NCCU and the MCF

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
harrylamb
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:33 am

Re: NCCU and the MCF

Post by harrylamb » Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:02 am

Answering some of the questions raised.
Eric Lazenby wrote: For example, would someone born within the last 25 years in a town that is now part of Greater Manchester but was once part of Cheshire for example be excluded from qualification?
As a result of the fact finding enquiry the situation is that people born in Greater Manchester before 1-Oct-1987 have dual “nationality”. Those born afterwards have Greater Manchester “nationality”. Please also remember that GM is about 62% ex-Lancashire 31% ex Cheshire and the remainder ex-Yorkshire and possibly bits of Derbyshire. Its is important to remember that with three counties we had good relations. Only with Lancashire did we have problems.
Paul Buswell wrote:but I am sure some qualification must have been added as taken literally it could be interpreted as making long-standing Mancunians ineligible for Lancs.
The rules state you are also eligible to play for a county if you are a member of a club affiliated to that county. So some clubs physically located in GM continued to be members of Lancashire. Players of these clubs were qualified to play for Lancashire. GM took the approach that it only wanted players to play for it who supported it. If you did not support GM you were welcome to play for the county you were loyal to. So GM did not object if a player from say Heywood played for Lancashire. That was how they got to play for Lancashire.
Roger de Coverley wrote: It's probably not relevant, but has anyone else noticed just how few people are quoted as attending Lancashire AGMs.
It is also interesting that Lancashire’s AGM’s are held in Greater Manchester and all four attendees of the last AGM live in Greater Manchester. So I think that it is relevant how few people attended the AGM. It is of course very dangerous for me to comment on Lancashire’s internal affairs even though I was their secretary for ten years. But maybe, just maybe if they did not have this fixation about Greater Manchester and held their meetings in the new Lancashire then they may get more interest and involvement in their meetings from those chess players within the current boundaries of Lancashire.
No taxation without representation

Ben Hague
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:59 pm

Re: NCCU and the MCF

Post by Ben Hague » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:07 am

harrylamb wrote:It is also interesting that Lancashire’s AGM’s are held in Greater Manchester and all four attendees of the last AGM live in Greater Manchester. So I think that it is relevant how few people attended the AGM. It is of course very dangerous for me to comment on Lancashire’s internal affairs even though I was their secretary for ten years. But maybe, just maybe if they did not have this fixation about Greater Manchester and held their meetings in the new Lancashire then they may get more interest and involvement in their meetings from those chess players within the current boundaries of Lancashire.
I think this sort of statement does go some way to showing why there's been hostility for 30-odd years.
It does give rise to one point though, what actually are the county boundaries? As far as I know when the new counties came in they were supposed to be for administrative purposes only, with the historic county boundaries being used for other purposes (I was too young to take much interest at the time, being unable to read or talk). Some organisations seem to have gone one way, some the other. Is there an official ECF position on this?

Alan Kennedy
Posts: 179
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:33 am

Re: NCCU and the MCF

Post by Alan Kennedy » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:40 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Mike Truran wrote:David

Time to move on.

Jarndyce v Jarndyce.
Perhaps.

But difficult to achieve when the Lancs county association (and the NCCU?) insist that any proposal that Greater Manchester moves north is automatically vetoed.
I'm with Mike - definitely time to move on. If Manchester want to join NCCU is there any good reason not to let them. I understood the objective of chess associations was to encourage the playing of chess or is that being too simplistic.

PS Mike - thanks for the education, my knowledge of Dickens (like my opening play!) is pretty weak and your efforts to improve both are greatly appreciated!

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: NCCU and the MCF

Post by Alex Holowczak » Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:48 am

Does the NCCU constitution mean that any prospective member of the NCCU needs to have unanimous support to join? Is the whole problem caused here, then, by the fact that Lancashire's delegate (on behalf of his county association or not), can always veto it?

If so, might it be worth proposing a constitutional amendment to make a majority of (say) 75% to allow a new member? Presumably constitutional amendments are already set at 75%. So Tennant-Smith wouldn't be able to veto every time it came up for discussion.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: NCCU and the MCF

Post by Alex Holowczak » Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:18 am

It was written on this forum when this came up before that the conclusion reached by all parties was that anyone living in Greater Manchester would in effect have dual eligibility - i.e. you could play for Cheshire or Greater Manchester, Lancashire or Greater Manchester etc. I would assume from afar that, given you're entitled to this dual eligibility, there should be no reason why players from that region could not be eligible for NCCU titles, and indeed MCCU titles.

Neil Graham
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: NCCU and the MCF

Post by Neil Graham » Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:42 am

Alex Holowczak wrote:Does the NCCU constitution mean that any prospective member of the NCCU needs to have unanimous support to join? Is the whole problem caused here, then, by the fact that Lancashire's delegate (on behalf of his county association or not), can always veto it?

If so, might it be worth proposing a constitutional amendment to make a majority of (say) 75% to allow a new member? Presumably constitutional amendments are already set at 75%. So Tennant-Smith wouldn't be able to veto every time it came up for discussion.
The NCCU constitution is here:-

http://www.nccu.org.uk/

It requires a 67% majority to change. Having read clause 3 of the said constitution, I suggest the chances of MCF actually being to fulfil such conditions amount to nil and my opinion is that the constitution is worded with that prospect in mind.

Sean Hewitt

Re: NCCU and the MCF

Post by Sean Hewitt » Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:43 am

harrylamb wrote: An important point about this action is that it was solely in Tenants Smiths name. He did not have the support of the NCCU or the Lancashire CA.
I have no knowledge of this dispute, and don't wish to have any.

However, on a point of law, I would point out that unincorporated bodies such as BCCF, MCF, NCCU or Lancashire CA cannot sue or be sued. If an unincorporated body wishes to take action against someone, or someone wishes to sue an unincorporated body, it must be done in the individual name of an official of that organisation - often the Secretary, President or Chairman.

I have no knowledge what support or otherwise Mr Tennant Smith had or did not have. But the fact that the lawsuit was in his name does not necessarily mean that he was acting alone.

Neil Graham
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:36 pm

Re: NCCU and the MCF

Post by Neil Graham » Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:47 am

Ben Hague wrote:
harrylamb wrote:It is also interesting that Lancashire’s AGM’s are held in Greater Manchester and all four attendees of the last AGM live in Greater Manchester. So I think that it is relevant how few people attended the AGM. It is of course very dangerous for me to comment on Lancashire’s internal affairs even though I was their secretary for ten years. But maybe, just maybe if they did not have this fixation about Greater Manchester and held their meetings in the new Lancashire then they may get more interest and involvement in their meetings from those chess players within the current boundaries of Lancashire.
Is there an official ECF position on this?
I am sure that the ECF's policy to misquote another source is "local chess for local people" - oddly enough based on a town in the disputed area. The ECF has very sensibly distanced itself from interfering in regional/county/league matters.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: NCCU and the MCF

Post by Paul McKeown » Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:41 am

What a load of tripe. Nothing I have ever heard or read on this ridiculous subject has ever given me the slightest glimmer of a belief that there is intelligent life in Lancashire. Can anyone in the NCCU give any justification that thirty years after the grandparents were upset by the arrival of a bastard child, that that child should still be shunned by the rest of the family?

Morons.

:roll:

Sorry if this comes across a bit heavy, but get an effing grip, someone, please.

harrylamb
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 1:33 am

Re: NCCU and the MCF

Post by harrylamb » Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:00 pm

Ernie Lazenby wrote: Question. Can a person who was born since 1985 in a town that was formerly part of Cheshire but now part of Greater Manchester qualify for one of the NCCU Championships? (Senior and Junior)
In my opinion the 1985 agreement was an agreement with the BCF and applied to BCF events. In my opinion anyone born after 1-Oct-1987 in the ex-Cheshire part of Greater Manchester does not for example have a birth qualification to play for Cheshire. They may of course be qualified in other ways. However the NCCU is not a subsidiary body of the ECF. It is an independent organisation and for its internal competitions (subject to any agreements it may have with the ECF) it can decide itself who is qualified for its championship. So yes someone in the situation Ernie describes could be play in a NCCU Championship if the NCCU so allow it. However as
article 3 of the NCCU constitution says wrote: Membership of the NCCU is limited to recognised County Chess Associations within the territory of the NCCU
and neither the Cheshire Chess Association nor any other Northern County chess association claims the territory in question, it would seem to me that under the NCCU constitution that area is not part of the NCCU and thus players born in that area do not have a birth qualification for the NCCU championships
No taxation without representation

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: NCCU and the MCF

Post by Paul McKeown » Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:03 pm

Would it be possible to run a poll:

Should the Manchester Chess Federation be allowed to affiliate to the Northern Counties Chess Union
a) Yes
b) No
c) It's up to the NCCU
d) Only if the Lancashire Chess Association doesn't throw a wobbler
e) Who cares
f) A plague on all their houses
g) Bring back the BCF

Steve Rooney
Posts: 426
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 2:36 pm
Location: Church Stretton

Re: NCCU and the MCF

Post by Steve Rooney » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:24 pm

Sean Hewitt wrote: I have no knowledge of this dispute, and don't wish to have any.
I am with Sean on this one.

Ben Hague
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:59 pm

Re: NCCU and the MCF

Post by Ben Hague » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:39 pm

Paul McKeown wrote:What a load of tripe. Nothing I have ever heard or read on this ridiculous subject has ever given me the slightest glimmer of a belief that there is intelligent life in Lancashire. Can anyone in the NCCU give any justification that thirty years after the grandparents were upset by the arrival of a bastard child, that that child should still be shunned by the rest of the family?
They're not being shunned just because of events of thirty years ago, there's been plenty of incidents since. Basically Manchester like to oscillate between disliking Lancashire and not wanting to play in the MCCU. At the moment they've decided they don't like the MCCU more so they're trying to join the NCCU. I think that Lancashire are giving it a few years to see if this is an actual change of heart or another passing fancy.

Alan Walton
Posts: 1318
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: NCCU and the MCF

Post by Alan Walton » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:50 pm

Ben,

I think more recently it has become more of a serious idea to join the NCCU, it was voted at the AGM a couple of years ago that we would officially ask for admittance to the NCCU. Prior to that their was splits within the MCF if we should enter the NCCU or stay within the MCCU

Yes, maybe the has been some oscillating between your points, but this only for the good of chess for both Lancs and Manchester (and Yorkshire and the rest of the NCCU), so all this past bickering should be left in the past, and hopefully chess going forward will be the predominant winner.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: NCCU and the MCF

Post by Paul McKeown » Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:16 pm

Ben,

I confess that I have presented a completely one-sided and unnuanced position, and have been privately chided for this, too, and been told that my intervention is unfair.

But, my point of principle, is simple, really.

Manchester is part of the North of England. Fact. The only reason that the Manchester Chess Federation is affiliated to the Midlands, rather than the Northern Counties union is that back in the mists of time (the 1970's) when the GMCCA was founded, it did so in a manner not calculated to earn itself friends amongst former colleagues in the Lancashire union. Lancs. barred the GMCCA from affiliating with the NCCU and the GMCCA eventually affiliated with the MCCU. A complete breach of personal relations between several people leading both sides of this dispute resulted. Those people still hold positions and influence within their respective organisations.

From the outside looking in, it appears that this dispute will not be resolved until the antagonists have gone to their graves, although, it appears also likely that the private thoughts of some on the Lancastrian side are to sit it out in the hope that the Mancunian splittist organisation might fold.

Coming, as I do, from Northern Ireland, I have personal experience of political disputes based on ancient events of which everyone has an opinion, but of which no one can justifiably state that the ancient events should have any relevance to present circumstances. Feelings nevertheless run high and no one is willing to budge from their comfortable positions of mutual antagonism.

This is just such a dispute.

The logical thing would clearly be that the Lancastrians and the NCCU should make a clear statement that they would be willing to accept the affiliation of the Mancunian Federation, and a clear statement of any (reasonable) conditions to that affiliation.

It would then be up to the Mancunians to accept that offer, or look even more stoopid than they currently do. The rest of the chess public in England could then sigh a quiet sigh of relief that commonsense and logic had prevailed.

There is much ill feeling on both sides of this internecine conflict. That is obvious. It shouldn't dominate rational thought, though.

I apologise to all who may be offended by my blunt statement, but my rhetoric is not meant as an insult but as a challenge to all those involved to search their consciences.

Life is too short.

Post Reply