PLAYERS, PROFESSIONALS, AND PAYMENT

THE LIVERPOOL CONFERENCE .

Cricket and Football Field – Saturday 15 December 1888

Special Report

Mr. W. E. Barclay, , the genial and enterprising secretary of the Everton Football Club, has every reason to be gratified with the success of his labours in connection with Thursday’s conference.  A more representative gathering could not have been hoped for than that which met at the Grand Hotel to discuss the amendant of the rules relating to the payment, registration, and birth qualification of professionals; and it is certain that the ‘powers that be cannot afford to ignore the conclusions arrived at.  Of course the South was conspicuous by its absence, but there was sufficient compensation in the presence of representatives from nearly the whole of Lancashire, from Crewe, Nottingham, Burslem, Sheffield, Chester, Lincoln, Northwich, and the important centres, the total approaching close on a hundred.  Amongst them we noticed the following; Messrs R.P. Gregson, and J.S. Roscow (Lancashire Association), R. Wilson, W. Jackson, J.J. Ramsey, A. Coates, and R.L. Stockton (Everton); J.J. Bentley (Bolton Wanderers), E. . Goulding and W. Blinkhorn (Halliwell), H. Bromlow (Bolton Charity Cup Association), G. Wild, and D.B. C. Jepson (Darwen), J.O.B. Grundy (Crewe Alexandra), J. Gregson (Heywood), A.S. Moore (Manchester District), E. Ramsbottom and J.S. Smith (Southport Central), A. Daniels (Davenham), H.J. Williams (Notts Jardines), G.A. Hughes (Northwich Victoria), J.W. Abrahams (Crewe Alexandra). J. Prescot (Bootle), J.C. Granville (Burslem Port Vale), J. Panter and T. Sadler (Newton Heath L.Y.R), J.G. Hall (Crewe Alexandra), Meroer (Rossendale), W. Wray and E. Grffith (Chester), C. Driver (West Manchester), J. McMillan (Sunderland), F.H. Lipsham (St. Oswald’s), L. Emery (Burslem Port Vale), A.J. Dickinson (Sheffield), William I. Irving (West Manchester), J.T. J. Lister (Burnley), George Armistead (Burnley), G.H. Hunt and W. Tunstall (Haydock), F. Dyson (Manchester District), Joseph Brierly and H. S. Hamer (Bury), H. Vesvers (Denton), J.E. Kershaw and Christle (Heywood).  Aston Villa and West Bromwich Albion were amongst the clubs who refused to recognize the necessity for reform.  The Villa regarded the meeting of the Conference as precipitate had declined to take part; whilst the Albion thought the Association rules were never satisfactory than new.  Mr. N.L. Jackson’s letter, in which he thought it unnecessary to attend, considering the subject under discussion, was received with a little mild mirth.  Major Marindin wrote expressing his inability to be present, and so the meeting unanimously elected Mr. JH. Houlding, City Councillor and President of the Everton Club, to the chair.  The preliminary business as to the admission of the press was soon settled in the affirmative.  Mr. Barclay opened the ball with a written statement, in which he sketched out the hands for discussion –payment of wages for time lost, the two years’ qualification, and the difficulty of transferring players.  He boldly demand liberty of contracts, so that in ordinary club fixtures they might play and duly registered man.  The present rule, he said, led to veiled professionalism and dishourable bargains.  He advocated abolition of rules which simply defeated the object which they were passed. 
Mr. R.P. Gregson, of the Lancashire F.A. and Football Association Council, regretted that he was not in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility.  Personally he thought the time had long gone by when a revision of the rules became necessary, and the majority of the members of the Association were of that opinion.  A man ought not to be regarded a professional who simply received wages for loss of time.  There were 800 registered players in Lancashire, and he refused to believe they were all professionals.  As to the nationally difficulty the Scotch Association had brought their troubles on themselves by shutting their eyes to the professionalism in their midst.  Mr. Gregson concluded with the expression of the conviction that the rules as at present led to the manufacture of professionals. 
The Chairman proposed to come direct to the point by moving that a day’s wages should be allowed to players, and this was seconded by Mr. Granville (Port Vale), Mr. Gregson, however, deprecated binding themselves to any direct line of conduct, but thought rather that a committee should be appointed to embody the opinions of the conference in a recommendation to the Football Association.  This suggestion was promptly adopted and there was a pretty general consensus of opinion that rule 21 and 23a required revision.  Mr. Brierley (Bury), and Mr. Dyson (Manchester District) both speaking to this effect.  Mr. Green (Westhoughton) thought that the terms “amateur” and “professional “should be struck out entirely and the word “player” substituted in all cases, leaving clubs to make the best terms they could with the players.  This, however, seemed to be too drastic for the conference.  Mr. Dyson said he was authorized to say on behalf of Manchester that they thought it should be permissible with careful safeguards to pay players a day’s wages in additional to hotel and travelling expenses.  Mr. Hughes, from Northwich, as representing a club who could not afford to pay professionals, and therefore a disinterested party, supported the contention that they ought to be able to pay men for loss of wages.  Mr. Goulding thought the time had come when the enforcement of registration, when only small sums were paid, should be abolished.  In Halliwell they had several players simply retained at 2s, and 2s 6d, a week in case of accident to the first team, and it was ridiculous that they should be compelled to register those.  Mr. Bentley having added his opinion that the rule required alteration, the way was cleared for Mr. Gregson’s motion;-
That it is the opinion of this meeting that the following resolution be submitted to a committee to be subsequently appointed.  –That Rule 22 read;- “Players and others, amateur or professional.  Any member of a club receiving remuneration or consideration of any sort above his necessary hotel and travelling expenses and wages actually and of necessity lost, shall be considered to be a professional.”  It will be seen that the alternation consists in the addition of the words “and wages actually and of necessity lost.”  Mr. Bentley was the seconder, and it was carried unanimously but for one exception-Mr. Goulding- who thought it desirable to fix a limit as to payment.  He told an extraordinary story about a member of the Corthian team receiving no less a sum than £70 as compensation for loss of professional emoluments on one particular match.  Then again there was the case of W.W. Read, in another pastime, who received £1,000.  This extreme view was met by Mr. Gregson, who said the provision of safeguards might be safely left to the Committee of Council.  In the preliminary of the discussion on Rule 23a, it was resolved on the motion of Mr. Gregson, seconded by Mr. Barclay, that the cup qualification be left to the managing organizations, subject to the rules of the association.  Mr. Panter (Newton Heath) moved as the substitute for Rule 23s;-
That a professional from any part of the United Kingdom having signed his registration form may play in ordinary club fixtures on any date he may be selected after he has been duly registered.  Mr. Dyson briefly seconded this, and Mr. Brierley (Bury) expressed the extreme view that the cup competitions ought to be framed on the same lines.  Mr. Gregson however, protested against the government of the Lancashire, or any other association, being dragged into the discussion.  He was sure there were those in the room who were just as much opposed to importation as there were others who were strongly in favour of free trade in football.  This brought up Mr. Abrahams (Crewe Alexandrs) in an original speech.  He was strongly opposed to importation except as a measure of self-defense.  He would do away with it entirely and form a limited radius within which players could be engaged for their respective districts.  “Give our own lads a chance,” was his motto.  The only question put to a man about to be imported was whether he was a good footballer.  Nothing about whether he was a good worker or teetotaler.  (A voice; “Good drinker,” and laugher).  He thanked the gentleman for that reminder.  Drinking seemed to be the only qualification for professionals now-a-days.  He believed if they looked at home for their players they would have as good clubs and better morality.  Who were first to bring the cup to Lancashire?  Blackburn Olympic!  Did they rely upon Scotchmen?  Then there were the Rovers, the Albion and the Villa, who chiefly relied upon their own talent.  He had a resolution on this subject of importation, but he refrained from moving it.  Mr. Bentley was fain to admit that there were many suspicious characters in Lancashire and the Midlands, but still clubs did not seem to care to encourage local talent, and if they wanted imported men they ought not to be hampered by rules.  They ought to be able to play whom they liked in ordinary matches.  He strongly objected to those amateurs who were amateurs simply because they dare not become professionals.  Mr. Green, the next speaker, made some reference to the Association Secretary, which brought up Mr. Barclay, who said he had never received an acknowledgment of the receipt of a registration form from the secretary.  This thrust at Mr. Alcock having been thoroughly appreciated, Mr. Barclay went on to condemn the construction placed by the rules on the words “different nationally.”  These words could not fairly apply to anyone born in the United Kingdom.  Take his own case.  His father was a Scotchman, his mother an Englishwoman and he was born in Ireland.  Was he an importation?  The meeting declined to grapple with this conundrum and proceeded to carry the resolution with three dissentients.  Mr. Hughes (Northwich) thought an amendment of the 25th rule desirable to the effect that a professional should be allowed to play for any club he liked without obtaining special permission from the Associations.  It was not good enough to have to wait six or seven weeks for a reply.  (Hear, hear and laughter).  Mr. Gregson, however, thought the rule a good one as it stood, and protected the weak against the strong.  Mr. Brearley was of the same opinion, and that there should also be some check upon the peripatetic of amateurs.  Mr. Gregson’s “pet theory” for this was a system whereby an amateur could, if he chose, bind himself, to play for a given club during a season.  Mr. Bentley was opposed to wholesale transfer.  If a club wrote to the Association respecting a transfer, they would have, or should have (ironical cheers), a reply by the next post.  This bit of pleasantry over, Mr. Gregson submitted the following committee to formulate the opinions of the conference and report to the clubs, after which a further meeting will be held;- Messrs Barclay (Everton), secretary, Suddell (North End), Crump (Birmingham), Woolfall and Gregson (Lancashire), Hughes (Cheshire), and Mitchell (Birmingham).  This was carried and votes of thanks to the Chairman and Mr. Barclay terminated a most harmonious meeting.