Disconcerting

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1081, 19 September 1930, Page 7

Disconcerting

N.Z. RUGBY UNION CALLED ON TO HELP BALANCE NEW SOUTH WALES’S BUDGET FOR BRITISH TOUR WHY WERE GATES SO POOR? Special to THE SUN WELLINGTON, Thursday. New' Zealand has been startled during the last few days to read that the New South Wales Rugby Union was likely to lose on the British tour of that State unless New Zealand would forgo its share of the gate money. This was all the more disconcerting when the cabled results of the matches were considered. Altogether three games were played in Sydney, yet the gate takings are said to have been less than in the case of, say, the Wellington match against the visitors, and this for an aggregateattendance of over 70,000. According to Sydney papers to hand, the charges for the Sydney matches was 2s to the ground and 4s to the stand, with children at half-price. The official figures for the first match against New South Wales was 29,907 and for the Test 30,712, while for the third match the cabled figures were 11,689. These are big attendances, and yet the gate receipts only totalled £3,611. When the British played Wellington the attendance was estimated at 32,000, or less than half the number which attended the three matches in Sydney, and the takings were £3,718, or £lO7 more than was apparently taken in three matches in Sydney. No wonder the New Zealand Union is worried about the matter. Now comes a request from the New South Wales Rugby Union that the New Zealand Union should forgo its 50 per cent, of the net gate so as to allow the Australians to balance its budget. It must be understood that this request has not yet appeared before the New Zealand Union in writing, but that was the text of a cabled message. The three matches cost £1,123 to run in rents, advertising, groundsmen, and other expenses, leaving a net balance of £2,488, half of which under the agreement should come to New Zealand. But ’•New South Wales does not want to part with it because out of its share it is required to pay the cost of taking the team from New Zealand to Sydney—approximately £1,400 —which would leave it with a deficit of something over £l5O. One thing has to be taken into consideration, however, and that is that stand charges were lighter in Sydney than was the case with the New Zealand matches, which would make a slight difference, but if the price of admission alone is considered, throwing in the half-price for children to balance the extra money for stand accommodation, the total gate money would approximate £7,230, whereas it was apparently only half that amount. Boiled down, Sydney people saw the I British footballers in action for an ! average price of Is a head, without having to carry any of the responsibility of the major expenses of such a tour. One wonders whether they would reciprocate by sending an English cricket team to New Zealand under similar conditions, after it had toured the Commonwealth, and then forgo any profits, if any, on the tour in this country.

If the figures cabled are correct, then the matter is one that should be considered very closely. First of all. the cash received is far too small for the number which apparently attended the matches, indicating that a large number of people must have witnessed the matches without first of all being called upon to pay gate money, or else under some arrangement with the New South Wales Union which gives them access to the ground for all matches. If the latter is the ease, then a portion of the money paid for this right should be apportioned to the three matches under discussion. New Zealand took all the risks of the tour, which fortunately has turned out trumps from a financial point of view: but there does not at present appear to be any adequate reason why the benefit of this should be handed over to New South Wales, with its immense population and good attendances.