FAIRNESS TO HOROWHENUA.

Shannon News, 26 August 1927, Page 4

FAIRNESS TO HOROWHENUA.

RUGBY COUNCIL ASKS FOR JUSTICE. OBJECTION TAKEN TO PUBLISHED STATEMENTS. PALMERSTON PAPERS AND UNION PRESIDENT CRITICISED. Indignation ruled at the meeting of the management committee of the Horowhenua Rugby District Council, in Levin on Tuesday evening, when comments on the dispute with the Manawhenua Rugby Union were quoted from both the Palmerston diaily papers. The interview given by Mr. M. A. Ongley, president of the combined Union, to a Standard reporter, reprinted in the Chronicle on Saturday last, was replied to at considerable length by Mr. J. W. Rimmer, treasurer of the Council, after an explanation of the .relations of the two bodies by Mr. J. Casey, Council secretary. A commentary in the Manawatu Daily Times also came in for criticism, and at the close of the discussion a resolution was passed calling Mr. Ongley and the two papers to task.

-"I 3uppose you have all seen this statement of Mr. Ongley's," said Mr. Rimmer. "It states, 'lt comes as a surprise to Manawatu.' I would like to ask the delegates to the combined Union if the Union have not recognised that there has been a certain amount of dissatisfaction and unrest at this end of the district." The Chairman (Mr J. J. O'Connor): As far as I am concerned, there has been no dissatisfaction expressed by the delegates on the combined Union to that Union this season. SECRETARY'S EXPLANATION. The secretary (Mr. J. Casey): I am glad to have this opportunity of saying that I have been very pleased with the manner in which I have received the backing of this Council after bringing up some matters to the combined Union. Some time previous to July 16th, you requested that cer fain matters be brought before them witli the idea of improving our relations with that body. Four of the members wrote out a request for a special general meeting, which was forwarded to the secretaiy of the combined Union, and in due course a meeting was called for the object set out in that letter. That letter certainly had at the end of it a note that we thought there was room for improvement, and that improvement would probably result in greater confidence between the two Councils. When the mattt'i came before the combined Union, it was laid before them. Before the meeting, I spoke to the president, Mr. Ongley, and mentioned the lines on which I intended to go and let him know Avhat our position was. in the meeting I told him that there was dissatisfaction at this end, an-1 told him plainly the lines on which we people were objecting to combined Union control. The members present must have recognised from what 1 said that we here were not satisfied with the way things were being controlled. No one who was there could come away without knowing .that I, at any rate, and those connected with me that night, received a very severe rebuff, and also a very discourteous one, at the hands of three executive members of the Manawhenua Union. The matter that I brought forward was brought forward from this Council, and when I had stated the case the Chairman said he was sure that I did not have the backing of my Council, and he enlarged on that. Then there was another matter —and this hurt me too. In the letter setting forth the objects of the meeting, we requested that the finances of the combined Union be considered. The secretary, who is not employed by the Manawhenua Union, but who is an officer of the Manawatu District Council, was appointed by that Council as an officer of the combined Union. We have no power to dismiss him; his bosses are the Manawatu District Council, and, being human, he does nothing to offend them. In regard to this matter of the finances, in a manner that was not very pleasing, he said, when the letter came in, "I thought you meant that you wanted the control of the finances at your end." I would have thought that their treasurer would have something definite prepared in the way of figures, for the meeting. The treasurer came in late, and when asked about it by the Chairman he treated it in an off-hand manner, and said "When it began there was abcut £l5O, I suppose there is about the same now." I took it then as an insult; it was a slight on this Council. Mr. Ongley knew from that meeting that there was dissatisfaction here. I told him very plainly what we complained of. The idea was that we considered that things could be righted in a measure, and it would be for the good of football right throughout the district. We were not just working for something for ourselves, but realised that what would benefit a small part of the Union would benefit the whole. I thought we would receive some assistance inside the Union to right these maters, but instead of that we received a very severe rebuff. I want to give Mr. Ongley's statement j a very emphatic denial. He loses no j chance to get one on to me. He levelled another at me by saying that that matter was not brought forward to the combined Union. I mentioned it before the last combined Union meeting, held here —and it was only fair to | let him know what was coming on. It does affect me to hear that this matter came as a surprise. He made the statement that I should have the support of my Council. In fairness to me, I think he will now withdraw, through the Press, what he has said. It is due to me, as a member for this part of the district, to say that. At that meeting, I said we were willing to put in so much—about £75 a year— if Manawatu were willing to do the same, to strengthen the finances of that Union. I also brought up the question of junior football and rep. games, so he was in a position to know

that all was not well at this end. It was a great slight to me when I read this —that it came as a surprise. They treat us as though we were nothing. They can afford to do it, being in the position of having the majority, and they seem to go on the doctrine that might is right. I would say to them that Manawatu are still going on the same lines as when they were a union. Their greatest aim then was to flirt with the larger unions, and they made, themselves jokes with their mates, the minor unions. They are still on the same business. To those who say that Manawatu is better without Horowhenua I will say that Horowhenua would be better without Manawatu.

The Chairman: Seeing that this will be gone over at the special meeting of the Council, I don't think any discussion will do any good at this stage; though I agree with Mr. Casey in his statement.

Mr. Rimmer: I don't hold that view. Mr. Ongley has thought fit to make certain definite, specific charges, and I think those charges want answering, because he admits that he was not on the combined body when it came into being, and from his statement it is quite clear that he does not know too much about Manawatu's requirements, and knows very much less about Horowhenua's. , *

Mr. Robson: Hear, hear. SOME FACTS FOR PALMERSTON. Continuing, Mr. Rimmer said: The statements that are here under the heading of "Early History" (Standard interview) are very misleading. Mr Ongley states that at that time Horowhenua had been -in a critical position financially and unable to raise funds' sufficient to enable the union to send their representatives on tour and thus repay the visits which they had owed. He also said that in the season immediately prior to the amalgamation materialising, Manawatu had expended £4BO on a southern tour and had agreed to give the new body the benefit of those matches in respect to the return games and thereby wipe out Horowhenua's liability to those southern unions.

A member: And keep the gate them selves.

Mr. Rimmer: The thing is entirely untrue.. The southern games that the combined Union offered to us were South Otago and Canterbury. Did Horowhenua even play a game against any of them? The Chairman: Not in my recollection.

Mr. Rimmer: There are two games that we play in the South Island only —Nelson and Golden Bay. To Oolden Bay we owe a game; but I venture to state that Manawhenua —as they are termed —would never honour that game, for the simple reason that they would deem it "infra dig" for them to play such a minor union. They are out for the big stuff only. Can it be truthfully stated that they put those games in so that Horowhenua could repay their obligations? Absolutely no! ' They put them in for this only —that they recognised and told us, vime and again, that they wanted to ])e "in the sun." They wanted to be on the map of New Zealand football. They wanted our assistance. We played Southland in 1925, and one or two other games that year, and did very little good. The following season we did very much better—we never lost, a game. This season we have been successful in obtaining the Eanfurly Shield; but I want to know, what benefit is that to Horowhenua? Can anyone point to one iota of benefit to this end of the combined Union? THE FINANCIAL POSITION.

Mr. Ongley makes a statement, (Mr Rimmer added) that we were in very critical financial circumstances when this amalgamation was mooted, and that in view of those critical circumstances they took into consideration the position in which we were. We have never asked for an amalgamation. The amalgamation has been worked for by Palmerston North every time —never by Horowhenua. I say this, that inasmuch as Manawatu had been seeking amalgamation from time immemorial, it proves .conclusively that we were a better bargain to Manawatu than they were to Horowhenua. With regard to the real position of our little union before we became associated with this t big boost: In 1924 we finished with a ! credit balance of £22 3s lOd—that was the year immediately prior to amalgamation. In 1925 what position did we find ourselves in? (Laughter.) That is what I am goiifg to ask Mr Ongley. Our books will tell the story and prove I ft, never mind what Mr Ongley knows I can show him something that he does not know. Our liabilities were £lO5 13s 2d, and the cash in the bank to meet them was £2l 19s 4d, leaving £B3 13s lid debit balance. That was the position after we amalgamated. Whether it is attributable to the fact that we were assaciated with them, I leave that —I am not discussing it. In 1926 we had a very much better position. We cleaned up the whole of that debit balance, and finished with a credit of £94 4s lid. Now Mr Ongley has the audacity to say that the improved position of this District Council is due to the fact that we amalgamated —or he infers so. How did we come to improve the position from 1925 to tho >-nd of 1926? The way we improved that position was not by the existence of Manawatu or the combined Union As a matter of faQt, at the end of 1925, when we recognised that we were so far behind, we went to Manawatu and asked them, not for a gift, but a loan in order to meet our obligations, and we would settle that account the following year. Each and every one of as pledged oarselves to meet it. What did Manawatu do with us? They said, "No, no; that is your business, gentlemen. You have got to see that out" —and they left us to it. What happened in 1926? This happened: The} wanted tc go for a tour. There was no motion moved, but this Council was approached to advance a loan to Manawatu in order to send the combined iei-s. away. If we had granted that loan, Manawatu would have been approached. If Manawatu have not been able to carry the combined Union in spite of the games they have put in, we have been able to supply them with nlayeis; but they not only want players—they want fifty-fifty cash to carry on the combined Union. It may be different now that they have the Ran-

furly Shield—if they stick to it. (Laughter). It Is quite evident that that credit balance is not due to Manawatu. What is it duo to? That balance "is due to the Management Committee of the Horowhenua District Council, the chairman included. As a matter of fact he and this executive went around this union at their own expense, taking the gates and assuring the Council that everything was coming to the Council; and' the delegates on this Council brought in our rep. players to practise and took our rep. players to play away, at their own expense. No charge was placed against this District Council, and consequently the proud position in j which we finished at the end of 1926 j was due entirely to the pockets of the , representatives of; this Council. . In 1927 our total receipts, right up to Saturday last, amounted to £543 8s 3d. 1 will deduct from that the amount of gate money that has been received from the Bebbington Shield and the MaoriPakeha game. The amount of the gate receipts from those games this season was £156 6s 6d. This leaves us with total receipts, without those of £387 Is 9d for this season. Our total expenses this year have been £407 17s sd. Consequently our expenses have been greater to the extent of £l9 4s 4d. True, our expenses would not have been so high had we not played the Bebbington Shield games, but our income would have been affected considerably—£loo. When you come to look at those expenses this year, and the receipts, excluding the Bebbington Shield and the Maori-Pa-keha match, which are our own games, it means that the Council in that season would be in a very precarious position. There has not been one of our Bebbington Shield matches, except Oroua, that we could play on a Saturday, and so we have lost at least £l5O on those gates. The last club gate we had in Levin was 19s, last Saturday. The club gate before that, in Levin, was £3 15s, and the gate before that was just short of £5. Our gates for the first half of this season were anything. The first game vras nearly £B, and we were up to £2O. I maintain that, had our club games been played this year, we would have been seeing £3O to £35 gates.in Levin, because football Avas keen to the end of the first round. There were tour teams in it, if we could have put the teamsMn the field, but the result of the combined games has been to knock the heart out of players and supporters alike; and if this is going to go on for many\years as it has done this year, you may as Avell shut the shop -—and Manawatu will shut the shop for vou, and Mr Ongley can quote that it is another signature that is against the combined Union. Unfortunately the two signatures to amalgamation were two that were up against the combined Union, but it did not prevent us making the combined Union a success; and had not Manawatu been so parochial, there is no question everything would have been happy. They don't want juniors, thirds or schoolboys, but the big stuff every time. It is only a matter of three years, and I think "there will be no more big stuff. General applause followed Mr Rimmer's remarks; and on the motion of Mr M. Ryder, seconded by Mr T. Wrigley, he was accorded a vote of thanks for the full verbal statement he had ' SUPPLEMENTARY OPINIONS.

Mr Rimmer said there was one portion of the Standard's aiticle to which he would like the Council to reply. It was not Mr Ongley's statement, but news following it which set out that the general opinion appeared to be that, while a breach would be unfortunate, it would be prefera/ble for Manawatu to return to its former status of a separate union; that Horowhenua had for some years past been carried along on the shoulders of Jacob as far as representative football was concerned; and that should he drop out of the game, the southerners would be a totally different force. The Chairman: The position is that you will be going over the same ground at the special meeting. Mr Rimmer: But you want to ventilate it.

The chairman suggested that the arti cle be ignored. THE TIMES' CRITICISM.

Mr Richards said there were some statements published in the Manawatu Daily Times on Saturday, which were contrary to fact, regarding this dispute. The Council ought to answer them; they were quite misleading, not only to the Manawhenua Rugby Union, but to the public of Palmerston North He produced a cutting of the article, which is reprinted in these columns. Mr Robson: They forget that one tine last year there were nine from Horowhenua, as against six from Manawatu.

Mr Eichards: It says that Horowhenua never travelled farther than Wangauui. It also refers to Jacob. The chairman remarked that, except for the statements put forward by Mr Casey and Mr Rimmer, the dispute should be held over for the special general meeting. Mr Rimmer: I felt that it was. impossible to let Mr Oaglcy's statement go without being challenged.

With reference to the Times article, Mr Casey said, "I think that reporters who are still in their swaddling clothes should find out the history of these unions. With regard to Horowhenua never having sent a team further north than Wanganui, they have been to Tpu hnjpe. They have also travelled to Hawkes Bay and Wairarapa. In 1914 they were beaten in Taranaki for the Ranfurly Shield, by a small margin. The Times says: 'What is the matter with the Horowhenua delegates on the Union?' and states that on many occasions the voting has' been mixed. When a matter comes up like whether we shall play Wanganui, there may be niixod voting. When there is a matter affecting Horowhenua as against Manawatu, the voting has been definite — Manawatu v." Horowhenua. We show- ' d that twice at the last meeting we had here. It is not worth the benzine, going up to Palmerston. If you nave anything you think vital, you are .nit voted and you have not n. chauce at all on it. It is certainly wrong to say the voting is always mixed. It is vital when you come to the treasurer's vote.

MOTION OF CENSURE. Mr Robson; I think we should pass

a resolution that we deplore the fact that the public have been so misled by these reports. It is a long shot at this Council, and I don't think we should pull the delegates into assisting us in replying to this particular report. . I am of the opinion that we should be strong-minded enough to reply to it now. He moved:—

That this Council deplore the fact that the public have been misled to such an extent by the statement made by Mr Ongley to a Standard reporter, and by the reports published in the Manawatu Daily Times and the Standard, concerning Horowhenua's position iu the combined Union.

The motion was seconded by Mr Richards, who said, "If we Kid had reports like that about tee Manawatu Council in our local paper, we would never have heard the last of it."

The resolution was passed unanimously.