REPLY FROM HOME

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 13 January 1931, Page 4

REPLY FROM HOME

1 1 — THAT CANCELLED MATCH BRITISH RUGBY UNION’S EXPLANATION LETTER. TO PROGRESS LEAGUE The Nelson Progress League received by this morning’s mail a reply from the Secretary of the British Rugby Union in regard to the League’s action when the British Rugby touring, team’s match at Nelson was cancelled. The letter was as follows : “I received your letter of the 25th September 1930 with reference to the British Rugbv Team not fulfilling the fixture set out by the New Zealand Rugbv Union for the 12th August 1930. From the date (16th August, 1929) of receiving the proposed itinerary from the New Zealand Rugby Union my Committee strongly disapproved of a fixture necessitating a double sea journey to Nelson at the end of the tour and immediately preceding the sea journey to Australia. It was considered unfair. to ask our players to undertake the sea trip to Nelson at that period. “The itinerary was never approved of bv my Committee as it .was considered too heavy a programme, and on receipt of it a suggested alternative itinerary was forwarded to the New Zealand Rugby Union on 22nd October, K 29. [n ’the alternative itinerary the fixture with Nelson-Marlborough-Golden Bay was put down to be played at Nelson on Saturday, 28th June. 1 mention this to show that the Rugby Union were desirous of visiting and playing a match at Nelson, but as the New Zealand Rugby Union ignored the suggested itinerary we insisted the match should be scratched for the reasons given. We therefore cabled to the New Zealand Rugby Union on the 31st March as follows :—‘DLT Rugby Wellington. Letter 4th February just received. Disappointed departure Bth August Australia disregarded. Must definitely decline -Nelson match after final test, Request early cable matches arranged in Australia cannot agree seven matches, including three tests in time allotted there. Names team posted. Scrummage.’ “No replies to this cable were received and Mr Baxter was given authority to act for the Rugby Union, and instructions were given to him to_ cancel the match at Nelson if no action, on his arrival at Wellington, had been taken bv the New Zealand Rugby Union. “It would appear that the _ Nelson Rugby Union had never been given any information by the New Zealand Rugby Union of our decision to cancel the fixture, and under the circumstances no responsibility can be attached to the attitude of our manager. , “We also requested the New Zealand Rugby Union to limit the number of matches to nineteen, as originally agreed to, to enable a longer stay in Australia and this was again ignored. “Your Provincial Progress League have our sincere assurances that there were never any other reasons than those stated for our wishing to cancel the match, and the whole responsibility must entirely rest with the New Zealand Rugby Union. “I hope you will therefore accept the explanation given, and any further correspondence,' if necessary, should be with the New Zealand Rugbv Union. “I have had interviews with the High Commissioner, Sir T. M. Wilford, and fully explained the situation.