Waterbury Democrat., 1901-11-07
YANNIGANS EXPLAIN.
Spicy Letter on Football Matters by
 Way of Bridgeport
Bridgeport, Nov 6, 1901.

Way of Bridgeport
 Bridgeport, Nov 6, 1901. Editor Waterbury Evening Democrat:
 Dear Sir: Tn justice to the Yanni- gan Football association and it's man. agement, we earnestly request that you print the following explanation ln reference to the article, sYannigans Backed Out,'' in your issue of Noyem- Der f.
 The fact of the matter is the Yanni- gans did back out. if it can be called backing out, but let us emphatically impress upon the minds of the Water bury public that it was through no fear of the St Thomas Cadets football eleven. When Manager Dunphy of the Cadets arranged for the game it was understood that it was to be played at the Driving park, an en- closed field. On the Monday before the game was to be played we received a letter from him stating that owing to the management of the Driving park wanting too much money for the use of the grounds the game would have to be played on an open field, Riverside park. There was some op- position on the part of our players to play on Sunday, but notwithstanding all this the game would have been played had it not been for the transfer of the game to this so called Riverside park. The management of the Yanni- gans were acquainted with this field and so were most of the players, and anyone in Waterbury who is acquaint- ed with it can hardly blame them for refusing to play there. The Cadets can hardly Substantiate their state ment that the Yannigans were afraid to play them, as they offered to come to Waterbury on Saturday and play on an enclosed field. but the Cadets stated this could not be done, as the High school boys were playing a game there.
 Tn the midst of all this controversy and sympathy extended to the Cadets by the Waterbury people and their newspapers, let them not lose sight of the fact that the Cadets are not the only people who have suffered through the cancellation of games. The Yan- niganS on two occasions were forced to call off two games. with the Cadets at the request of the latter. and only re- ceiyed five days notice. In 1899 a game had been arranged. Five days before the date Manager Dunphy re- lquested a postponement of one week. u. Yannigan dates were postponed a week in consequence. This season a game was arranged for October 13. Five days before this date Manager Dunphy again wrote asking for post ponement of one week, as he claimed he could not procure the Driving park grounds on account of the Films of Waterbury arranging with the man. agement to play q game there. The 1annigans could not postpone the game q week and therefore agreed 10. iplay in Waterbury on November 3 at the Driving park. At that time it was rumored that the Cadets thought they were not in proper. shape to handle such hard game as the Yannigans would give them and therefore re quested the postponement; but the 1annigans. always believing in mani- Testing that charity which thinketh no evil did not take advantage of their position and come out in blazing l-headlines roasting the Cadets in their newspapers. but on the contrary sym- pathiZed with them and gave them credit for doing their best toward play 1 ing the game although, they had made arrangements for fully two or three I hundred people to accompany them to Waterbury. Why was it the Cadets i did not want to play at Riverside park { that time?
 In regard to the Cadets going to ! considerable expense in the matter Manager DunDhy took upon himself the responsibility of putting his tickets on sale for the game without consult- ing our management in preference to the grounds. and if the Cadets were 1 put to any expense it is certainly the fault of their mauagement as any true sportsman will agree with us that we should have heen consulted upon this most important item.
 In reference to Mir Rei1ly's call here on Friday. We would state that he was told that the Yannigans' position had already been explained to Manager ! Dunnhy by letter and we could say 1 nothing further to him. He --hrought all the influence possible to bear. but ! he was told the position our men had i taken iii reference -to-the- grounds. and was also told that no monetary con l sideration stood in the way. As last resort he suggested that we get to- 1 eether q scrub team composed of what 1anni9ans that wnnld play on these l grounds and the balance Fifth Ward men and take it to Waterbury: but we 1 still told him we cou1d hold out no hone to him. We finally agreed. to ! talk the matter over again in refer 1 ence to his last suggestion. but said l it would be quite improbable. We aSreed to wire him Saturday noon. whichwe did. Could the Cadets ask anything more?
 We think after this exclamation the people of Waterbury will cease 10 look rpon Hs in the unfavOrable light they have for the mast week. as they have now heard both sides of the story.
 The Cadets wore offered any date for game outside of Sunday any day in Waterbury or in Rridgeport. but we see little chance of their playing with IFS if tbev act so unennflemanlv as 10 allow 2 statement euch as appeared in your issue of the 4th to go by unno- ticed. and allow cold water to be i thrown on T football association who las really bowed down to them more 1 than thov have to any other in tho stata This is the first postponement the Sannigans have over been obliged to 'pai-e duEing Their five veors of foot ball playing. and no football team can say that they were ever treated any way but gentleman1v by both players and management of this association.
 As your article called for an exDlan- alton from us, we again earnestly re- quest that you publish this letter in full