NCCU and the MCF

[Michael Flatt]

There's certainly precedent for a county's being in two unions simultaneously - Cambridgeshire had teams in both the SCCU and EACU competitions when I was playing there.

Hertfordshire currently have one team in the EACU and others in the SCCU.

[Mick Norris]

It always seemed to me that the problem was the inability of both sides to accept serious compromise. Yet the people involved, in one way or the other, Mick, Bill O Rourke, Harry Lamb and Dave Cole are passionate people who all want the best for chess. Lancashire's problem is that thanks to JTS (Rip) it has absolutist position. Manchester's problem is that it wishes to be admitted on its own terms. i.e that the Greater Manchester boundaries (which no longer really exist) should be respected. There are only two options, I can see. Either a new union excluding Lancs and probably Cumbria - or Manchester capitulates to gain entry. This would involve accepting that areas such as Bolton, Rochdale, even Oldham and Bury fall under the Lancs remit. I believe if they did, then within five years the players of those areas would themselves be dictating where the boundaries between the two associations lay. The fundamental fact, however, is that Manchester being excluded from the NCCU is a farce.

We have said that we are quite happy for players to choose which county they play for, including those in areas of Greater Manchester that used to be in Lancashire for chess purposes - the compromise we are asked to accept is to force players from those areas to play for Lancs or not at all

[Sean Hewitt]

It always seemed to me that the problem was the inability of both sides to accept serious compromise. Yet the people involved, in one way or the other, Mick, Bill O Rourke, Harry Lamb and Dave Cole are passionate people who all want the best for chess. Lancashire's problem is that thanks to JTS (Rip) it has absolutist position. Manchester's problem is that it wishes to be admitted on its own terms. i.e that the Greater Manchester boundaries (which no longer really exist) should be respected. There are only two options, I can see. Either a new union excluding Lancs and probably Cumbria - or Manchester capitulates to gain entry. This would involve accepting that areas such as Bolton, Rochdale, even Oldham and Bury fall under the Lancs remit. I believe if they did, then within five years the players of those areas would themselves be dictating where the boundaries between the two associations lay. The fundamental fact, however, is that Manchester being excluded from the NCCU is a farce.

In football, there are several 'overlapping' counties, where certain parts of the country are considered to be part of two counties simultaneously. For example, Chesterfield is part of both Derbyshire and Sheffield & Hallamshire, whilst north Manchester is part of both Manchester and Lancashire. There's no reason not to adopt a similar principle here if there was a will to find a solution.

Surely the problem here is at the county-union level, which is a different matter? Or are you proposing that a county (here, Greater Manchester) be part of two unions simultaneously?

Chris - I was responding to Martin's point that Greater Manchester want their boundaries to be respected, which I read that to mean that the places he mentions (Bolton, Rochdale etc) should be in Greater Manchester rather than Lancashire. I was pointing out that in football analogous areas are considered to be in both counties, and that something similar could be agreed here. In other words, if you live in Rochdale would be considered to be living in both Manchester and Lancashire simultaneously.

We have said that we are quite happy for players to choose which county they play for, including those in areas of Greater Manchester that used to be in Lancashire for chess purposes - the compromise we are asked to accept is to force players from those areas to play for Lancs or not at all

What is the justification put forward, given the different approach to Merseyside?

[AustinElliott]

Browsing on the Internet I came across this. I wonder if the Canadian Judge in the case is a chess-player? Sounds to me like the kind of man needed to arbitrate the Lancs-Gtr M'cr dispute. One could get the impression that it will otherwise take the death of all those involved in the birth of the dispute (at a minimum...) for common sense to prevail.

Coming completely new to chess in the North West these last three seasons, I have been amazed by the stories I've heard about this saga. The weird thing from my outsider perspective is that everyone playing chess in the NW seems to work around it - even those who one is told were key protagonists - while at the same time the 'official dispute' defies resolution. For instance, one of my earliest league matches in 2011-12 - this was, note a MANCHESTER League match, thus organised via G M'cr - was away at Heywood. I recall that two boards along from me, turning out for Heywood 2, was one J Tennant-Smith, who played out an exciting see-saw game with our board 3 player that went all the way to a terrifying final time scramble.

Anyway, very sad that Mick Norris' time as GM President hasn't been marked by the resolution of the dispute. It has always seemed to me that he approached it in a spirit of both compromise and common sense.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Mulling over the dispute a few points have occurred to me.

Firstly it does seem that having formed a principle in 1975 certain Lancashire officials are determined to cling to it no matter what. In terms of the Union stages of the County Championships this isn't a major hardship - it appears that Manchester will always be welcome in the MCCU even if there is a little bit of grumbling about distance. The real tragedy is that the ongoing dispute is preventing the NCCU for modernising and making progress in other areas and the Lancashire diehards will not see that.

Secondly comments upthread suggest that many in Lancashire would be willing to accept Manchester in the NCCU but aren't interested in the administrative side of things. This is quite a common pattern in chess and it's unsurprising that certain views become entrenched.

Finally and more to do with the here and now, at the YCA AGM I will be attempting to find out exactly who voted for and against the motion. It's noticeable that the electorate within the meeting is quite narrow consisting of two delegates from each affiliated member and the officers (presumably with some duplication - I haven't looked at this yet) and it's inevitably the same people year on year. Open meetings such as a county or club AGM allow new faces to attend and volunteer, closed meetings don't.

[Mick Norris]

We have said that we are quite happy for players to choose which county they play for, including those in areas of Greater Manchester that used to be in Lancashire for chess purposes - the compromise we are asked to accept is to force players from those areas to play for Lancs or not at all

What is the justification put forward, given the different approach to Merseyside?

They don't have to justify it

You'll shortly see my 15 page report on this, should you choose to read it you can see exactly what has been said, and draw your own conclusions

[David Pardoe]

A few notes/comments/suggestions...

Firstly, this is an extremely disappointing state of affairs..
As a former Manchester County captain, I have first hand experience of this....trying to pick a team from `half a county` ain`t easy. We need full support from our local chess community.

Is Manchester a county...yes and no..
The Greater Manchester Police, Transport, and Fire Services do remind us of the fact this remains a significant political and social entity/region. So, Manchester as a `chess county` is perfectly sound and reasonable, and an excellent concept, which definitely adds value to the UK chess scene.
More of these `chess counties` I think, would be well worth considering, and indeed, some new `chess union` bodies...
Splitting York's back into the three ridings, to create 3 chess counties could be just one valid option....and increase northern fire power.

I`ve mentioned previously the possible option of creating an M62 corridor union, with several counties created from the MCCU and NCCU. We do need to consider ways of downsizing the current massive union bodies, which cover huge chunks of England. This could create more manageable sized areas, and reduce travelling, which might encourage more county teams participation and greater competition.
There is a huge north-south imbalance at present , which gives the south a massive advantage in these counties events...not least, the massive population advantage, better transport links, and wealth advantage in the south east corner. I think there is a strong argument for having a weighted handicap of say, 10% points against all the SCCU counties in the Finals stages, to compensate the north.
Another option would be to allow huge counties to compete with two or more `equal weight` teams in all sections.
Also, to widen grading boundaries to the 25 point grading band, which was previously in place. But more county organisers are also needed. Active captains, with supporting vice captains are vital too.
The midlands already have some advantages due to being `central`, which helps give them some compensation.... mainly the four `core` Midlands counties`.

The Finals stages probably need some kind of restructuring...perhaps combining the Qtr & Semi Finals into a grand jamboree weekend, maybe over three days in late May...perhaps played at Birmingham University, with `Campus discounts`...

But, returning to the NCCU issues...
A really excellent scheme to create new chess counties in 1973 has been dented by some reckless actions.. ..and probable misunderstandings.

Why was Manchester chess county created..

Two reasons..
1. To provide greater chess playing opportunities for our local players. Don't forget, back in the 1970s the chess world was booming under the spell of Fischer magic.... The Manchester Summer Congress at Owens Hall was a seething mass of chess fanatics/enthusiasts, young and older, with block busting entries of over 500 players.
The atmosphere was truly electric, as Mestal and other rising stars lit up the chess skies with mercurial displays.

2. It was a great way to encourage `local chess`. Manchester is all about `your local chess community`..
It is not about bitter rivalry or hostilities, or historic feuds. We are a friendly people, who get on well with our neighbours.
Yes, some of our local football fanatics get a bit carried away at times..

What caused the rifts...many issues..and some red herrings...and a few sabre rattling war lords...
Lancashire did not want to loss this hot bed of chess on there door step...very understandable.
If they were to compete with mighty York's, and the elitists `deep south`, who already had big inbuilt advantages, they needed a big army...
So, maybe we need to see if the playing fields can be levelled.

One could understand the desire to play for mighty Lancs, with its history and tradition...
But, does Lancashire give one jot for this..no. No `Freedom of the city` awarded for loyalty to the cause..
Yes you can understand `the old guard` not wanting change...

And yes, I can see how, at this moment, letting Manchester join the NCCU could be seen as `bad timing`, with the recent passing of JT-S so fresh in the mind.
So, we have all this grief...and historical baggage.

There are restructuring options that might work quite neatly, such as creating a new `central Lancs.` chess county...

However, the good news is that we can also do `nothing`...almost, but we shouldnt miss the opportunity to move forward.
Manchester in the MCCU works fine. We only need to form/develop new co-operative links with the NCCU, that embraces all aspects of chess, with (perhaps) a unified committee to oversee co-operation and we are `up and running`. We could declare the MCCU & NCCU a joint chess enterprise zone, with guiding committee..

We really don't need all this boundary dispute nonsense. What we need is `chess co-operation`.so that fellow chess cronies can get on with playing chess at all levels..
The changes I have suggested might well take some time to implement, so I do think we need some long term thinking, and a good degree of co-operative effort from our respective Union and county bodies to take things forward in an orderly manner. And that's not to rule out the other suggestions that have been made...if anyone is listening.

A general understanding that `if you live in the Manchester area you play for Manchester` would also help...and this general principle should apply nationally for these county competitions..
The slogan should be..`support your local area`....
A final point...these county competitions cater for teams at all levels, so there is no reason why most counties can`t turn out at least one or two teams. But it does require some good organisation at the Union/County level to get things up and running. The MCCU model is well worth a look at..see the website http://www.mccu.org.uk/cmatch.htm
Splitting into `east-west` zones can also help.as regards travel, etc...

In the NCCU camp.it would be nice to see Merseyside, Cheshire, Durham, and others come out from behind the dugouts and grace us with their presence. This could be step one..

[Alex Holowczak]

I'm not sure why Manchester wished to become a county for the purposes of national competitions, when in similar geographical circumstances Birmingham and Bristol didn't.

There was a meeting some time ago to decide whether or not a West Midlands County Chess Association should be set up. It was decided that there shouldn't be, and we would stick with Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire.

[David Robertson]

What is the justification put forward, given the different approach to Merseyside?

They don't have to justify it

Damn right!

You'll shortly see my 15 page report on this

Get a shift on then. We're on tenterhooks here

[MartinCarpenter]

Isn't there already some sort of (shockingly sane in context iirc) compromise about who can play for Lancs/GManchester? Its hardly like GM being in the MCCU stops that being a potential issue

Heywood actually briefly played in the Manchester league as Lancashire forever

[MSoszynski]

I'm not sure why Manchester wished to become a county for the purposes of national competitions, when in similar geographical circumstances Birmingham and Bristol didn't.

There was a meeting some time ago to decide whether or not a West Midlands County Chess Association should be set up. It was decided that there shouldn't be, and we would stick with Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire.

When I was the Warwickshire Chess Association's Webmaster (till 2004) I included the following area description online:

For Warwickshire Chess Association purposes, Warwickshire is the region made up of the following administrative areas.

Birmingham, Coventry, North Warwickshire, Nuneaton & Bedworth, Rugby, Solihull, Stratford-on-Avon, and Warwick.

This was the Collier Definition that was incorporated into the WCA Constitution in 1998.

[...] note that Warwickshire as defined does not include the western third of the West Midlands (principally Dudley, and Walsall), which is part of Staffordshire.

[Michael Farthing]

From the minutes of the NCCU AGM:

A proposal was received from Greater Manchester to join the NCCU
A paper was submitted from the MCF tabled before the meeting outlining why they should join and Lancashire submitted a key points paper on the February meeting with the MCF. Although since the last application the MCF had gone through the protocol of consulting other Counties and had met Lancashire in February, nothing happened between the intervening three months when the MCF said they would come back to Lancashire with their views on how to resolve the issues. The meeting took a dim view that the MCF had not done this and then applied to join the NCCU without further discussion. Although most at the meeting saw merit in Manchester players playing inside the NCCU, the fact remained that territorial issues over players had not been resolved and given the pressures outlined in the above reports on County match concerns, it seemed folly to dilute the Lancashire pool of players even further. It was further remarked that one of reasons C&NW did not have a County team may be due to lack of player availability.
After a long discussion on the merits and demerits of the application, a vote was taken and the meeting decided to reject the application on Greater Manchester joining the NCCU.

[Roger de Coverly]

From the minutes of the NCCU AGM:
Although most at the meeting saw merit in Manchester players playing inside the NCCU, the fact remained that territorial issues over players had not been resolved and given the pressures outlined in the above reports on County match concerns, it seemed folly to dilute the Lancashire pool of players even further.

I would have thought players given a choice would choose which county team, Lancs or GMan, Cheshire or Merseyside even, they felt most comfortable playing in. I don't see the Lancashire County Association as having some eternal right of player ownership, even if that appears to be their position and has been since 1975.

You could have the hypothesis that some Lancashire players might prefer to play for Greater Manchester if the existing duo of Lancs and Yorks became a trio. Equally there might be some Manchester players who aren't interested or aren't selected in one match a season for Lancs against Yorks, but don't want to travel down the M6 towards the Midlands every county match.

[Neil Graham]

I've read the NCCU minutes now - very interesting.

I suggest that rather than reduce county matches to eight players and the sections from six to five that we reduce to one player per county in each grading bracket then at least we might get more entrants from the NCCU. I could possibly raise several county teams from my own club.

If there was a thriving county fixture list in the North, I could understand the so-called "folly of reducing Lancashire's pool of players" - as it is and as pointed out in the County Championship thread Lancashire and Yorkshire are nominated each year "by default" having played one twelve board match. Durham, Northumberland, Cleveland, Cheshire & North Wales play no county chess - Cumbria does contest the U-160 with the other two counties.

[Roger de Coverly]

Durham, Northumberland, Cleveland, Cheshire & North Wales play no county chess - Cumbria does contest the U-160 with the other two counties.

Merseyside as well don't play county chess. They do at least have the achievement of extricating themselves from Lancashire (and Cheshire?) without creating a forty year dispute.