Compulsory Membership?

[Alex Holowczak]

I should say at this point that I realise changing the eligibility rules does indeed open up a can of worms, but it's a can of worms that some want opening. So I guess I have to cave in and let them open it.

[David Sedgwick]

I should say at this point that I realise changing the eligibility rules does indeed open up a can of worms, but it's a can of worms that some want opening. So I guess I have to cave in and let them open it.

No, you don't. You only have to put forward proposals for change if you, or perhaps the ECF Board, are convinced that they're necessary or desirable. If you're not so convinced, leave those seeking change to see if they can obtain the necessary support to put a motion on the Council agenda.

[Alex Holowczak]

I should say at this point that I realise changing the eligibility rules does indeed open up a can of worms, but it's a can of worms that some want opening. So I guess I have to cave in and let them open it.

No, you don't. You only have to put forward proposals for change if you, or perhaps the ECF Board, are convinced that they're necessary or desirable. If you're not so convinced, leave those seeking change to see if they can obtain the necessary support to put a motion on the Council agenda.

The people who raised it with me do have the necessary support to put it on the agenda, although they may not know that the other person (and thus the agenda-power) exists!

[Roger de Coverly]

I've seen a copy of the Cole paper. It contains gross inaccuracies (e.g. "To get a grade all players must be at least a Bronze member"), manages to quote 6 of the various membership rates and get 4 of them wrong, and omits any mention of Game Fee.

There's now material online at http://www.joeschesscorner.com/ in which they say

the NCCU would donate a substantial amount to the ECF, to support National and International chess.

Would they would interpret paying for an Office in Battle as "support of chess"?

Reading some of the original material from 2004-5, it looks to me as if the NCCU then saw a scheme whereby players would pay a per head charge for inclusion in the national grading list, whilst the ECF saw a scheme of individual membership of the ECF. Has anything changed?

[William Metcalfe]

I will let you know if anything has changed after our AGM on June 2nd the NCCU membership scheme has to be voted on so until then this discussion is about something that might not even happen.

[Roger de Coverly]

I will let you know if anything has changed after our AGM on June 2nd the NCCU membership scheme has to be voted on so until then this discussion is about something that might not even happen.

That's a useful clarification, but shouldn't the website say that it's a proposal for discussion and approval or otherwise at the NCCU AGM? It would help if it were factually correct as well and the bit in red about needing to be a Bronze member to have a grade was removed. Although if the NCCU is going to have a blanket ban on any non ECF-members including Scots, Welsh (and Yorkshire) playing any graded games, it is true in a manner of speaking, but not directly part of the ECF's scheme.

[Sean Hewitt]

As a northern player, I've cast my vote

[Mick Norris]

I will let you know if anything has changed after our AGM on June 2nd the NCCU membership scheme has to be voted on so until then this discussion is about something that might not even happen.

That's a useful clarification, but shouldn't the website say that it's a proposal for discussion and approval or otherwise at the NCCU AGM? It would help if it were factually correct as well and the bit in red about needing to be a Bronze member to have a grade was removed. Although if the NCCU is going to have a blanket ban on any non ECF-members including Scots, Welsh (and Yorkshire) playing any graded games, it is true in a manner of speaking, but not directly part of the ECF's scheme.

I would have another look at the site if I were you

There are always 2 options, pontificate about it, or actually try and get it corrected

[William Metcalfe]

There has to be discussions with our players they make the decision not us officials the first discussions will take place this Wed at the Durham county AGM which i will be attending.

[David Robertson]

Wrong. We, the players, make no decisions. Never, in my experience. Delegates rarely report back; and they never/rarely take opinion forward. When officials, like Dave Cole, send out searches for views, the terms are generally rigged, as currently. Then we have the President, a post defined in recent history by the abuse of any player who doesn't see eye-to-eye with the President. It's a tradition associated with Bill O'Rourke. And continued by you, William, at my expense on this thread.

Frankly, William, the sooner the NCCU is towed into the middle of the Irish Sea, and sunk with all hands, the happier the majority of players will be.

[David Pardoe]

David...
That summary rings some very familiar bells in my experience of dealing with these chess circles across the MCCU, and more locally.
However, William may have made a mis directed comment...it is very easy to do this. I dont know the details, but troubles at Atticus have been mentioned. Again, such things do happen in the chess madhouse...quite often fingers get pointed in the wrong direction.
So I`m very hopeful that William and his team will have a crack at resolving various problems, and hopefully take positive steps forward in the best interests of chess....and not some of the cowboys who have been allowed to run amock for far too long on the British Chess scene.

[Roger de Coverly]

I would have another look at the site if I were you

It now seems apparent that the site isn't a mouthpiece of the NCCU or factions within it, but a neutral (ish) site prepared to publish disputed viewpoints. I would have thought publishing postal addresses is out of order.

[William Metcalfe]

David you do not know me but you assume i am not telling the truth all i can say is as soon as those details from the NCCU got sent to me i forwarded them on to the Cleveland committe who posted the email on the website so our players are fully informed of what is going on.All i can say is in Cleveland and Durham the players will deceide what we do i have always consulted the players either at meeting or at congresses or just chatting with teams we play against.
You do not even know which side of the fence i am on pro ECF membership or pro NCCU membership.

[Mick Norris]

I would have another look at the site if I were you

It now seems apparent that the site isn't a mouthpiece of the NCCU or factions within it, but a neutral (ish) site prepared to publish disputed viewpoints. I would have thought publishing postal addresses is out of order.

I didn't ask him to publish the email and he didn't ask permission to do so - my address is on the MCF website (as well as the FSA register), so it isn't top secret

God version of my name, though I have been called much worse

[Mick Norris]

A Cheshire viewpoint would be.
The ECF is mostly irrelevant to the chess we play.
The NCCU is totally irrelevant.

Maybe you should join the MCCU