THE RUGBY AMALGAMATION.

Shannon News, 2 September 1927, Page 3

THE RUGBY AMALGAMATION.

IS A BREAK IMPENDING? HOROWHENUA DELEGATES WILL DECIDE ON SEPTEMBER 6th. Our Rugby contributor writes ns follows; The statement'by Mr. A . M. Ongley, president of the Combined Manawatu and Horowhenua Unions, in re ference to the unrest that has been simmering at this end of the Union, came up for discussion at the last meeting of the Horowhenua District Council. A lengthy report of the proceedings appeared in last Thursday’s Chronicle and to those who have Horowhenua’s welfare at heart, as far as ■football is concerned, it makes interesting reading, particularly the convincing statement submitted by Mr. Rimmer, treasurer of the Horowhenua Council. This gentleman dealt exhaustively with the subject and ably defended Horowhenua’s present attitude. The secretary, Mr. Casey also made an interesting contribution to the Horowhenua case, and these statements 'will give the average layman an opportunity of finding out for himself, just what is going on behind the scenes. When the amalgamation came into existence there were many who considered that the prosperity of football in Horowhenua had been jeopardized, and now, after three years under the new regime, that feeling has not lessened to any extent; in fact at the present juncture it has been strengthened into a belief that the interests of Horowhenua are slowly becoming submerged under those of Manawatu and will ultimately be totally obscured by the latter. The disclosures made at Tuesday’s meeting of the District Council only go to prove that there ‘ are strong grounds for this impression and the statements by several members at that meeting, clearly indicate that, they are alive to the possibilities of the position and are determined to make every effort within their poAver to preserve HoroAvhelTua’s individual-

ity. Out of two seasons’ experience of the amalgamation, certain out-standing features emerge, and have beeome the grounds for the Horovvhenua conviction that the best interests of Rugby are not being served by the combined Union:

(1) The combined Union refuses to have anything to do with junior and third class representatives —a policy that will be simply suicidal to senior football. (2) The demands made by “big football” on representative players are rapidly killing club competitions in Horowhenua and these competitions are really the essence of Bugby. Weeks of inaction have staled club players and disgusted the football public to enable a long-drawn out series of rep. matches to be played in Palmerston and on tour. (3) Faith has not been kept with Horowhenua in the matter of its due share of representative matches. (4) The Manawatu section of the Union has relied upon 'its majority of one on the Council to impose its •will on the Horowhenua delegates, forgetful of the fact that goodwil 1 is the sole basis upon which the amalgamation can exist. To the casual reader, Mr Ongley ’e statement of the position may appeal quite sound, but to those who have probed more deeply into the vital matler, part 3 of it are very misleading, and, as pointed out by Mr Bimmer. conveys a very inaccurate impression of the actual state of affairs at the time of the amalgamation. The president of the combined Union expressed surprise on hearing that a certain amount of unrest existed throughout this end of the Union’s district. This is difficult to understand, for surely this gentleman, with the rest of the Manawatu delegates, has noticed at the recent meetings of the combined Union that perfect harmony has not reigned during the proceedings; in fact, by their attitude towards certain Horowhenua delegates at those meetings, they have made it appear quite obvious that they fully realised the dissension prevailing. What is the position at these meetings?,- Owing to Manawatu’s preponderance in voting power, whenever a matter of vital importance comes up for decision, tlu presence of the Horowhenua delegates does not count. They might just as well stay away, for the position resolve: itself into a duel, Manawatu v. Horowhenua, and, utilising their majority, th'e former can pit as ? themselves just whichever way they wish to.

In 1926 the combined Union ashed Horowhenua and Manawatu as separate bodies to contribute on a fifty-fifty basis towards the expense of sending a Mana wlienua team on tour. This was ref us ed, and rightly so, for if Horowhenua were good enough for equal financial responsibility surely they were good enough for equal representation!

Another advantage advocated for the amalgamation was that both districts would gam a favourable place in the Kugby world. No doubt Manawatu have achieved this result, but where does Horowhenua come in? How many times does one hear or read of the Manawhenua team being referred to as Manawatu? Very frequently, for it appears that the appellation in many outside circles is simply considered as a glorified name for Manawatu, and in the more distant parts of New Zealand it is not generally known that Horowhenua supplies a good percentage of players to that team. 4 Mr Ongley states that, prior to the amalgamation Manawatu had expended £4BO in sending its representatives on a southern tour and that the combined Union would get the benefit of those return matches, and in addition, would wipe out Horowhenua’s liability to those southern unions. Now what has Horowhenua to do with the expenditure of that money? They did not participate in the tour, and where does their liability come in in respect to return games with Unions they have not yet entered into any obligations with/

If Horowhenua have derived any beneit from the amalgamation it lias not nfide itself evident, and so, after havng been in operation for three years, if he present state of affairs continue, ■nd can be regarded as a criterion, it s mighty difficult to see how it ever vill.

This year's club competition has been milling more nor less than a farce, and vhat promised to be one of the best easons witnessed to. date, was absoutely ruined in the interests of Palnerston. At the end of the first round, vhc-n four senior teams were well in he running, the competition was sustended while half-a-dozen or so of our ending players were'called upon to do iuty in representative games, all playd in Palmerston North, which also neant that those who were loth to miss heir Saturday afternoon’s entertainnent were compelled to expemhanything -p to ten or twelve shillings to see hose games. On top of this these .pecialists, for one can call them nothng else, are grabbed by the combined Jnion and taken on tour, leaving the dub teams in a weakened state. What vas the outcome? Interest lagged jates dropped to zero, and what promsed to be an interesting finish to the •ompetition fizzled out and the Horovhenua District Council were obliged o stage some semblance of a final, but even then the glamour usually attachng to a fixture of this kind was eonpicuous by its absence. This is only tn indication of Avhat will follow and f the amalgamation, as,far as the players is concerned, rests solely on the uobability of the few gaining prominmte at the expense of the hundred-odd ess fortunate, then the sooner it is cast nside the better.

It must not be foigottcn that, in years rone by, whenever Manawatu were enraged in a fixture they thought beyoud hem, they never failed to seek Horovhenua’s assistance on the playing field md it is rather amusing to read in the Palmerston press that a break would be taken philosophically up that way. It undoubtedly appears that now Manawatu’s ambitions have been realised Ilorowhenua, because they have the courage to fight for self-preservation, are going to be politely ignored. However, a meeting of delegates from all clubs under the jurisdiction of the Ilorowhenua District Council has been called for September 6th, when some finality one way or the other should be reached, and the amalgama cion either ended or put on a bams containing more elements of justice and equity than at present.