English Chess Forum

Having been playing in the M'cr League for one season, and having hung about on this forum for a bit more than a year, I'm bemused by all this stuff about Lancs and Greater M'cr, which came up most recently in the 'Compulsory Membership' thread over here. From my reading on the Forum, I have the impression that, in chess, Lancs and Greater M'cr have a relationship approximating to that between two Mafia Families with neighbouring territories, say in something like The Sopranos.

I've met a few players around the MCF League who have alluded to this famously long-standing and apparently bitter feud, but no-one has ever been able, or willing, to explain exactly what it's about. Younger people don't seem to know, suggesting it goes way back into the mists of time, and the older players with long memories either clam up or just roll their eyes/shake their heads.

So a question - can anyone give me a brief explanation of what it is supposed to be about?

(PM if you don't want to post it openly!!)

One thing that seems obvious to me as a newbie - presumably M'cr being separate from Lancs gives more people the chance to play county chess, if they want to? Like more people getting to play international football with separate teams for the home countries...

And ... I played in a Manchester (sic) League match this season at Heywood (outside the M60 ring, so in Lancashire by most chess definitions, I'd guess)... but like I say, it was in the MCF / Greater Manchester league. Ditto at Bury.

Anyway... I am... ...puzzled.

AustinElliott wrote: So a question - can anyone give me a brief explanation of what it is supposed to be about?

It all goes back to the local government changes of the early seventies. According to some accounts, there was a proposal to locally restructure from two counties, namely Lancashire and Cheshire into Merseyside, Greater Manchester, residual Lancs and residual Cheshire/North Wales. The Merseyside part of this eventually went through with general agreement. The creation of Greater Manchester on the other hand was regarded by one/some of the Lancs committee as the end of civilisation as we know it and one of them started legal threats in order to prevent it. They were able to persuade the wider NCCU to block it by denying Greater Manchester membership, but Greater Manchester had been able to get the MCCU to allow them to join instead. Legal threats included suing the General Secretary of the BCF, effectively its paid CEO, for allowing Manchester into the BCF.

It never formally went to court, instead you got the drawn position you see today where Manchester players generally have dual eligibility for both counties, but Greater Manchester are barred from playing in the NCCU competitions or having any say in the running of North of England chess.

As to the motivations of the individual(s) perpetuating this from the Lancs side, I don't think they've ever given a public explanation. It might have been as trivial as not wanting a potential rival for the qualification spot in the national counties or a fear that the supply of strong players for Lancashire county teams would dry up if players had other options.

In the south of England, there was no restructure. The problem with aligning with the then new local authority boundaries would have been that Middlesex, if transformed into Greater London by absorbing parts of Surrey, Kent, Essex and Herts would have such an excess of players as to destroy the point of a Saturday afternoon competition.

Perhaps the reason why the issue remains unresolved is just face. The logical outcome would be to accept geography and allow Greater Manchester to participate more formally in the Northern chess scene. If you've maintained a grudge for nearly forty years, it must be difficult to back down. By the same token though, the rest of Lancs and the NCCU have not been willing to tell those who would continue the bar either politely or impolitely to leave chess administration, or at least any contact or veto on this issue.

(edit) It's one of the forum perennials. Here's an earlier one
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1931
(/edit)

Thanks, Roger.

I found the following on an old archived bit of the NCCU website, entitled 'NCCU History 1945-1999' which chimes with your account:

The new county boundaries caused a serious problem when in 1975 a minority group decided to set up a Greater Manchester County Chess Association. The methods used led to a special meeting of the NCCU in 1976 to vote “That this Union cannot tolerate the establishment of a County Association in its area against our will and by deceitful means”. The group were accepted by the Midlands County Chess Union and have remained there.

As you say, thirty-six years ago does all seem rather long time for anyone to still be nursing grudges about it, so it would appear Mike Truran is spot on with the Jarndyce and Jarndyce quote.

Also explains why Manchester belong to/play in the MCCU, which had puzzled me as a newcomer.

Wikipedia tells me that the popn of Lancashire is c. 1.5 Million, while Greater M'cr is c. 2.6 Million, both sizeable populations - so you'd think that their being separate would be quite sensible, unless you want parity with 5-6 million Yorkshiremen. I have to say that, having come to Manchester as a transplanted Southerner but having lived here now for a quarter of a century, I've not met many (read: 'pretty much no') people in Manchester who 'self-identify' as Lancastrians, apart from for cricket-supporting purposes.

The funniest thing to me is that in a MCF league match, which is clearly a Greater M'cr 'thing', one might well end up playing against some of the very same people, if I read the comments on the forum aright, who carry the Lancashire flame and presumably loathe Greater M'cr and all its works. Seems a bit of a paradox, to say the least.

Even in a federation/union there tends to be one dominant centre of power that always tries to prevent the formation of any potential rival centre of power within.

Wow. Thanks for the link to that older thread, Roger. It is definitely an eye-opener.

I am now much better-informed, even much more than one would perhaps want to be...

Apart from my 'Mafia families' line, I see Paul McKeown also offered the analogy of Northern Ireland. So perhaps I'll just leave it with William Faulkner's famous line that:

"The past is never dead. It's not even past."

Roger de Coverly wrote: Legal threats included suing the General Secretary of the BCF, effectively its paid CEO, for allowing Manchester into the BCF.

Slightly more than a 'threat', legal action was indeed instigated - I still recall the process server's unexpected visit. The suit was issued by private individuals against myself and the BCF President. The matter went on for some time, and Counsel was eventually instructed (Lancelot Ware of Mensa I think but not sure after so long): I do recall going to Chambers with David Anderton to go through the facts. The suit was eventually withdrawn on the basis that both sides paid their costs, while BCF Council in due course voted that all past, then and future players with qualifications based on the GM administrative area could choose - and later change - whether to be eligible for GM, or for traditional Lancashire/Cheshire/Yorkshire as appropriate.

PB

Paul Buswell wrote: The suit was issued by private individuals against myself and the BCF President.

I think it got some coverage in the general chess magazines of the time, notably by BH Wood. What I don't recall, and perhaps it was never revealed, was why? What was the issue of such importance to an individual that he would take legal action against the national chess body and pursue it for eight years or more? It would have been obvious early on in the action that the rest of the country didn't share the Lancs enthusiasm for outlawing the creation of Greater Manchester as a county team and BCF Council member.

Austin Elliot>"The past is never dead..." (William Faulkner)<
A quote from Brian Faulkner (former PM of NI) may have been even more appropriate but nothing came to hand, instead... "We are our memories." (Brian Falkner, author)