And you might end up sending another email because they might have taken note of your first one, not sure if they could commit, wait and decide later and forget your email.Kevin Thurlow wrote:
As Roger says, it's easier with email.
Ian Thompson wrote:It's no more than 7 years ago that a Surrey club folded.Francis Fields wrote:No clubs have folded in Surrey in recent years ...
I believe the name of the club was the O4Cs - shorthand for something more meaningful, perhaps?Kevin Thurlow wrote:"It's no more than 7 years ago that a Surrey club folded."
Actually, it's less than that I think. A new club started in the Caterham area then disappeared rapidly and I cannot remember the name at present. It did rely on the notorious two-club rule, where players can appear for two different clubs in the league as long as they play in different divisions. As one player has played for three clubs for the last two years, and people (well, probably just me) were complaining that was illegal, rules have now changed so you can play for as many clubs as you like as long as it's in different divisions. This may be keeping the odd club alive (which is good of course) and giving the illusion that all is well. Surrey does have a lot of clubs quite close together, so it is impressive they keep going.
I belive this club was set up by Ray Ryan and Pauline Foster in an attempt to try to take members away from Coulsdon chess club but of course this failed as allmost all members of Coulsdon where very happy with the way the club was being run.Pauline phoned me in an attempt to get Peter Junior to play for them but of course we said no thanksJohn McKenna wrote:
I believe the name of the club was the O4Cs - shorthand for something more meaningful, perhaps?
They seem have started in the Ellam competition (3rd division) of the Surrey league in 2005 and were still playing in Surrey in 2006. Exactly when they folded I cannot say but they had members (e.g. Ray Ryan, James Foster & the Prizant bros.) who may recall the precise limits of their relatively, for a chess club, brief existence.
I or my wife had not given her our home phone number. I was amazed some years later to see Ray Ryan playing chess at Coulsdon after O4Cs had stoped meeting.James and Caroline Foster also went back to Coulsdon chess club. The lists for all MCF Trophies were compiled this summer from the engravings on the Trophies (not by me, I hasten to add)Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Warehousemen & Clerks is a glorious name for a club from the 1920s. Lancashire Village Settlement is a strange one as well. Are you sure that is right? A Google search only returns hit from the MCF website.
Ah, I may have found something. On Googling, I stumbled across "Lancashire College Settlement" in a 1909 copy of The Chess Amateur. That fits the 1908 date very well. And a Google search for "Lancashire College Settlement" plus "chess" throws up lots of entries from the MCF history documents. Over to you, Mick... (I'm guessing a typo led from 'College' to 'Village' unless there really was more than one of these 'settlements' - an archaic word for a club associated with a type of social movement it seems).Mick Norris wrote:The lists for all MCF Trophies were compiled this summer from the engravings on the Trophies (not by me, I hasten to add)Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Warehousemen & Clerks is a glorious name for a club from the 1920s. Lancashire Village Settlement is a strange one as well. Are you sure that is right? A Google search only returns hit from the MCF website.
Neil,Niall Doran wrote:I'd say it's more of a human nature problem. In some ways, it's easier for one person to do everything. They know what needs to be done, who needs to be contacted, how to wiggle the key in the fiddly lock to open it, where the spare sets are etc. They also know it’ll be done properly. Having several people doing different tasks requires deciding who to delegate the task to, giving them the info/training they need to do the job correctly, coordinating between the different people etc.Stewart Reuben wrote:In case anybody thinks it is just a Northern problem, both Camden and Islington Clubs died. In the former case Alan Martin got fed up with doing everything. He asked for help at AGM, got none and resigned. This effectively killed the club.
There is also the fact that most people just want to play chess. They’ve paid their money, they play their games, that’s it. A lot of them don’t even see the work that goes into organising something as straight forward as getting a team together for a match.
What the player sees: Captain rings them up, “Can you play on…”. Player says yes, and turns up to play on the day. Everything’s hunky dory.
What actually happens:
Captain rings up first player, ‘can you play?’ , first player says yes.
Captain rings up a second player, player doesn’t answer, captain leaves a message.
Rings up a third player, same thing.
Rings up a fourth player, ‘sorry I can’t play’
Rings up a fifth player, ‘erm… where are we playing… erm…” I tell them we’re playing away at Club X, and it’s “ah, no, that doesn’t really suit me”.
Rings up a sixth player, who says “Yes”. The joy!
Seventh player. Leave another message.
Then wait for all these players to get back to you, ‘cos you can’t ring anyone else in case all the guys you’ve left messages with answer ‘yes’.
This generally takes a couple of hours i.e. you’re evening’s shot.
I don’t know how Alan Martin asked for help, but I think sometimes even a cry for help needs to be structured correctly to have a chance of succeeding.
If someone says “I spend every minute of my spare time working for this club and as a result have no life, who wants to help me do that?” there won’t be many takers.
If however they say “I’m going to reduce the amount I do gradually over the next few months, starting with tasks X, Y and Z, so I need one person to look after each task. Ok, who can do X?”, the chances of succeeding are higher (but not guaranteed!)
OK, you've beaten me to it. I was going to direct you to what I guessed (correctly, it seems) was a similar 'settlement' in Liverpool, the Victoria Settlement. This was a philanthropic welfare institution/agency/charity, still active in the 1960s, but closed soon after and has long since been bulldozed. Plenty of Googlefare though.Christopher Kreuzer wrote:Ah, I may have found something. On Googling, I stumbled across "Lancashire College Settlement" in a 1909 copy of The Chess Amateur. That fits the 1908 date very well. And a Google search for "Lancashire College Settlement" plus "chess" throws up lots of entries from the MCF history documents. Over to you, Mick... (I'm guessing a typo led from 'College' to 'Village' unless there really was more than one of these 'settlements' - an archaic word for a club associated with a type of social movement it seems).
I think this is the origin of the 'settlement' clubs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_movement
Fascinating.
I never had any doubt that I was right, having checked my Surrey Border League Treasurer's records before posting to get the exact date. The OP said "No clubs have folded in Surrey in recent years" and Haslemere, formerly of the Surrey Border League, meet that criterion.Kevin Thurlow wrote:That's who I was thinking of - and they folded fairly quickly, so Ian was right!