Page 2 of 2
Re: Drunken Knights
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 8:20 am
by Richard Bates
Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:05 am
The London League has a set of rules which dictate that all matches take place in the West End or the City of London. As a consequence I think Drunken Knights played all their matches at the pub they've now left unless they were facing another team with a Central London base.
Other teams all played at a neutral central venue. According to reports, there wasn't the capacity for Drunken Knights to play there. On the face of it that will cause the London League a longer term problem if they find themselves restricted as to how many teams can be accommodated.
I would suspect that the venue can cope with more teams if those teams are known at the start of the season. What they can’t do is cope with an expansion during the season, as space within the existing booking is absolutely stretched to the limit (and I think many would say over the limit on occasion).
Re: Drunken Knights
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:55 pm
by LawrenceCooper
David Sedgwick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 10:41 pm
In those days the London League rules stipulated that the team winning the toss had White on odds. Drunken Knights made a point of always turning up late, thus ensuring that they were deemed to have lost the toss. As a result they knew that they would always be Black on odds and they could give all their players the colour with which they were more effective.
This led to their Board 1, Maurice Staples, having 54 consecutive Blacks.
Eventually the rules were changed to provide that, if a team were absent at the designated time, their opponents had the choice of White on odds or White on evens. Mushrooms took advantage of this to bring Maurice Staples's sequence to an end.
Drunken Knights have had problems for several seasons now, but I shall miss them if they have gone for good. We shall not see their like again.
I saw Maurice tonight at a league match and mentioned this to him. He said that it may have been 56 games but wasn't certain. Needless to say he was black tonight too.
Re: Drunken Knights
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2019 9:30 am
by David Sedgwick
LawrenceCooper wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:55 pm
I saw Maurice tonight at a league match and mentioned this to him. He said that it may have been 56 games but wasn't certain. Needless to say he was black tonight too.
I have a mental picture of his having written 54 on his scoresheet.
It was over 30 years ago, but I tend to remember what happened then better than what happened 30 minutes ago.
I could still be wrong, of course.
Re: Drunken Knights
Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 10:10 pm
by JustinHorton
David Sedgwick wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 10:41 pm
Geoff Chandler wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:51 pm
This is grim news.
Remember reading about them in the 60's/70's...
Richard Bates wrote: ↑Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:32 pm
Are you sure? Not based at The Plough if so.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Drunken Kinghts played at the then central venue, St Bride Institute, like everyone else.
In those days the London League rules stipulated that the team winning the toss had White on odds. Drunken Knights made a point of always turning up late, thus ensuring that they were deemed to have lost the toss. As a result they knew that they would always be Black on odds
What happened if both teams turned up late?
Re: Drunken Knights
Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 10:11 pm
by JustinHorton
More Plough management policy
Re: Drunken Knights
Posted: Wed May 22, 2019 12:47 am
by David Sedgwick
JustinHorton wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 10:10 pm
What happened if both teams turned up late?
That I don't recall.
Re: Drunken Knights
Posted: Wed May 22, 2019 1:01 am
by NickFaulks
I would be interested to know whether that story is actually true. I've never heard of a pattern of such behaviour at The Plough.
Re: Drunken Knights
Posted: Wed May 22, 2019 1:06 am
by Roger Lancaster
Obviously disgusting, not to mention illegal, if true.
Re: Drunken Knights
Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 3:29 pm
by John Reyes
who owed the right to the club Name?
the reason is that I was thinking of setting up something in Manchester with the club name in the city centre
Re: Drunken Knights
Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 4:18 pm
by NickFaulks
John Reyes wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 3:29 pm
who owed the right to the club Name?
I have no idea, but it would come as a surprise if anyone at the club were that well organised.
Re: Drunken Knights
Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 5:17 pm
by John Upham
John Reyes wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 3:29 pm
who owed the right to the club Name?
The name that springs to my mind, at least, is
George Dickson
I suspect he was one of the very earliest members.
Re: Drunken Knights
Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 5:33 pm
by NickFaulks
John Upham wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 5:17 pm
The name that springs to my mind, at least, is
George Dickson
Forgive me if I am quite wrong, but do you mean George Leyton?
Re: Drunken Knights
Posted: Mon May 27, 2019 5:44 pm
by John Upham
NickFaulks wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 5:33 pm
John Upham wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 5:17 pm
The name that springs to my mind, at least, is
George Dickson
Forgive me if I am quite wrong, but do you mean George Leyton?
Aha ! Yes, I think you are right Nick.
Re: Drunken Knights
Posted: Thu May 30, 2019 2:18 am
by Bob Kane
George Leyton and Chris Haines were the original founders, Nevil Chan ran and supported the club since the 90s possibly even the mid 80s .Before the DKs took up residency the Plough was a post chess watering hole for the CYMCA (another legendary london club)
cheers!