Clipping:Blacklisted players reinstated, fined; the AA threatens war
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Wednesday, April 22, 1885 |
|---|---|
| Text | [reporting on the NL special meeting of 4/18] President Young sent out the call for the meeting to be held at the Fifth Avenue Hotel, New York City, and the clubs who were not represented by delegates were represented by proxy. The Providence and Philadelphia clubs put forth strenuous objections to the action taken in reference to the blacklisted players, but it did not amount to anything, as they were overruled, which was distinctly understood among the representatives of the League long before the meeting was called. … The following resolution was adopted:--”Resolved that the provision of the resolution known as the Day resolution, adopted March 1884, shall not apply to Hugh Dailey, E. M. Gross, Fred Dunlap and George Shaffer, and the penalties thereby imposed are hereby mitigated and changed into pecuniary fines of $500 each, provided that this does not operate or take effect until the amount is paid into the League treasury or satisfactory security given.” A resolution was adopted reinstating John W. Glasscock, Charles Sweeney, Charles F. Briody, James McCormick and Frederick L. Shaw. A penalty of $1,000 was placed upon each of these offenders, who will not be allowed to play until the penalty is paid or suitable security given. The Sporting Life April 22, 1885 The reinstatement of the blacklisted players by the League has given umbrage to the American Association, who will have a special meeting at Pittsburg April 27 to consider the matter. The American Association considers that the reinstatement of the reserve jumpers by the League without consultation with the American Association was a violation of the National Agreement and illegal, while the League holds that each organization governs the cases of its own players whether contract breakers or reserve jumpers. The true inwardness of the matter appears to be that the American Association is tired of the summary, arbitrary, and high-handed methods of the League in dealing with matters affecting the interests of both organizations, and there is a disposition to resent this and refuse further intercourse with the League. There is considerable talk about war between the two bodies, but we do not think the case will become so serious. A war would inflict incalculable injury on both organizations, and would perhaps result in the downfall of the game in public favor. Should it come to that, however, the League would probably, in its present condition, get the worst of the fight. But a war is not an inviting project under any circumstances, and it behooves the American Association to act with that discretion which has characterized it all through the past stormy winter, and which has greatly raised it in public estimation. The Sporting Life April 29, 1885 [from an interview of President Nimick of the Alleghenys] He said that the League seemed to think that they had made all they could out of the American Association—they had even carefully postponed their reinstatement meeting until the opening day of the American Association championship so as to get all possible exhibition games with American Association clubs—and now they ruthlessly throw aside the rules about ineligible reserved players, which rules were prepared by themselves, to establish the new and dangerous precedent of strengthening a particular club. Mr. Nimick believed that this action was an acknowledgment of weakness, and the despair of approaching dissolution. The thriving clubs of the American Association, with the popular prices of admission, have made the League lose caste. The Sporting Life April 29, 1885 [from an interview of McKnight] He hoped and believed that there would be no such war as that last year between the National Agreement clubs and the Union Association. In such a case the rule of one or the other of the two great bodies must follow. He believed that the American Association would respect the League's contracts with players, but they might refuse to respect the reservations of the League in the fall, as the League had shown that they do not themselves respect that rule. Such a fight would be a good thing for the players, as it will keep salaries up, and he thought the League would suffer most, eventually, in higher salaries and loss of players. Mr. McKnight explained that the displeasure of his Association is not caused by any vindictive feeling toward the ineligible reserve jumpers but because the League has ignored one of the strongest rules of the National Agreement in assuming the right to reinstate those players. He considered their offenses to be much less than those of the contract breakers, and under the rules the League had a perfect right to reinstate all their own expelled players. Had they only done so and then asked for a general conference to act on the reserve breakers, the American Association might have agreed. But, at the last conference, the League people had been as positive a sever that they would never agree to reinstate any of the disqualified players. When it was decided to admit the Lucas Club President McKnight was present when the president of the League informed Mr. Lucas that his admission was contingent on his promise to never ask for any of those players, and Mr. Lucas made the most solemn pledge that he would never ask such a thing. No sooner was he admitted than he changed his motto of last year so that it now reads: “I am the League!” The Sporting Life April 29, 1885 |
| Source | Sporting Life |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />