was granted the full’amount of ou pnfit would have to pass through his hands, and then the bonus grant, if agreed to, would have to be paid by cheque through the Manawatu Union bankers. I fully recognise this as being business, but the unfortunate part of the affair was that at the time the Manawatu Rugbv Union to Hie bonus on the grounds of “ av-teishon-dism ’’. none of our lnh-i-' was paid over. Hence, whilst awaiting decision on whether the VOtt could be paid as a trophy, I was instructed to with-hold the and pass the remaining credit balance over to Manawatu Union treasurer. Whether we were right in detaining that £5 is open to question, but I presume my sub-uniou were guided by the fact that ‘ ‘ a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush,” and that “possession is nine points of the law.”

However, now that the Manav watu Union have elected to drop the “ proiessionalism ” test, I firmly believe when my sub-union meet on Thnrsday evening next, |hey will be quite content to in-

struct me to hand this balance over to the Manawatu Rugby Union treasury. It seems to me a pity that the point was ever raised, and I firmly believe that if the Manawatu Union had raised more satisfactory aticl definite reasons for not seeing its way clear to acceede to the recommendation of my sub-union, the enmity which exists in Foxton against the socalled “grab-all” poli,cy of our head body (Manawatu Union) would never have gained root. My only hope is that the present difference will be allowed to speedily sink away from the minds of both Foxton and Palmerston enthusiasts. I make this wish in the best interests of both Palmerston and Foxton football, firmly believing that Foxton football is shortly a power to be reckoned with, and for the good of both parties, it would not be well for further differences to arise.

Thanking you for so much space, I am etc., B. G. SUTHERLAND.