LEAGUE SENSATION

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 38, 7 May 1927, Page 1

LEAGUE SENSATION

THE ILL-FATED TOUR

MR. PONDER HITS OUT

“BACK TO THE WALL”

A sensational element has been introduced into the controversy over the New Zealand League team’s tour arising out of the statements made by Sir. E. L. McKeon, the Canterbury delegate, in Christchurch. Sir. G. H. Ponder, one of the joint managers of the tour, stated to a SUN representative last night that he felt impelled, in self-defence, to reply to the allegations that had been made*. Statements in support of the manager’s control of the tour are also made by members of the team, who were interviewed last flight.

"I arn disappointed and surprised with Mr. McKeon breaking faith with the New Zealand Council,” said Mr. Ponder, “as all inquiries were held in committee. It is therefore not surprising that his remarks are inaccurate and, in fact, could almost be termed slanderous.” “I have attempted at all times to keep faith with the wish of the majority of the New Zealand Council. I feel that I have now my back to the wall and must therefore in my own personal interest make a statement. For Mr. McKeon’s accusations that I thought that a Sunday-school class on a picnic was on the same plane as a team of footballers, is ludicrous in the extreme. For one thing, the question was never asked. Anyhow, be they Sunday-school children or virile footballers, the least that could be expected of them was to play the game in the best interests of New Zealand and the good name of Rugby League footballers. “NO BAG-CARRYING” “As to the matter of carrying the bags, this is absolutely incor-

rect, for taxis were hired, and there was only one occasion when there was not a taxi, and that was when the car had broken down. For Mr. McKeon to say there were no specific charges in the managers’ report is nonsense. He must have been asleep, for they were spoken of in a general manner throughout. “It is interesting to note that Mr. McKeon very shrewdly started his attacks as regards the position in the middle of the strike, for be it known that a strike had taken place twice previously.” PLAYERS SUPPORT MANAGER In support of what he had said, Mr. Ponder referred to three members of the touring team who were present at the interview, viz., C. E. Gregory, J. Parkes and L. Brown. The interview was as follows: Mr. Ponder: Did the seven disqualified men strike at any time while on the tour in England? Mr. Gregory: Yes, certainly. They went on strike three times. First, shortly after arriving in England, when three or four players got into a “holt” with Mr. Mair and refused to play. The English League then arbitrated and after a while the thing was washed out and the men took the field again. A week or two later and the same trouble cropped up again. Again they refused to play. Once more the English League stepped in and this time Mr. Mair voluntarily stood down for one month, he himself stating that at the end of that time he would come in again. He was accepted. But as soon as he did actually come in and take control the troublesome players refused point blank to play. NOTICES TORN DOWN

Matters now looked bad and the next step on the part of the managers was to put up a notice to the effect that any player in the team in future refusing to play would have-his out-of-pocket expenses stopped. Upon this the mentioned players in a body refused to play. The notice was ripped and torn around as soon as it was put up. Mr. Ponder: To the best of your knowledge, did I ever lock out these players? . Mr. Gregory: No, not as far as I know.

Mr. Ponder: In your opinion, did 1 at any time do anything to hinder the success of the tour in the interests of the game itself and New Zealand? Mr. Gregory: Certainly not,

Mr. Ponder: Were you ever ordered to carry bags to the station? Mr. Gregory: No. Mr. Ponder: Did you consider it reasonable that the players should go to bed at night at eleven o’clock? Mr. Gregory: Yes. It was absolutely essential, especially when there was a game to be played on the following day. After all, we were in training. ASKED FOR INQUIRY Mr. Ponder continued: “With regard to the tour as a whole I wish to state that in the first instance on my return to New Zealand I stated that I wished to have an open inquiry. “Having learned that the New Zealand Council desired to hold the official inquiry into the conduct of the tour in camera, and further that the seven players concerned were to have counsel, I obtained tfie advice of my solicitor, Mr. Newberry, and acting on my behalf, he requested, before the start of the preliminary inquiry into the behaviour of these men, that such inquiry be held in open meeting. “The result of that meeting was the disqualification for life of the seven players in question. “During the meeting, however, the strikers’ counsel, Mr. Inder, threatened myself with court proceedings, in connection with the managers’ report. The next evening at an ordinary meeting of the New Zealand Council certain members demanded the meeting to be held in the “open.” On principle, and demanding consistency, besides protection from the New Zealand Council in view of Mr. Inder’s remarks, I refused to read the managers’ report in the open, and when further pressed said I would tear my report up first. Proof that there were members antagonistic to the managers was borne out by one member leaving the room.” “The New Zealand Council then went into camera again. After reading the managers’ report, the meeting was adjourned for four days. At the subsequent meeting the managers were cross-examined for nearly four hours on their conducting of the tour. At the conclusion of the examination the council passed a resolution of appreciation and confidence in the managers. They also set up a committee to edit the managers’ report for publication in the local papers. “The sub-committee eventually reported to the New Zealand Council that the report was ._ready for publication, and the coLincil decided to publish same, provided always that the press published all and not onl?/ part of the report. A sub-committee was set up to bring this into effect.

“PUBLICATION NOT DESIRABLE” “At the next meeting of the council, at which unfortunately I was not present, being away in Wellington, this sub-committee reported that they had submitted the report to the New Zealand Council’s solicitors, who ha.d recommended to them to advise the council that it was not desirable for the league to publish the report. This recommendation was given effect to. “At the annual meeting of the New Zealand Council, at which direct delegates present from all leagues, the meeting went into camera to discuss the report again. In my opinion no good could be obtained by this further discussion in camera, as the New Zealand Council had already finalised the matter by the resolution stated above, and it only meant satisfying the curiosity of direct delegates as they in their turn had their hands tied, and consequently should not be able to discuss matters at their various centres. It is interesting to note that I was not a voting member of he council at the annual meeting, the direct delegate taking my place. I therefore could not protest against the action of the New Zealand Council in refraining from published the report as promised. Neither did I have a voice in connection with the resolution sending the council ‘into camera.’ “In conclusion, as I am honour-bound to respect the rulings of the majority of the New Zealand Council, while a member of '’’at body my only method of stating / e above position to the public—anu this is necessary in justice to myself—Was to resign my position as the South Auckland delegate, and to take steps to publicly reply to the allegations that were made against me.”