NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION.

Shannon News, 4 August 1922, Page 3

NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION.

FOOTBALL AMALGAMATION Proposal,

SCHEME TO BE DRAWN UP. A meeting of delegates from tlie iootball clubs in the Horowhenua Rugby Union’s district was held in Levin on Tuesday for the purpose of discussing the proposed amalgama* tion of tli a Manawatu and Horowhenua Unions. Mr J. W. Procter, vicepresident of the Union, presided in the absence of the president (Mr E. Nash), and the clubs represented were: Tokomaru, Shannon, Foxton, Wanderers, Weraroa, Rovers, District High School (Levin), Training Farm, Kuku, Otaki, Hui Mai, Otaki Old Boys and Paraparaunyi. v The chairman stated the purpose of the meeting was known to the delegates, and the secretary would further outline the scheme.

The secretary (Mr L. S. Carmichael) then read the proposals which had been circulated among the clubs for consideration, as follows: (1) The combined Union to be called the Manawatu-Horowheriua Union. (2) Allocation of rep games: Two of the combined games in the north to one in the south. (3) A similar insurance scheme. (4) Annual general meetings: To be held in Palmerston and Levin alternately each year. .(5) Finance: All finance to be pooled, Manawatu having over £6OO, Horowhenua about £2O, each division to work on an imprest account for the season. (6) Club fixtures: Each division to control its own club fixtures as at present, the winning teams of each grade in each division to play off alternately in the north and south. (7) An equal representation on the combined Union executive committee. Speaking to the proposals, Mr Carmichael stated that the benefits were that Manawatu had £6OO in cash, and was arranging a tour of the South Island next year if the amalgamation was brought about. The scheme would allow of our players getting into big football and coming under the eyes of the New Zealand selectors, together with a larger number of rep. matches as a result of the return matches from the South Island tour. Rules would be compiled to safeguard the Horowhenua Union’s interests. Mr W. Moynihan (Shannon): Whose suggestions are these? Mr Carmichael: Horowhenua’s. Mr F. D. Whibley (Foxton): Are there any in wriling from Manawatu? Mr Carmichael; No. Mr Whibley considered it a mistake! to have called the meeting unless there were proposals to put before it from Manawatu. Mr Grimstone (Shannon) said it was stated in the proposals that the rep. matches would be played in each district, two in the north to one in the south. Would not the New Zea-

land Union fix the location of some of the matches? The suggested arrangement would not, therefore, work in all cases.

Mr Carmichael said he took it the suggestion applied to the matches in which the combined Unions would have the fixing of the location. In reply to Mr H. Karauti. (Kuku), Mr Carmichael stated that the Manawatu delegates came down to Levin about three weeks ago, and tbe above suggestions were put. forward to Manawatu. Nothing was put in writing by Manawatu.

Mr Karauti asked what ground they had to work on, seeing there was no correspondence. Mr Carmichael explained that the Management Committee would not take anything definite on its own shoulders, but decided to call the delegates together to see if there were any further proposals forthcoming. After these hcl been considered they were to confer again with Manawatu.

The chairman, in reply to Mr J. J. O’Connor (Weraroa) said he considered the clubs would be circularised again after this meeting to go into any further proposals made. Mr Guy (Tokomaru) thought the meeting was going the wrong way about the business. Some proposal should be put before the meeting bearing on the question, eo that they could discuss it.

Mr F. Marryatt (Boys’ Training Farm) said in order to put the matter on a proper footing he would move: “That this meeting is in favour of an amalgamation with Manawatu, provid'd a suitable agreement can be come to with the Manawatu Union.”

This was seconded by Mr Guy. The chairman said he took it if an agreement was come to between the Unions it would be submitted to the clubs for approval before being adopted. Delegates: Yes.

Mr McLean (Paraparaumu),said his club discussed the proposal the previous evening, and were in favour of it. There appeared to be nothing to lose and,all to gain by the amalgama-

tion, and he and his. fellow delegate were instructed to vote for it. Mr Guy considered the Management Committee made; a mistake in not having the Manawatu delegates there chairman. said the ..combined Unions that night, ■ The Manawatu Union was. strong financially, haying a fund of i £6OO, and if they had. been represented Horowhenua would know exactly how the Manawatu. delegates ■were' inclined to the proposal. Mr Carmichael explained that when the.Manawatm delegates came to Levin they stated they understood Horowhenua’s ■ financial position, but were-quite prepared to go on, as they •considered great- benefits would fie got by raising the status of the combined Union. We would get first-class Unions to come here, which we have no chance of doing at present, and pointed to the showing of the combined team against the Springboks. 'Mr M. Winiata (Levin) said Manawatu had asked for the Horowhenua proposals, as above, and these hau been accepted as agreeable to them.

The chairman: We understood That Manawatu brought some proposals, now it seems they are Horowhenna’s. Mr W. Thomson (Weraroa) slated that the Manawatu Union had made inquiries, and the general opinion in Palmerston was that amalgamation would be .beneficial to their district. The conditions;were left to us to pul before our delegates, and were' also taken back by Manawatu. He thought v Manawatu’s offer was a # good one, ! and ir would practically mean that they would finance the southern tour next year. Neither Manawatu nor Horcwhenua looked like rising to metropolitan status as tiiev were, but this would be accomplished by com✓billing; and give our players a chance they would not get otherwise in big football.

Mr W. Moyniliau complained again that, the delegates had insufficient information to work on. The meeting should appoint a committee to go into the matter.

Mr Whibley maintained that Manawatu should have come along with a definite scheme. It was hardly the thing for the Managetnen I Committee to put the delegates t.o the expense oj coming to Levin lo discuss its own proposals. Personally he did not think Manawatu would consider these proposals for a minute. The two Unions should - meet, and draw up a scheme. He moved an amendment tfrat. the meeting .regrets that, the Management, Committee should have called the delegates together without some concrete proposals re the amalgamation scheme, and until something is forthcoming-in that direction the matter bet shelved.

I Mr Mason (Shannon) seconded the amendment for the reason that the proposals before the meeting were not a business propost ion in their present form. The Management Committee should have met Manawatu and formed a complete scheme. The statement that Manawatu. would put £6OO into the scheme sounded all right, but was Manawatu fishing tor something? Mr Grimstone thought some of the speakers were taking an uncharitable view of Manawatu's attitude, and until they got. further information .they should give Manawatu the benefit ol what it had done. (Hear, hear.) Mr J. Bebbingkm (Levin) said it was a big proposal, and the clubs should have had more time to discuss ii, -so .that, the delegates could come there and give the feeling of their clubs. However, Horowhenua had nothing io lose by the amalgamation, which, from a business point of view, seemed all right.

Mr Guy said he did not -see why the two Unions could, not draw up a scheme and then submit it to the clubs.

Mr R. W. Percy (Rovers) remarked that Horowheuua might have to go into Manawatu without any conditions at all.

Mr , Carmichael, referring to Mr Percy's remark, read a letter from >the'New Zealand Union, which stated that, to make representation on that 'body more equitable, it might he necessary to make alterations in the boundaries of districts, and merge one Union with another in cases where this was necessary. Mr Whibley did not consider Horowhenua would'be wiped out, seeing that the Union had stated that live qew Unions had recently been formed.

Mr Mason inquired if Mr Marryatt’s motion meant the setting up of a commiOtee to meet) Manawatu and form a contract, and put the matter on a business basis.

Mr Marryatt pointed out. that, his notion was to find out whether the meeting favoured amalgamation or hot. Other points could he left to the Unions.

Mr Whibley: Manawatu should send proposals down. Mr W. Sevan (Hui Mai) stated if Mr. Whibley was acting in the interests of football he would have brought the matter up at the Management Committee and . put ..it in concrete form. . . -

Mr WJiibley: My influence, on the Management. Committee is as 7 to‘2 or 8 to 1- At tlie last two meetings the committee had other matters before itReplying to Mr ..urimstoue, the could* challenge tor the Ranfuriy Shield. Mr Grim stone: ’I. imt .b; urgs our foothaliers into Hie, limelight, t as it should he. •. , The chaiimaii oit this was not tiie first amalgampiion proposal with Manawatu. The -Urnon.-, had eombin* i*d several years ago. null had /played a-match.- making a profit, of 1130. The next game wa* with Taranaki, 'but itie Horowhenim players .could not get away owing to an epidemic of .sickness, and .Manawatu went • alone. The scheme dm not go any iurllier, hut Horowheima got 00 share ot the £3O. As regards the, pic-, sent proposal, hr would lie sorry il Horowhenua lost prestige by it. J!e thought the Unions should meet and draft proposals lor the delegates to consider.

Mr O’Connor'said he had a further amendment to propose, which he would submit alter the amendment, had been disposed of.

Mr Mason suggested that Mr O’Connor submit his amendment, as it might he a solution of .the position. Mr O’Connor then moved that- it be a recommendation to the Management Committee of the Rugby Union to set up a small committee to meet the committee of the Manawatu Union to draw up a definite scheme, to be submitted to all clubs in this Union, the clubs to be given ample time to discuss same.

This was seconded by. Mr- W. Moynihan ,

Mr Whiblev thereupon withdrew his amendment, and Mi O’Connor’s proposition was put and carried.