Gold Member Rep.

[Andrew Zigmond]

We have already had a lengthy thread about this

Is there a summary of the rules for
eligibility to play for Lancashire and not for Greater Manchester
eligibility to play for Greater Manchester and not for Lancashire
dual eligibility?

For that matter the rules for
eligibility to play for Lancashire and not for Merseyside
eligibility to play for Merseyside and not for Lancashire
dual eligibility?


The rules assume that there is a team to play for. Arguably they should be weakened if there isn't actually the alternative team.

Which again misses the point. There is an eligibility rule which you yourself quoted on the motions thread. The Lancashire/ Greater Manchester dispute largely hinges upon territory, whether dual eligibility was agreed as a compromise many years ago (let's not forget that back in 1974 Lancashire wanted nobody to recognise Greater Manchester as a competing county and they did lose that one) and whether that dual eligibility ever expired.

Which takes me back to my original point. Alex Holowczak (one of the hardest working volunteers in English chess I'll have everybody remember) has a pile of legal documents and advice from experts in front of him. Others just have ill informed speculation and gossip and as such cannot claim any parity.

[Roger de Coverly]

Which again misses the point.

In terms of the practicalities, who is eligible for which team?

It was queried by Greater Manchester rather than Yorkshire, but other than "the Controller and Home Director say so", what were the reasons the queried players were eligible?

I had thought that most Greater Manchester players of whatever age had eligibility to play in Lancashire teams, it appears the GMan Federation think otherwise.

[John Reyes]

I asked alan a direct question about how he allowed 4 players who has never played for Lancashire, to play at the ecf open final?
I will be asking this same question tonight at the Lancashire AGM!!!

Which Alan? The only one I could think of is Walton

I'm also assuming John means Alex. What is less clear is why the number of supposedly eligible players seems to have jumped from two to four. We have already had a lengthy thread about this where I pointed out more than once (and will now use capitals to emphasise my point) that ALEX MADE A CONSIDERED DECISION AFTER SPENDING A YEAR COLLATING DOCUMENTS AND CONSULTING TWO DISTINGUISHED PAST SERVANTS OF THE FEDERATION INVOLVED IN THE ORIGINAL DISPUTE. I fail to see which part of this you cannot understand.

it was Alex by the way, thanks Andrew

but as you can see alan Walton comments about this, that there is not a agreement in place and I do hope that the Director of home chess, look at changed the rules and also look at why county chess is not getting enough teams in the national finals??

[Roger de Coverly]

also look at why county chess is not getting enough teams in the national finals??

That's always been very easy, but the ECF won't do anything about it. As the rules stand at the present, there's no equality of resources available to the potential teams. The outcome of this is that counties unable to field 16 players of 160 and above strength just don't bother to enter. The same applies lower down the grading scale. If you don't have 16 players between 140 and 160, would you enter an under 160 team?

[John Reyes]

after going to the Lancashire Agm, I have noticed now that some people have their own agenda and it is hard to break into it

[John McKenna]

Sounds like a little bit of prep for the AGM on Saturday.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"after going to the Lancashire Agm, I have noticed now that some people have their own agenda and it is hard to break into it"

If you delete Lancashire and insert any other place, it will probably still be true, and not just of chess...

[benedgell]

Reading through this thread its interesting how few opinions were actually offered about the matters up for discussion at the meeting.

If I have the Gold Members' Proxy I'll be using the vote in favour of increasing the number of votes for Direct Member Reps, and then probably abstain on the other items.

[Michael Farthing]

The lack of response probably reflects the lack of controversy in the proposals coming before Council. The silver reps have had fewer responses than usual and on the matters on the agenda they have been almost universally supporting our recommendations. We asked for comments on the proposals for platinum membership (particularly from legal beavers) and there was some unhappy feedback here, largely centred on legal concerns. We have also had some concerns raised on matters outside the agenda, a little above my head, and I have been away for the last fortnight, but we will pass on these concerns upwards, though perhaps (err certanly) not before the day of Council.

The silver membership has expressed no concerns about changes to the British Championship arrangements and this is not as issue we are likely to raise.

[Brendan O'Gorman]

Are there really no concerns expressed about the FIDE rating of the British grade limited championships. The manner in which this has been done - allowing the FIDE rating to trump the ECF grade - has turned the u140 championship into what is effectively an u160 event, the u160 into an u180 and the u180 into an under 200 event. I heard much grumbling about this at Llandudno. The simple remedy of imposing a double limit on entries - entrants should be under FIDE x AND under ECF Y - has been rejected by the Home Director. Someone should make Council aware that the garden is not entirely rosy.

[Roger de Coverly]

The simple remedy of imposing a double limit on entries - entrants should be under FIDE x AND under ECF Y - has been rejected by the Home Director. Someone should make Council aware that the garden is not entirely rosy.

He will no doubt respond that it's an operational matter. But whatever the voting system or rights, there's little point in having a Council system unless its attendees are permitted to raise and discuss issues. The method of conducting the meetings doesn't help with limited scope being given, particularly at the April meetings, for matters of current concern to be raised.

It's a clear as mud, what FIDE are intending with regard to "illegal move loses" or indeed what constitutes an illegal move. An update on this to the Council attendees might be welcome.

[Paul Cooksey]

The lack of response probably reflects the lack of controversy in the proposals coming before Council..

Honestly, I have given up. I do not agree with the strategy - I believe in a small rather than a large ECF. But I'm fairly sure nothing I write to Ben will make any difference.

I think the ECF has reverted to its default position - only organisers get a vote and players should shut up and pay up.

[Simon Brown]

The simple remedy of imposing a double limit on entries - entrants should be under FIDE x AND under ECF Y - has been rejected by the Home Director. Someone should make Council aware that the garden is not entirely rosy.

He will no doubt respond that it's an operational matter.

Because it is. If there have been grumblings he should and no doubt will listen to them, but do you really want Council to make the rules for the British Championships?

[Jonathan Bryant]

Honestly, I have given up. I do not agree with the strategy - I believe in a small rather than a large ECF. But I'm fairly sure nothing I write to Ben will make any difference.

I think the ECF has reverted to its default position - only organisers get a vote and players should shut up and pay up.

Well, yes - except I’m not sure that you can revert to a position that you never really left.


For what it’s worth, although I thought Ben’s attempt to gather views for the meeting was admirable, I didn't respond because I didn’t think I should. (not and not at all because of the 'lack of controversy").

First of all, I don’t really see why I should engage with this joke of one vote for all Gold Members. What’s the point?

Second, it seems to me that this forum - still less those members who reply to this thread - is hardly going to be representative of Gold Members as a whole. I’d much rather, therefore, that Ben speaks and votes as he sees fit on my behalf. I thank him for it.


For the avoidance of any doubt, I’ll repeat that I think Ben’s efforts are admirable. None of the above is intended as a criticism of him.



Perhaps like Paul I’ve given up. Then again, can you give up a position that you never really held?

[Andrew Zigmond]

I think the ECF has reverted to its default position - only organisers get a vote and players should shut up and pay up.

It was only six months ago that the current board put a raft of constitutional proposals before the Finance Council. Council may have rejected the changes (one did gain a majority but not a large enough percentage) but the board have come back with a new proposal that will give direct membership representatives slightly more clout; and I am cautiously optimistic this will pass. It may not be the radical reform some people want but it is progress and more than any previous board has managed to deliver.

The English Chess Federation is just that; a federation of organisations that make up a voting corporation. This doesn't really reflect the reality of the ECF in 2017 and those who think it makes a mockery of the ECF being funded primarily from direct membership do have a point. However defenders of the status quo do have the constitution on their side and could mire the ECF in litigation for years to come if change was introduced contrary to the constitution. It's wrong but it is the reality.

What I think we need is for the membership organisation to develop in tandem with the existing federation. As I've said a few times before we can still have OMOV; it may not be binding but if the members vote 90% for a specific candidate or motion it lays down the gauntlet for council to risk voting otherwise. And could council really stop an effective membership organisation being formed?