That Residential Ban

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 80, 25 June 1927, Page 1

That Residential Ban

English Rugby League’s Breach of Agreement With Dominions

N.Z. COUNCIL’S OFFICIAL STATEMENT

THE recent action of the English Rugby League in lifting the ban which required that players of New Zealand and Australia could not obtain transfers to play for English clubs without having resided two years in England has caused a big stir in Rugby League circles, because the dropping of this constitutional clause virtually means that the big clubs of the Homeland are able to make the Antipodean football fields a happy hunting ground for the strengthening of first-class teams in England.

ARISING out of this matter, Mr. Cyril Snedden, chairman of the Council of the New Zealand Rugby Football League, to-day made an official statement, in which he lucidly explained the circumstances. “Naturally, my council and Rugby League officials generally feel somewhat indignant that the English Rugby League, as an associated administrative body, should have broken faith with New Zealand and Australia in the face of strong and persistent efforts made to retain this important provision,” said Mr. Snedden. ORIGIN OF THE RULE “When Rugby League was established here years ago it was felt by the authorities that in nrd*»v onfo.

in order to safe- , guard the game \ from undue en- | croachment in coni nection with the transfer of players I invited to join [ English clubs, an l agreement was esj sential as part of the constitution. “The need of such a stipulation was emphasised 1 after the 1909 tour.

itii. v*. .jmcuucm a tter the 1909 tour, when a number of our leading players were offered inducement to link up with English teams. These were those v sterling New Zealand stars, ‘Bolla’ Francis, George Smith, Charlie Seeling and others. At that period the English Rugby League apparently appreciated the good reasons for our request for a definite rule which, in conjunction with the Australian Rugby League, we were soon al*le to have incorporated as part of the constitution. The Home headquarters have honoured that agreement for nearly fourteen veats. during which time the game has greatly advanced in Australia aud.. Zealand without being injured by the withdrawal of play ers of outstanding merit. There was not even a suggestion that the English League wanted any alteration or removal of the residential qualification until as recently as last year, when letters were received by New Zealand and Australia asking an expression of opinion on the subject. The League in both countries replied strongly disapproving of any suggestion to LIFT THE BAN “However, the English clubs did not let the matter rest and at a meeting of the English Rugby League, hold while the New Zealand All Blacks were on tour in England last year, Wigan and other club delegates again endeavoured to have the rule in question rescinded. Our managers spoke very strongly against the proposal and mainly through their determined efforts the motion was defeated by 14 votes to 13. Now, in the short space of six months, Wigan and other clubs, which made no secret of their desire to obtain the services of several of our leading exponents of the code, have succeeded in influencing votes of delegates in their own favour, with the result that the barrier to prevent the poaching of our players is broken down. “The receipt of this news, as you know, created a storm of disapproval in New Zealand and Australia, and both Rugby Leagues dispatched a cabled protest to England asking that the removal of the ban be withheld until the visit of the English team to Australia next year, when the rule could be properly discussed at the conference of all parties. Unfortunately, the request was refused, and it seems that we will have to bow to the inevitable unless some special arrangement can be made with the aid of Australia, from where we are expecting advice, or unless we see fit to take drastic steps on our own. NEW ZEALAND COUNCIL CONSISTENT “I would like, at this juncture, to make it clear to Ahe public that the recent refusal of the New Zealand Council to grant the transfers of the players. Brown and Davidson, had nothing whatever to do with the lifting of the ban. Indeed it is wrong to suggest that the English Rugby League would take such a defiant step in order to satisfy the claims of any individual clubs. It is just a coincidence that the New Zealand Rugby League rejected the transfer applications a week before the English League was holding its annual meeting whereat the question of the ban was a matter on the order paper for consideration. “Following the strong opposition which our representatives made to the ban uplift last year in England, anything but the original refusal by my council of the transfers of Brown and Davidson would have been construed by the English Rugby League as tantamount to an admission that we were in favour of dropping the residential rule. It would have looked as though we did not require our players to be bound by its provision. Therefore, it must be admitted that the New Zealand Council only acted constitutionally, and by refusing to grant the transfers at the time was honouring the agreement made with Australia and England. “While it is to be regretted that the removal of the ban has practically opened the gate for a possible exodus of players, it must be conceded that the keenness of the English Rugby League clubs is not only a compliment to the high standard of play and players in New Zealand and Australia, but also a tribute to our League All Blacks, who must have impressed at Home last year. CONSERVING AMATEURISM “The English League clubs appear now to be in a position to acquire the services of any of our players, but it will in no way the -pohc-v of the

New Zealand League to protect the thoroughly amateur status of the game here. We have made it impossible for clubs in New Zealand to barter for players, and a new rule in the constitution goes further and expressly forbids such things as transfer fees for players.

“It has been Galways and will continue to be the intention of the New Zealand Council to conduct Rugby League in this Dominion on a purely amateur basis, and I may say that the new rule will operate very successfully in preventing any possibility of the woi;st form of professionalism, i.e., the buying of players between clubs.

COMPENSATING CONSIDERATIONS “There is one great point of satisfaction regarding the ban subject which may be referred to. Though certain prominent and esteemed players have already accepted offers to go Homo, it would be idle to say that they are the cream of Rugby League talent here.

The lifting of the ban a few years ago would have given the English clubs u chance for what would have amounted to plunder. The game has now made such wonderful progress in New Zealand that we can view the lifting of th<=» ban with a smattering of indifference. We have many fine players throughout New Zealand, and. above all, we have promising young players for the future “It can be safely taken for granted in a country like New Zealand where all football is amateur, that the percentage of young men willing to make football an overseas career would be very small, so, in view of the Rugby League's solid establishment to-day. we probably have little to fear as the result of the English League’s action. GOOD PROGRESS OF CODE

“The New Zealand Council is in the happy position of being able to announce that the recent tour of the League All Blacks lias not, as was predicted, detrimentally affected the game in New Zealand: in fact, development in all phases of the code is recorded in Auckland and other parts of the Dominion. LETTER FROM ENGLAND BAN-REMOVAL PREDICTED “The following extract from a letter from the English Rugby Football League (84 Grange Avenue, Leeds), dated May 11, and received in Auckland, since the above statement was made, is ample evidence that the action of the New Zealand Council in no way precipitated the uplifting of the ban. It reads: The Council notes your comments with regard to this, but is quite unable to do anything. The agreement was only/retained by a majority of one vote, and a resolution is already tabled asking the annual general meeting to terminate it forthwith. I am of the opinion that this will carry, so that before you get this letter the whole agreement may have gone.— Yours faithfully, (Sgd.) JOHN WILSON. Secretary. AUSTRALIA STRONGLY OBJECTS COPY OF LETTER TO ENGLAND “A further communication dated June 14 bearing upon the matter discussed above was to-day received from New South Wales Rugby League, and is reproduced to show tjiat the Australian authorities hold similar opinions to the New Zealand Executive: We have just been notified through the columns of the Press that your League had lifted the two years’ residential qualification agreed to by our respective Leagues. Although thig has not yet been confirmed by you, we have been assured otherwise that such information is correct. The matter was discussed by the general committee last evening, when it was unanimously decided to forward the following telegram to the New Zealand and Queensland Rugby Football Leagues, viz..

Are you agreeable we request England make decision lifting two years’ residential qualification non-operative until England, Queensland, Wales have conference with English managers next season? and to notify you of such action. I now have to confirm the following cablegram which has been forwarded to you, viz.:

Zealand, Queensland considering decision arrived at by us that we request you make decision lifting two years’ residential qualification non-operative until Zealand, Queensland, Wales have conference with your managers next season. We were astonished at your action in flouting our wishes in this respect. We understand that the objects of your League are to foster, develop, extend and govern Rugby League football within your own confines, without poaching on our preserves. We cannot reconcile your action with your oft-repeated boast that you are mothering the game in Australia and New Zealand. You have adopted what amounts to a free transfer of players from Australia to England, which you would never tolerate among your own clubs. You are opposed to the player in England transferring from one club to another at his own free will, yet you passed legislation empowering free transfers of Australian players to England against our wish. Doubtless you consider that there are good reasons for your action, and we are anxiously awaiting them. Many of our players have looked for guidance in the matter and we have invariably advised them of the folly of being enticed from their homeland and abandoning their

life’s trade or profession for the life of a professional player, which may lead after their loss of form to a life of idleness. We have tided to inculcate the spirit among our players of playing for the game’s sake, without any pecuniary gain, and are opposed to the out-and-out professional in our ranks. We consider that a player should have other employment than that of only playing football. We ask you to rspect our wishes by staying your hand until the managers of your team to Australia next season have listened to our representations. Trusting that there shall always be the friendly relationship which has been so pronounced between our respective bodies, —Yours faithfully, (Sgd.) SECRETARY.