Compulsory Membership?

[Roger de Coverly]

You are wrong Roger individuals that live or play for clubs or leagues in the NCCU area can become members.

Not legally they can't, the words in the constitution say so. They deny membership to Greater Manchester and for that matter local Congresses. So the NCCU is a body where membership as defined in its constitution is restricted to other chess bodies. You can collect money from people on a per head basis, but legally it was always the ECF they were paying money to as that body has words, lots of them, permitting individuals to be members even if it does deny them a vote.

[William Metcalfe]

I am pretty sure there were quiet a few greater manchester based players that were members of the original nms scheme

[Roger de Coverly]

These areas set up there own MOs after the original NMS was cancelled by the ECF

The NCCU and the ECF never seemed to have agreed what the NMS conferred membership of.

Again from the old Atticus site

2. The NCCU does not have any ECF forms to send to the ECF Office. Most NMS members refused to sign them! – The ECF confirmed that the vast majority of NMS members were NOT ECF members!

You can have some sympathy there. As we now know, the requirement to sign the white form could easily be removed from the ECF's constitution and the pretence that it was a FIDE requirement was just hogwash, even though ECF directors and officials tried to defend it for years.

[William Metcalfe]

Funny enough the original NMS scheme was cancelled once Cyril Jonston received all the paper work from us the paperwork consisted of names addressed email addys ages ect ect

[Roger de Coverly]

A lurker comments

http://stevegiddinschessblog.blogspot.c ... rt-94.html

[Alex Holowczak]

I am pretty sure there were quiet a few greater manchester based players that were members of the original nms scheme

There are quite a few players from Greater Manchester in the current NMS, because of the overlap between Lancashire and Greater Manchester.

[Mick Norris]

You don't look very hard, do you? They use 3 below, and it has been looked at carefully on our side

"3) Membership of the NCCU is limited to recognised County Chess Associations within the territory of the NCCU (A recognised CCA is defined as any Association of Chess Clubs combined on a regional basis with the express consent of the NCCU Council). Each CCA that joins the NCCU undertakes to pay the annual subscription and/or fee as defined and determined by the NCCU at a previous Annual General Meeting. No new CCA will be admitted to the NCCU unless the following two conditions are met:

a) There is evidence that the new CCA has the support of a majority of both Clubs and Players in the area it purports to cover.
b) The existing CCA covering that area has been consulted and given twelve months notice in writing of the intention to admit a new CCA. Unless otherwise agreed any CCA newly admitted to the NCCU assumes the rights and obligations of all other constituent organizations."

Oh, I see. I hadn't realised this was considered to be a Lancashire veto. I would have thought that Manchester fulfils (a); it has an entire league, and could gather signatures at its AGM. (b) is just an odd rule; 12 months is about 11 months longer than necessary.

So, maybe you need a 2/3 majority to get this through, and suddenly it's not so easy.

Alex

It was written as a Lancashire veto, although they didn't exercise it with Merseyside (nor was it exercised with Cleveland), so there is no intellectual consistency, which indicates it is personal

I am told there is something in Tennant-Smith's will to try and prevent it finishing on his death, although William is correct there are a small number of other Lancs people who agree with him

[Mick Norris]

I am pretty sure there were quiet a few greater manchester based players that were members of the original nms scheme

There are quite a few players from Greater Manchester in the current NMS, because of the overlap between Lancashire and Greater Manchester.

Bill O'Rourke to name but one

Some of our players joined the NMS as it is cheaper than joining the ECF - it rather inflates the number of "Lancashire" players

We could set up an MO, but I doubt we will bother

[Paul Cooksey]

I am told there is something in Tennant-Smith's will to try and prevent it finishing on his death, although William is correct there are a small number of other Lancs people who agree with him

I have no stake in this issue and no view on it, but continuing in the spirit of it being easier to sacrifice other peoples pieces...

Maybe the NCCU should look at OMOV?

[William Metcalfe]

The last time this issue was raised only Lancashire had objections there were no issues with Cheshire which would potentially lose out a lot more than Lancashire.
So what is Lancashires problem are they frightened they might lose players and juniors to greater Manchester or am i just being to synical lol.
Having greater manchester as part of the NCCU would enliven our half dead county championships and prob add more teams to the club champs.
I had hoped with a new generation of officials this dispute could have got resolved we are now in the 21st centuary for gods sake.
I can not see any downside for the NCCU only posatives

[Roger de Coverly]

So what is Lancashires problem are they frightened they might lose players and juniors to greater Manchester or am i just being to synical lol.

If you don't want ancient county boundaries dictating the teams you are allowed to play for, then you play 4NCL. If you do, then the normal resolution of restructuring is to allow the relevant players a choice. It's not OMOV, but it is players deciding which county to play as. More recently, Middlesex wanted to redefine itself by local authority. This caused problems for the borough of Richmond and Twickenham as the designers of the sixties restructuring creating the GLC (mark 1) had inconveniently merged Richmond (south of the Thames and traditionally Surrey) with Twickenham (north of the Thames and traditionally Middlesex). Stakes were high ( well Stewart Reuben and the Richmond junior club at least). In the absence of a Tennant-Smith figure, they (the SCCU, Surrey and Middlesex) rapidly came to a dual eligibility agreement.

(edit) On re-reading the thread about Richmond and Twickenham, it appears the dispute, if there ever was one, was decades ago, even before the Greater Manchester thing. (/edit)
http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... twickenham

(edit again) Apparently there was something more recent as well, but settled without much fuss.

I don't know if it's solely about county team eligibility, is there an issue about which county, local clubs are made to affiliate to? There does seem to be an attitude in the Lancs camp that it should have "ownership" of local players, and the creation of what they regard as the pirate body of Greater Manchester somehow "stole" them.

[David Robertson]

The sun is up
The sky is blue
It's beautiful
Unlike NCCU
Dear termites, please go out and play!

Oh, and Paul, I'll sell you my stake. Just ask

[Paul Cooksey]

I feel going out in the sun shows a lack of commitment to chess at the best of times, but in response to David;

Roses are red
Violets are blue
Gelfand is playing Anand
Did no-one tell you?

[William Metcalfe]

Now now David play nice i dont need advice from somebody that ripped his own chess club apart.I am at least trying to be progresive and get this mess sorted out.

[David Pardoe]

Hi William,
Davids idea of having the day off in the sunshine has merit...make hey while the sun shines.
There are various angles on this, about which various views apply across various groups, and within various groups.
eg, some in Manchester see merit in us joining the NCCU, and some dont.
That we need an administrative settlement, which allows Lancs & GMan to co-exist in harmony, along similar lines to those that exist for Merseyside, is probably a key point.
I agree your point about reviving county competitions in the NCCU, and encouraging other counties to participate. I`m sure they would if `big brothers` from the Roses days would allow others a fair crack of the whip.
Regarding the Lancs dispute...one of the concerns is that certain elements within the Lancs camp (old guard), would like to force GMan out of business...not least, so they might get there hands on some riches & buotty....GMan have some valuable assets on there balance sheet.
But I think if you talk to the rank & file on both sides of this, they really dont like this phonny war that is going on, and would like some understanding in place that would enable harmony to prevail, and for all the parteis to work together in the interests of chess.
You`ll probably notice in these discussions that it is very obvious that certain `hard liners` are conspicuous by there absence. Thats because they really cant stand up and openly defend the Tennent position (in my view...thats why they keep operating behind closed doors)...and it is total madness that his voice should be given such prominance, whilst others are silenced. Lancs is and will continue to be a great county....and the views of ordinary rank and file should be heard. Too much arm twisting has gone on behind the scenes...players/officials have actually been bullied & co-ersed, in my view.
What we are talking here about is more clarity on boundaries, and finding ways to develop strong relationships that help Northern chess, and not just serve the interests of a select `power group.
Such is the closeness of our parties that if some turned up at a GMan county match waiving the Lancs flag...I would cheer them. We`re talking only about administrative boundaries....not about changing anyones religion.
Here`s an amusing note. In one county match between Lancs & GMan, a number of players actually sat on the wrong side...and no-one noticed for about 20 mins....
I feel you probably need a chat with fellow Lancs rank & File members (and a selection of officials from various clubs/chess bodies), to seek opinions. Maybe you could conduct a survey at the next Preston Congress to see what ordinary players think.
Maybe you could come to the next MCF AGM in July, as a welcome guest, and ask for views on the way forward. The MCF might consider offering you an invite....

Best of luck with your endevours