FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION CLUBS
PROSPECT AND SEMAPHORE CENTRAL THROWN OUT
The question how many and what teams should constitute the South Australian Football Association has been in abeyance for some time owing to the desire of the league that the agreement entered into last year should be reconsidered. That agreement, which was adopted by both the league and the association, provided for a free interchange of players between those bodies and also provided that the association should consist of one club from each district represented by a league club. At the request of the league a conference was recently held, and the matter was finally settled at the annual meeting of the association on Wednesday evening. Consideration of the report of the conference with the league was moved for, but the chairman (Mr. P. Argall) said “I don’t think any report is necessary. You have carried a resolution in accordance with your rules, and if you wish to rescind that resolution it must be done by a two-thirds majority. The resolution was that seven, clubs constitute the association.”
Mr. J. J. Kelly (Portland Imperial) said they all knew what was in the agreement with the league they adopted last year, and the question was whether they would stand by it or not.
Mr. A. E. Kenney (North Adelaide) moved that the resolution that there be only seven clubs in the association be rescinded.
I Mr. C. F. Young (North Adelaide) “I second that”. Mr. E. H. Wooley (Norwood) “I move that the vote be taken without discussion.The mover, however, claimed his right to reply. He said his club did not desire that any club in the North Adelaide district should be pushed out of the association. The Prospect Club was a very old-established one, and the members would be unwilling to change their name from that under which they had attained their fame.
Supposing North Adelaide II were accepted, they would feel they had “got in” on Prospect, and they did not desire that many good players should be lost to South Australia, as would be the case if the Prospect team disbanded. With regard to the £50 grant from the league on condition that their wishes were met, he thought the association should stand on its dignity and refuse to be dictated to by the league. The £50 was a sop to the association, but that body did all the pioneering work for the league, both in the matter of players and of umpires, and the league would think twice before it threw the association over.
The vote was taken by ballot, and Mr. Kenney’s motion was defeated by ten votes to eight.
Mr. J. J. Kelly moved “That a ballot be taken to decide what seven clubs should remain in the association.” This was carried, and the voting resulted as follows:- Sturt II (18), South Adelaide II (18), West Adelaide II (l8), Norwood II (18), West Torrens II (l8), North Adelaide II (16), Portland Imperial (10), Semaphore Central (8), Prospect (2). ‘The delegates of the Semaphore Central and Prospect clubs then withdrew.
An application for admission was received from the Torrenside Club, but was refused.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.