FOSTERING LEAGUE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 958, 29 April 1930, Page 7

FOSTERING LEAGUE

COUNCIL REJECTS NORTH AUCKLAND REMIT SELECTING SOUTHERN TEAMS Several remits which caused varying degrees of discussion and difference of opinion came before the annual meeting of the New Zealand Rugby Football League last evening. On© from the Northland League was: “That a fund be established and maintained for fostering the League code in outside centres, and that a small percentage of gate takings of all affiliated leagues be earmarked for this purpose.” Mr. E. Stall worthy (Xorth Auckland) formally moved the adoption of this remit, and suggested that it be passed on to the incoming committee with full power to act. The remit was strongly opposed by Mr. George Rhodes (Auckland) because, he said, it would hit the one league which had done as much as the New Zealand Council itself for the game throughout New Zealand Auckland could not see its way clear to accept the proposal without the most strenuous opposition. Mr. Rhodes stressed the point that the Auckland Rugby League was more favourably disposed to the New Zealand Council than any other league in New Zealand. The adoption of the remit would place Auckland in the position of having to increase its gate

charges, and this it diu not want to do at the present time. CANTERBURY VIEWS Strong opposition was also expressed by the other Auckland delegate. Mr. R. Doble, who said that Auckland had carried the League game in Xew Zealand on its shoulders for the past ten years. Support for the Auckland viewpoint was also expressed by Mr. H. Lipscombe (Canterbury). Mr. L. G. Amos (Canterbury’s direct representative) said that Mr. Rhodes’s speech had appeared to him to be like the millionaire trying to dodge the income-tax. Mr. Amos said that the question could not be discussed from a purely personal point of view. League football was the thing. Mr. A. Ball (North Auckland) had been instructed to support the remit, but Mr. A. Ferguson (Otago) said that, while he was under instructions to vote for the remit, his personal view favoured Auckland. He thought the remit would be unfair to Auckland. Mr. L. Campbell (West Coast) said lie would vote for the remit. He thought that all the smaller leagues should be assisted. Replying, Mr. E. Stallworthy impressed on the delegates the importance of the strong helping the weak. When the vote was taken, however, the remit was rejected by six votes to four. SOUTH ISLAND TEAM A notice of motion by Mr. R. Doble (Auckland) that when a new’ league was formed it be given one delegate on the New’ Zealand Council, and that when it has a minimum of 12 teams playing under it, it be granted a further representative on the council, was referred to the incoming council for consideration, as it involved the altering of the constitution of the council. At present, all leagues have two representatives on the council. After some discussion over the best

ways of selecting the South Island team, the following remit from Otago was adopted: “That three South. Island selectors be appointed and select two teams from the West Coast. Otago and Canterbury Leagues to appear at Christchurch in a possibles and probables match, and that these selectors select the South Island team of 15 players after that match to represent the South Island at Auckland in the South Island v. North Island match.’* One suggestion was made that a sole selector should be appointed by the council to tour the South Island and select the team. This was introduced by Mr. W. Taylor (South Auckland) and supported by Mr. Stallworthy. It did not find general favour, however. One important remit from the West Coast League that the North v. South Island match be played at Christchurch this season was defeated after a strong plea had been put up by the Christchurch delegate. It was agreed that this season of all seasons, the league must make some profit on the match to assist in the outlay in connection with the tour to Australia.