Liverpool and District notes: November 28, 1892 (Athletic News)

November 28, 1892
The Liverpool executive are not satisfied with the way their present protest against Northwich has been disposed of. Many think that the protest was laid on account of the bad state of the ground. This and the plea that the ground was not enclosed certainly formed the groundwork of the protest, but Mr. William Barclay considered that they had not been treated fairly, or at any rate in a businesslike manner by the secretary of the Association over the question of eligibility or otherwise of the brothers McQueen. There was some doubt in the minds of the Liverpool executive, as the rule is rather vague, and so as to be in order Mr. Charles William Alcock’s opinion was sought. But interpreting rules is evidently not one of the functions of the secretary to the Association, for he simply referred them to the rule; whilst, to make matters more complicated, Mr. Gregson said the men were all right, and Mr. Robert Edward Lythgoe was convinced they were ineligible. For myself I cannot see that this was a matter which could be discussed in connection with the protest. Their absence no doubt weakened the side, but it was for the executive of the club to decide on the expediency of playing the men, and I rather fancy the Divisional Committee would shrink from expressing an opinion on the merits – for it would really come to that – of Mr. Gregson and Mr. Lythgoe.
(Source: Athletic News: November 28, 1892)

Matt McQueen, Hugh McQueen.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.