RUGBY FOOTBALL.

Shannon News, 19 May 1925, Page 3

RUGBY FOOTBALL.

HOROWHiiN UA-MAN AW AT U AMALGAMATION.

The question of the amalgamation of the Horowhenua and Manawatu Unions has been 'brought out into the open—although it cannot be said to have been advanced—-by the report of the Manawatu delegation to the Management Committee of the Union at the beginning of the week. That both Unions are sincere in desiring to arrive at a workable basis appears to be certain, but again it is on the subject of representation on the controlling body that the real difference of opinion becomes apparent. No. 3 clause of Manawatu's proposed basis of amalgamation reads as follows: Personnel of the Union: A president and two vice-presidents and a management committee of 7, to be elected from the office-holders and , management committees of .the Mana- 5 wutu Rugby district a«d the Hojo- , whnua Rugby district at a combined I meeting of both bodies, the presideni to be elected alternately by the respective unions. Each district tu liavo equal representation on the Union, unless the right is waived by either district, except that the treasurer of the Manawatu Rugby district shall bo ex-officio treasurer of the Union. The

secretary of the Manawatu Rugby district shall be ex-officio secretary of the Union. Each official shall have Die right to vote by proxy. Plainly put, this means that each Union .should be represented on the controlling body by four members, the ninth man being the president .of the body, who would be elected year about 'by either Union. So far so good, but over and above this, tbe treasurer and secretary of the Manawatu Union would also be ex-offlcio

(by virtue of their office) members of the body. The'result of the adoption of this, rule, in its present form, w.oulu be, therefore, mat Manawatu would have at all times a majority on uie board of control, this varying irom one iq three, according to which Union held, for the time being the right to elect the president. 'The reason given for this by the Manawatu representatives, at toe conierence between the tw.o unions, was that as Manawatu was the richer union, i.e., as the gates would ne higger, and the greater part of the revenue would be derived from there, they should naturally have -the determining say in the spending 01 that money. On the face of it this argument is sound enough—and one could even safely say that no one in Horowhenua would deny the Manawatu Union the right to. say what will be d°no with their money—but unfortunately tiie preponderance of voting-power, gained for this purpose, may be used towards other ends.

This financial argument, indeed, becomes less weighty when the proposals for the distribution of accumulated finance are. considered. The suggestion made was that all finance from the respective Unions should he controlled .by those bodies separately (acting as it were under the auth : oiity of the central body) and should be used for the. promotion of Rugbjf within the bounds of their districts! uiily after all cluh requirements were rilled, the surplus funds might he devoted, at the d'scretion of the conftrolling body, to assisting any less fortunate part of the composite union. In other words, although the clubs of the Manawatu Union might get better gates than those in Horowhenua, the money could not he devoted to assisting Horowhenua, untu all legitimate requirements in Manawatu were filled. This, of course, does not affect the financing of touring teams which would be done from a central fund.

Surely this should be sufficient safeguard in this direction. What would be the object of hoarding up the money if there was no use for it in the Manawatu? And only when such need ceased to exist would it be devoted to relieving' the necessities of the' poorer sub-union. And, after all, to look at the matter oi the amalgamation from a purely pecuniary point of view, is surely- not the spirit of the great body of Rugby players and supporters in the Unions concerned. It is sale to « ;i y that' it there were no other motive than increased gate-money offered, the suggested amalgamation would not be tolerated for a moment in rtorowhenua; the fact that the question of representation has been the stuinbmgblock all along, is sufficient, evidence of this. What Horowhenua wants is an improved standard, of representative football, arid to get this it is unfortunately (the word is used advisedly)—unfortunately necessary to amalgamate with Manawatu. But m order to secure to the players of the Horowhenua, the certainty that they will receive equal consideration with those of the Manawatu, it is necessary that a sufficiently strong representation should be. present on the controlling body. It is safe to say that the great body of the players of .the Horowhenua Union—and they are the men who are entitled to La heard on this subject will say to e who control the destinies of the Union, on the occasion when the question comes up for settlement: "Make what arrangements you will about the Manawatu gate-money—give it all to them if you will—but see to it that the principle ipf adequate representation is maintained."