RUGBY CONTROL.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3532, 2 September 1926, Page 2

RUGBY CONTROL.

FOX TON'S SECESSION OPPOSED BY HOROWHENUA UNION.

The Management Committee of the Horowhenua.. District Rugby Council met in Levin on Tuesday evening, Mr .J. O’Connor presiding. Also present were Messrs J. Rinnner, W. Hannan, M. Winiata, F. Robinson, W. N. Anderson, Wl Neville, IT. G. McDonald, N. Emmett, J. Proctor, and J. Casey (secretary).

The resolution that the Foxton Football Club make representations to the Cominbed Union to have the present boundaries between Horowhenua and Manawatu Unions altered by making the Manawatu River the boundary between the two Unions, passed unanimously at a special general meeting held last Monday was submitted to the meeting.

Many strong remarks of condemnation at such a movement preceded the remarks of the chairman when he said: “This looks to me like a blow to our status. If we give in to Foxton and allow them to go we might as well shut our doors and go out of football. Shannon, for instance, might say the same thing!”

Mr Robinson: I believe the facts are these: They say they can’t travel on account of flood waters. That argument is easily exploded. In the first place Awahou juniors fulfilled every obligation asked of them, and so have Foxton’s thirds and fourths. Yet the Foxton Club says it can’t travel on account of floods, but we know different. Awahou are perfectly satisfied. If you allow Foxton to go to Manawatu, what will you do wit'll Awahou? This sort of thing isn’t going to do much good for the union.

Mr Casey moved: That this Council will not countenance any alteration in the boundaries, as defined by the rules of the Combined Union. Mr Casey said that at the annual meeting of the Combined Union the secretary (Mr J. B. Proud) had made it very plain that the Combined Union would have no conversation with any particular blub, but that all matters must go through the district council. Of course, there were exceptions, but the rules were so laid out.

Mr Proctor seconded the motion, and expressed strong disapproval of Foxton’s attitude.

“For what did we amalgamate ” asked Mr Rimmer. “For no other purpose than the betterment of football in both districts. Boundaries had been declared and these could not be altered unless the Horowhenua Union said: ‘We don’t want Foxton.’ Manawatu could not be permitted to encroach on Horowhenua, which would 'certainly not permit itself to poach upon Manawatu’s ground (Hear, hear). Mr Robinson remarked that if Foxton were allowed to go, Tokomaru and Shannon also might make similar requests and Horowhenua would he in danger of losing its birthright (Hear, bear). Since the amalgamation the two Councils — Horowhenua and Manawatu —had pulled well together, their efforts being crowned with success and it would be a pity to 'cause a rupture because one team tried to pull out. The spcnker was certain that not for one moment would Manawatu entertain the application.

Mr Anderson made the observation that Foxton had cited travelling as one of the reasons for changing. Well, if they did go over to Manawntu the team would find it had to travel to Woodville, 30 miles, Palmerston North, 22 miles, and Feilding, further on, several times in succession. They would not have games so close handy as now. Mr Robinson: If the junior teams travel, why can’t the seniors? Mr O’Connor: The real grievance seems to he that we won’t make the punt reliable (Laughter). Seeing we haven’t any jurisdiction over the Horowhenua County Council, or the punt, then Foxton has no good grievance.

Mr Anderson: Other teams get over when the punt isn’t working. If the boys can travel, so can the seniors.

Mr Neville: The trouble is that there are three or four taxis only ift the town. There are motor lorries which must not travel without licenses, etc. This makes it expensive for players to travel by taxi, except when the lorries ‘ are going. Anyway the traffic “cop” at Foxton seems to be blind. (Laughter). The motion, on being put to the meeting, was unanimously carried.,