Motions
-
- Posts: 2075
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
- Location: Harrogate
Re: Motions
Firstly regarding the posts by Michael Flatt, the dispute as to whether the NCCU should admit Manchester as a competing county in its own right has been dragging on for forty three years now. Some searching will reveal a lengthy previous thread on this forum devoted to the subject. That is where the bale of legal documents come in and, if the rumours are true, there is a substantial legacy that can be spent on litigation if Manchester were ever admitted. If there was an easy solution it would have been found by now. The last time the NCCU voted on whether to admit Manchester was in 2014 where the vote was lost (I believe) by 3 votes to 4 with 4 abstentions.
In terms of county championships eligibility Lancs/ Greater Manchester may be a special case and you could introduce a special clause in the rules to cover it. However as Michael Farthing said earlier in the thread, there is something slightly unethical about a rule designed to cover a specific county. Even worse, if it goes before Council for a vote, you would be allowing the other competing counties in the Open (Surrey, Middlesex, Kent and Yorkshire) an opportunity to hobble one of their rivals. It seems a very dangerous precedent.
Manchester may feel they have documents that back up their case. Lancashire would probably dispute that with documents of their own and they have a right to argue their case. Alex may well have been sent papers a month ago. A good proportion of his time since has almost certainly been spent preparing for Llandudno and then working twelve hour unpaid days while that event was in progress. He may well want to take further advice before he replies. It may well be a case where the Governance committee ultimately have to be involved.
In terms of county championships eligibility Lancs/ Greater Manchester may be a special case and you could introduce a special clause in the rules to cover it. However as Michael Farthing said earlier in the thread, there is something slightly unethical about a rule designed to cover a specific county. Even worse, if it goes before Council for a vote, you would be allowing the other competing counties in the Open (Surrey, Middlesex, Kent and Yorkshire) an opportunity to hobble one of their rivals. It seems a very dangerous precedent.
Manchester may feel they have documents that back up their case. Lancashire would probably dispute that with documents of their own and they have a right to argue their case. Alex may well have been sent papers a month ago. A good proportion of his time since has almost certainly been spent preparing for Llandudno and then working twelve hour unpaid days while that event was in progress. He may well want to take further advice before he replies. It may well be a case where the Governance committee ultimately have to be involved.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
-
- Posts: 2075
- Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm
- Location: Harrogate
Re: Motions
Greater Manchester were champions in 2004 and 2005 having previously won in 1990. Lancashire subsequently won in 2007 and three further victories since, including this year, but prior to that hadn't won since 1978.
Controller - Yorkshire League
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
Chairman - Harrogate Chess Club
All views expressed entirely my own
-
- Posts: 2069
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
- Location: Morecambe, Europe
Re: Motions
Err, well actually it decidedly does make sense to me!Michael Flatt wrote:
It makes no sense to question the eligibility of players of another county's team unless your own team is disadvantaged by not having those players available to your own county's team in the same competition.
Depersonalising the discussion, let us suppose that the county of Barset pays a handsome fee and the air fare, paid for by its wealthy patron the Duke of Omnium, to a certain Magnus Carlsen to travel from Scandinavia to play in a match.
This particular chap is not (as far as I'm aware) available to play for any other county but to my mind every team in the competition would be very disadvantaged if that behaviour were allowed. In addition, Barset (rather than the officials of its association) would also be disadvantaged as a result of the displacement of its legitimate players (in the same way, of course, that my position has already been threatened by the possibility of similar action by your good self . I'll add a second to show I really am taking this flippant threat in proper measure )
We're a long way from it happening, but I would not like to see the county teams become like Wood Green, so concerned to win a trophy that their real players become excluded. But we're not at that stage and I take Mike Gunn's point that the rules should be relatively relaxed and depend on the good sportsmanship of the competitors. It's all made worse in this case by a long existing underlying quarrel.
-
- Posts: 3053
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: Motions
If anyone wanted to do that right now it'd be trivial - "Two months’ immediate previous and present membership of a club either in or affiliated to that County.".
Doesn't even need any money (besides the air fares etc !).
Doesn't even need any money (besides the air fares etc !).
-
- Posts: 10403
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
- Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Re: Motions
Hi Andrew, is there any actual evidence of this alleged fund? The Will is presumably a matter of public record, so someone can checkAndrew Zigmond wrote:Firstly regarding the posts by Michael Flatt, the dispute as to whether the NCCU should admit Manchester as a competing county in its own right has been dragging on for forty three years now. Some searching will reveal a lengthy previous thread on this forum devoted to the subject. That is where the bale of legal documents come in and, if the rumours are true, there is a substantial legacy that can be spent on litigation if Manchester were ever admitted
Anyway, if the threat was to sue the NCCU, that is nothing to do with the ECF correctly enforcing eligibility rules in an ECF competition; I haven't seen evidence that the ECF was in the right
Any postings on here represent my personal views
-
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Motions
I'm probably going to regret asking this, but why aren't there Merseyside teams in the County Championships?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 21343
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Motions
There have been and there could be. Presumably the usual story of a shortage of willing players and organisers. 4NCL North is competing for the attention of players although the absence of Merseyside and most of the NCCU counties pre-dates this.NickFaulks wrote:I'm probably going to regret asking this, but why aren't there Merseyside teams in the County Championships?
-
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Motions
Thanks, for some reason that's more straightforward than I expected. I assume that Merseyside players simply play for Lancashire instead.Roger de Coverly wrote:There have been and there could be.
Next question, West Midlands. They're a perfectly good county, have they ever put out teams?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 7280
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Re: Motions
Not that I know of, players continued to play for Staffs, Warwickshire etcNickFaulks wrote:Thanks, for some reason that's more straightforward than I expected. I assume that Merseyside players simply play for Lancashire instead.Roger de Coverly wrote:There have been and there could be.
Next question, West Midlands. They're a perfectly good county, have they ever put out teams?
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: Motions
No, they are not, in the present context.NickFaulks wrote:Next question, West Midlands. They're a perfectly good county, have they ever put out teams?
The ECF Counties Championships are open to County Chess Associations which are ECF members, defined in the ECF Memorandum and Articles as follows:
"“County Associations” being such chess organisations representative of chess within statutory or otherwise customarily accepted county areas as shall be admitted by the Council to membership under this Article 5(2)."
Lancashire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester have all been admitted to membership.
There is no such organisation as West Midlands County Chess Association, or, if there is, it has not been admitted to membership of the ECF.
-
- Posts: 8479
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Motions
Are they the same thing as the Manchester Chess Federation?David Sedgwick wrote:Lancashire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester have all been admitted to membership.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: Motions
NickFaulks wrote:Are they the same thing as the Manchester Chess Federation?David Sedgwick wrote:Lancashire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester have all been admitted to membership.
The Manchester Chess Federation was formed by the merger of the Manchester & District Chess Association, a Constituent Unit of the ECF under Article 5(1), and the Greater Manchester County Chess Association, a County Association member of the ECF under Article 5(2).
It would need someone more knowledgeable than I to explain the effects of an organisation having acquired membership twice, under different Articles.
-
- Posts: 3053
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: Motions
Back when Lancs/Marseyside/GM split apart there were, I believe, enough players in each county to field teams. GM still do in theory, but only if 3C's are interested like the two years they won it. Merseyside just too small now I'd think.
Competing with a unified Yorkshire the southern counties is perhaps another matter.
Competing with a unified Yorkshire the southern counties is perhaps another matter.
-
- Posts: 21343
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Motions
Back in 1974, it was only in the NCCU area that ambitious leagues sought County status. So you had the Liverpool league and the Teesside league, both of which were accepted by the NCCU as counties and the Manchester league which wasn't.
Plausibly similar leagues in Bristol, Birmingham and London weren't interested and maintained the existing structures for county eligibility with only minor changes, if at all.
Plausibly similar leagues in Bristol, Birmingham and London weren't interested and maintained the existing structures for county eligibility with only minor changes, if at all.
-
- Posts: 607
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm
Re: Motions
Cheshire also were affected by the creation of Merseyside & GM. The Cheshire county team was one of the first casualties.MartinCarpenter wrote:Back when Lancs/Marseyside/GM split apart there were, I believe, enough players in each county to field teams.