The Carlton bribery scandal of 1910
"Will you run a bye?" Sum of £10 accepted
A remarkable set of circumstances are those which surround the absence of three players from the Carlton team on Saturday. One of them admits having received a sum of money from a man who approached him in the street and asked him whether he would run a bye.
There have been many rumours regarding League football games for some weeks past, but it was not until Saturday that anything definite was done by a club to show that any official cognisance had been taken of them.
The Carlton committee, giving some credence to the reports, and having made inquiries, has taken action, and their reasons are set forth in a statement made yesterday by Mr. E. Walton, secretary of the Carlton Club. He said:
"The Carlton committee were aware that some of their players had been approached prior to their meeting on Thursday. They knew the men, but in order not to give the negotiators any warning they did not let it be known that they had made the discovery. They therefore selected their team, as published in The Argus on Saturday, and waited until they reached the ground to make their announcement. As soon as the revised team was posted in the dressing-room there was a sensation when it was seen that Gillespie, Fraser, and Lang were omitted. These three were in the room ready to strip. They asked why they were left out, and were told they ought to know as much as the committee. One member of the team was indignant at the committee's action, but when the facts and the evidence in the committee's possession were explained to him, he was satisfied to at once take his place on the field."
The Carlton committee will meet this evening to decide what further action will be taken.
..................
Lang's story: "Turning the tables..I must play the game."
Alexander Lang, Carlton's crack rover, made the following statement when seen last night at his father's residence, Gatehouse-street, Parkville:-
"When I entered the dressing room at the Melbourne ground on Saturday after noon, bag in hand, I went up, as usual, to have a look at the list of players, and I noticed, as I walked through the room, the fellows all looking up at me without saying a word. I nodded to them, but they still kept looking at me without speaking. I thought it was curious, but I did not take so much notice of their looks until I glanced at the list. I looked at the rover's name, and then at the ruck, and saw that my name was not there. I was surprised, but I was amazed when my name was not among the half-forwards. 'So that's the team!' I exclaimed, and walked away. I spoke to the president, and then to Mr. Ford, and asked them what was the matter. 'You have been bribed,' said Mr. Ford. McGregor came up to me and said he would not play. I told him the facts, and asked him to take off his clothes, and he then consented to play.
"As I told Mr. Ford and Mr. McGregor, I was approached in the street by a man who asked me, 'Will you run a bye?' I refused, and then I thought that as he was trying to play a game on me I would turn the tables. He wanted me to 'run the bye,' as he called it, and to pay up afterwards, but I demanded the money. After some argument he handed me £10. I had not the money in my possession 10 minutes. I gave it to a friend to back Carlton with, and he got £12 to £10.
"I never intended for a moment not to push myself in the match. I would not know how to do it. I must play the game when I am on the field. Mr. Ford and McGregor asked me why I did not tell them. I told them that I wished I had, but, as they knew, I had been off-colour somewhat for several weeks past, and I thought if I did not happen to give a good account of myself, my mentioning the fact that I had taken the money would be regarded as an excuse to cover up my play, and they would be suspicious of me. I would not, for the world, take my comrades down, and I had no intention of not playing the game. I did not even promise to do so.
"Gillespie is as innocent as a babe in the matter. He and I were toddlers together, and that is the reason he is blamed, though I do not see much of him lately. He knew nothing about the matter. I believe Fraser was approached, but he did not take any money. I wish now that I had not taken the money. However, I have been asked to play in the final, and I am appearing before my committee tonight."
..................
Committee's attitude. Immediate action urged.
The statements of the secretary of the Carlton Club (Mr. E. Walton) and of A. Lang, one of the players, published in The Argus yesterday, were the main topic of conversation in sporting circles yesterday. People who had heard the rumours, which have been current during the last few weeks, and had passed them by as idle talk, were astounded at the disclosures, and the general opinion was that the Victorian Football League should at once institute inquiries.
It was urged that the Carlton committee, in taking the drastic action of rejecting three of its leading players on the morning of a semi-final match, must have had such definite evidence as would warrant its action, and would justify the league making full inquiries into the circumstances surrounding the case. League delegates have been loth to take notice of rumours, but it is pointed out that in this case the rumour stage has been passed. The league will meet on Friday next, and the matter is sure to be referred to then, but leading supporters of football argued yesterday that immediate steps should be taken to prove the charges, or clear the men who were rejected from the Carlton team on Saturday.
Those connected with the committee and with the players concerned were not anxious to discuss the matter until the Carlton committee had met. One player (not one of the three concerned) was emphatic that nothing but a most searching inquiry would satisfy the other players or the members of the club.
"We should know the whole thing," he said, "and I for one would not think of playing again till this thing is cleared up. The committee has said that it will not give the men a hearing, that it has definite evidence. That is not fair; every man should have a chance of defending himself. They have dismissed one of the trainers, too, without a word of explanation. I believe in justice, even to the worst criminal. There is more behind this than the public know. At any rate for the present I am not going to express an opinion."
It is freely stated that other players were approached, and the names and sums offered are given, but at present the one case discovered and dealt with is sufficient. What is most important of all is to discover who is the instigator of the bribery. The Carlton executive is sure of the information on which they acted. Its members say that they watched and saw for themselves.
A life member of the league, discussing the matter, said:- "The league will have to take action now this has happened. They must take some steps. The trouble comes through the payments to players. The league should pool all the money, and give each club a fixed amount each week for expenses. The fact is that we have not given each other our confidence, and so the players have been able to dictate terms. I have not hitherto listened to rumours, but have not hitherto listened to rumours, but we must do something."
One Carlton supporter blames the committee for the action it took on Saturday. "It was playing into the hands of those who wanted Carlton to lose to drop those men out. The committee should have done as they do at the pony races when the betting indicates something is wrong. There, if the stewards see the betting market going queerly they send for the owner and the jockey and warn them. They should have had these players up on Saturday, and told them they know what was on, and told them that if they did not play for their lives there would be trouble. As it is, they lost the match, the very thing they were supposed to prevent. If they have-proof, then they should expel the men from the club, and report the case to the league."
................
Immediate inquiry. A public demand.
The football scandal arising out of the events of Saturday last was the main topic of conversation in sporting circles again yesterday and the unanimous opinion was expressed that the league should at once, as managers and controllers of the game, take steps to inquire into the whole conduct of the sport People who have hitherto deprecated the league acting on or taking any notice of reports, now ask that the definite action of a club should be taken full notice of by the league.
The publication of the decision of the Carlton committee yesterday was the subject of much discussion during the day. The general opinion was that the Carlton Club should have gone further. It was pointed out that the committee, having inquired into the allegations made, should have reported the whole matter to the league. Two other matches, played recently, are also the subject of comment, allegations similar to those investigated by the Carlton committee having been made concerning them. In neither of these cases has any step been taken to bring the matter under the notice of the league. Now that the Carlton committee has finished its investigations it is the general opinion that the league should act.
The permit and umpire committee has power under its rules to review any permit, and to call for an explanation of any player's conduct and, in the interests of the game, as well as of the players concerned, the fullest and earliest inquiry is demanded by the football public. The permit and umpire committee met yesterday evening, but no mention was made of the subject. Members generally seemed to be depressed. They sat discussing football in private for some time after the meeting, but nothing is known as to their intentions.
These delegates who did speak asked, "What is the Carlton club going to do? '' and they answered then own question by saying, "We will have to get to the bottom of this." One delegate went further and said, "The league must insist on the Carlton club producing all its evidence, and there must be a complete investigation."
Mr. Alexander McCracken (the president of the league) when seen yesterday, said: - "I do not want to discuss the matter at present. So far I know only what I have seen in 'The Argus'. You can rest assured of one thing, however, the league will do what is necessary." The ordinary league meeting on Friday is waited with interest by all football supporters, but unfortunately, it is not likely that Mr. McCracken will be able to attend owing to his projected absence from Melbourne.
At the meeting of the permit and umpire committee of the league an incident in the match South Melbourne v. Fitzroy came under review. The Fitzroy club complained that a boundary umpire's work in that match had not been satisfactory. As soon as the case was called on, Mr. Charles Brownlow, who presided, took a vote as to whether the matter should be discussed in private with the result that the press was excluded. After hearing some evidence, the South Melbourne and Fitzroy delegates (Messrs Skinner and Hickey) withdrew and the rest of the committee deliberated in private. After about a quarter of an hour the chairman announced publicly:- "The inquiry has been adjourned until next Wednesday, to enable the Fitzroy club to bring evidence to substantiate the charges, and the umpire will also have the right to call any witnesses he may wish." It may be remarked that a fortnight ago, when a field umpire was called upon to explain certain incidents in the South Melbourne v. Melbourne match, the case was heard in open court.
There have been persistent rumours that Mr. Henry Skinner (the president of the South Melbourne Football Club) had promised the 23 men on the South Melbourne training-list £10 per man if the club succeeded in getting into the final four and £23 per man if they won the premiership. Mr. Skinner was asked yesterday if there were any truth in the rumour. He said, "As far as the first is concerned it is true. Our team was very down-hearted, and when the Collingwood pension scheme came out I did promise them £10 per man if they got into the final four. I did not make the other promise, and have not paid out one penny yet. I will do so when the matches are all over. "
Letters to the editor of The Argus.
Sir: A few weeks back it was stated in more than one paper that a club had been offered £10 per man if they got into the four, and £23 per man it they won the final. Strange indeed that such an inducement was required in order that this team should put its best foot foremost, but stranger still that it was the only club that required it and more than passing strange that the governing body (the League) allowed such a fact to pass entirely unnoticed. In the light of subsequent events perhaps it may give a clue to the denouement of last Saturday. Yours, & c., NUFF SAID.
Sir: According to uncontradicted rumour by committee-men and supporters, one club was offered by a generous supporter £10 per player if they achieved a place in the first four, and an extra £15 per player if they were premiers. This looks at first glance a nice kindly action, calculated to induce a team to try its hardest to win. On the other hand, it opens the door to the players, or a small section of them, pooling the reward for premiership (£500), making certain of £20 per man, leaving £100 to be divided amongst opponents. There is no evidence that this has been done, but the danger is there, as it was before the final match last year. Yours, &c., EX-PRESIDENT.
Sir: The governing body of the League has now a definite case on which to base the inquiry, which inquiry must of necessity follow the revelations made in the Argus of Monday. The person offering such enormous sums as Mr. Marchbank and other prominent members of the Carlton club depose to have been offered must either be a very wealthy man or the agent of such. The possible explanation that the person putting up the money is an outsider punter who by such means sought to "make a pot," is negatived, or rather dis- countenanced by several facts.
In the first place—as every betting man knows—there is (when compared to the intense interest when in them by all classes of the community) comparatively little betting on football matches. As the public form of the two teams concerned was so nearly even, it would be impossible to get anything better than even money for a large bet, and the bet or bets would have to amount to a very large sum indeed to make it worth the briber's while. To begin with, if South Melbourne did win, the backer would have to pay away over £170 of his gains (according to the sums which have already been admitted as having been offered to different Carlton players) to the "stiff 'uns ". Before any sane person would risk losing £350 at the least—this sum being made up of the known bribes and the amount necessary to cover same at even money—he must be certain of getting a very much larger sum of money "on," and, owing to the comparatively little betting in connection with football, this would be by no means an easy matter.
Again, the fact of the Carlton members being expected to be so easily induced to throw over the honour of their team and themselves, would surely show the briber that they were not to be trusted, and he would probably hesitate before risking any huge sum on the promises of such men, for if so easily made false to their comrades and committee, they might well be false to the purchaser of their honour (?) It seems, therefore, that the briber must have been someone to whom the success of South Melbourne, as a team, meant very much. Unless this matter be thrashed right out, and an example made of the offender or offenders, the public—now knowing how premierships are won—will cease to patronise League football, which will then die as surely as did cycling, from similar causes, but a few years ago. Yours, &c., PURE FOOTBALL.
Sir: I have been a follower of league football for 20 years, and had hoped and expected that the Carlton committee would have had the courage to sift the matter thoroughly, and not only punish those guilty of receiving bribes but also make a full disclosure to the public of the evidence taken, and let them know who was the prime mover in the swindle. As it is the public who keep the game going, we have the light to demand this. This is simply a repetition of last year’s final, which was allowed to pass without any action being taken.
I, with many others, feel greatly disappointed on seeing in "The Argus" today that the only action taken was to ask the match committee not to play Lang and Fraser till further notice, practically letting the whole matter blow over. Will the league now take it up, and not only punish the guilty ones, but make it impossible that such things can again happen, although I am inclined to think that the league will pass it over in much the same way as the Carlton committee have done? Should they do so league football will have sustained such a shock that it will be years before it will recover. Personally, I intend to patronise the association matches for the rest of the season. Yours, &c., LONG SUFFERING.
Sir: Undoubtedly there are great thanks due to the Carlton Football Club for trying to sift this unclean matter in connection with football, and to "The Argus" for giving it so prompt and exhaustive publicity.
The inquiries so far leave not a shadow of a doubt that shady practices have been at work for the past few weeks from a certain quarter, and every lover of clean football must agree in every detail with the views expressed in "E.J.'s" letter. It now remains for the League to investigate this unsavoury state of affairs to its fullest extent, unless it wishes that glorious game to go the same unfortunate way pedestrianism and cycling went, both of which sports fell victims to the same baneful influences that are actively at work just now. Yours, &c., OBSERVATOR.
................
League decisions. Lang and Fraser.
On resuming their inquiry yesterday evening, members of the Victorian football League discussed in private the evidence tendered in regard to the allegations of at tempted bribery of some of the Carlton players. Mr. C.M. Hickey was in the chair.
From a quarter past 8 o'clock till half-past 11 o'clock the league debated behind closed doors the position of the several players concerned. A number of footballers gathered in the vicinity of the Block Arcade, above which the inquiry was held, and in knots of three and four speculated on the results of the investigation. Some ventured up the stairway and into the corridor leading to the meeting-room.
At half-past 11 o'clock a burst of cheering from the room announced that the business of that night's inquiry had been concluded. Members when seen were uncommunicative, and confined themselves to brief statements that the discussion had been based on the evidence given, and to what extent the players whose names had been mentioned were implicated.
It was announced by the chairman that the league had arrived at decisions in regard to the three Carlton players and the trainer, and the following findings were made available:
"That W. A. Lang (player of the Carlton Football Club) has been found guilty of conduct not conducive to the best interests of the game of football. Decided that W. A. Lang be disqualified until December 31, 1915.''
"That Douglas Fraser (player of the Carlton Football Club) has been found guilty of conduct not conducive to the best interests of the game of football. Decided that Douglas Fraser be disqualified until December 11, 1915. "
"That Douglas Gillespie (player) and Edward Mclnerney (trainer) be exonerated from all blame."
It was decided that Marchbank, a Carlton player, should be asked to attend the League meeting this evening in connection with the statement made that some person unknown had attempted to bribe him.
Footnotes
Title: FOOTBALL SCANDAL. A PLAYER APPROACHED Author: Argus Staff Writer Publisher: The Argus (Melbourne, Victoria: 1848-1957) Date: Monday 19 September 1910, p.7 (Article) Web: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article10462023
...and associated reports
Web: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article10462025 Web: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article10462149 Web: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article10462755 Web: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article10465443
See the following article from Blueseum on the bribery scandal: [(http://http://www.blueseum.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=100)]
Comments
This article does not contain any comments.
Login to leave a comment.